261 réponses à ce sujet

[King Cousland]

PresidentCowboy wrote...

harkness72 wrote...

PresidentCowboy wrote...

So they're re-releasing DA2?

You can't be serious...

I know you're a staunch supportor of DAII and the devs (I'm not saying that's a bad thing), but to steamroll over the good things about Origins (which composed the majority of the game), and imply support for all the bad decisions in DAII is...well, ubelieveable really.

Don't worry I was joking, I was trying it "Origins fanboy" style. Best things about DAO for me compared to DA2 were the towns and more open world though, everything felt much more "alive". Not to the extent of like Fable or the Witcher but getting there. Origin stories making a return would be good too. Other than that uh... can't think of much... and the only bad decision I can think of re: DA2 was deciding to rush it in a year and a half.

Phew!  I agree with your good points about Origins, though I also felt the narrative was better overall (despite the story being pretty generic). Aside from DAII being rushed, I'd have to say that I took issue with the enviroments (down to it being rushed I guess ), the OTT combat and the art style, but I think that those things will be tweaked at least for the next istallment. 

[BBK4114]

I enjoyed many things in DA2. No matter how poorly executed it was, Bioware games still draw me in and make me want to finish them to see where the story goes.

That being said,  I don't understand why people were pleased with the companion interaction/LIs from DA2. That to me was the worst part of the game (well along with being railroaded into a crappy/unfinished ending!)  

I loved the banter between companions in DA:O. It just seemed more real to me and made me laugh out loud. I loved being able to talk to your companions. I felt as though the warden really got to know them and could understand where they were coming from. A good leader/boss needs to understand people so s/he can motivate them and/or persuade them what s/he's doing is the right thing. As far as the timing thing goes? If that's your big + factor for DA2 - as long as the conversations are revealing and actually develop the characters I couldn't care less about when the conversations happen. 

In DA2 you could only talk to your companions, what? A total of 8-9 times. And the conversations were short with exception of Fenris.The devs seemed to assume that since the player already knew Anders' background Hawke didn't need to learn anything about him. The angst-y characters were so one note in DA2, and the whole rivalry romance -at least for f!hawke/male- made absolutely no sense. Why would Hawke be in such a hugely dysfunctional & masochistic relationship?  Seriously Isabella was the most masculine character & you could help her be less selfish if you were friends with her. She seemed the most real to me & was the only character I truly liked.

If the devs don't improve this aspect of the game, it will be a failure to me.  Might as well play a Bethesda game and not worry about one-note companions!

Modifié par BBK4114, 30 septembre 2011 - 04:13 .

[Indoctrination]

dheer wrote...

Brockololly wrote...
Considering it was claimed in many interviews prior to DA2's release that DA2 would be "Origins but better!" I don't exactly have any clue as to what elements of Origins the devs actually think are worthwhile.

True. I remember M. Laidlaw saying something along the lines of DA2 already had everything he wanted to keep from DA1. Hopefully he's changed his mind.

I can see why people at BioWare believe that they can make games underfunded and rushed games like DA2 without consequence because we BioWare fans are apparently incredibly naive.

I don't want to be too critical, but these are the same people who told us things like how your decisions in ME1 would greatly impact ME2 and how all of the decisions you make in DA2 would drastically change the game. Anyone involved with PR at BioWare generally has a terrible track record when it comes to honesty. These aren't cases of different opinions or views, these are cases of right out deceptive marketing tactics. When BioWare says "more of Origins" please read it as "hundreds of your ME1 decisions will cary over and change the ME2 world."

Why BioWare? Why? I loved and trusted you all!

[Sylvius the Mad]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

KilrB wrote...

Honestly, I don't know what Origins sees in him ... <_<

So Origins is the chick in the relationship?

No, they're gay. Haven't you been paying attention to what agenda BioWare have been pushing?

Since when is advocating tolerance of difference count as an "agenda" to be pushed exactly?

You realise you sound like a complete homophobic **** dont you?

This is very funny.

[Everwarden]

I hope Origins turns out to be a heavy-drinking wife-beater. Then Dragon Age 2 can file for divorce and the people are left with a good game. 

[LobselVith8]

alex90c wrote...

I can see "best of both" just ending up in pissing off both sides.

That's the inevitable result of making Dragon Age 2 so different from Dragon Age: Origins, and splitting the fanbase in what they want from a third game.

[Xewaka]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

FitScotGaymer wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

KilrB wrote...
Honestly, I don't know what Origins sees in him ... <_<

So Origins is the chick in the relationship?

No, they're gay. Haven't you been paying attention to what agenda BioWare have been pushing?

Since when is advocating tolerance of difference count as an "agenda" to be pushed exactly?
You realise you sound like a complete homophobic **** dont you?

This is very funny.

Quite funny, indeed.

[bEVEsthda]

GodWood wrote...

For me, DA:O is a big delicious cake and DA2 is a steaming pile of poo.

So marrying the two really isn't that appealing.

Exactly. I can't imagine what "the best of DA2" is supposed to be. Only thing I appreciate in that game is that the combat is more responsive, plus blocking works. Please pay attention to that I think each and every other aspect of DA2 combat is worse than in Origin.

Likewise, in a strange inversion, it's impossible to read any Bioware person on what they consider "best of DA:O", because sofar they seem dead set to continue with everything DA2'ish. Childish & ugly art direction, iconic looks, voiced PC...
Maybe not re-using environments is supposed to be "best of DA:O"? Or maybe not dropping enemy combat reinforcements from the sky is this obscure "best of DA:O"?

I don't think Bioware intends to bake a cake with poo in it, as disgusting as that would be. I suspect their plan is a bigger, smoother, glossy, shinier pile of poo. And more creamy inside, like.
DA3: - (aka DA2:2) The game created from "constructive criticism" from people who actually liked DA2.


P.S. And in an effort to be more "constructive" myself: The one thing I consider more important than detail game mechanics, is a pretense of realism and that the game takes itself seriously. TW2 did very much, DA:O did. DA2 didn't. Please flush down that "fun" and "kewl" mood of DA2.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 30 septembre 2011 - 06:46 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Exactly. I can't imagine what "the best of DA2" is supposed to be. Only thing I appreciate in that game is that the combat is more responsive, plus blocking works.

Blocking works differently.  Blocking worked in DAO - it just took better planning to do it.

The thing I'd like them to keep from DA2 is the nature of the plot.  BioWare had fallen into a pattern of handing out an obvious objective early in the game, and having that one objective be the point of the game.

ME, ME2, and DAO all did that.  Jade Empire sort of did that, but then tacked an another objective after the first one.  NWN did the same.  KotOR was better in that the first big objective wasn't presented until several hours into the game (after Taris).

But for the past several years, that's the story structure of BioWare's games.  And finally DA2 came along and didn't do that.  It was really nice.  I liked that.

But that's pretty much it.  Basically everything else that differed from DAO was a bad idea.  DAO's not a perfect game, but DA2 didn't correct many of its errors.  DA2 just created new ones.

[SirOccam]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Exactly. I can't imagine what "the best of DA2" is supposed to be. Only thing I appreciate in that game is that the combat is more responsive, plus blocking works. Please pay attention to that I think each and every other aspect of DA2 combat is worse than in Origin.

DA2 did a lot of things better than in DAO.

Cinematography in general is about a million times better, from the use of props to animations to even just camera angles.
The voiced protagonist...obviously this one is subjective, but I thought it was fantastic. Jo Wyatt and Nicholas Boulton did a great job.
The rivalry system is better by an order of magnitude than the old approval meter. Can you just imagine what the Morrigan romance might have been like with a Rivalry system? Too amazing for words, that's what it would have been like.
Another subjective one (hell, they're all subjective), but I thought the talent upgrade selection system was better in DA2.
Companion relationships. I'm not saying the companions themselves were necessarily better (though they might have been; it's close), but having entire quest lines devoted to each companion was pretty damn cool, compared to a single quest like visiting Goldanna or killing Marjolaine or Flemeth in DAO.

I stand my my conviction that most of the DA2 haters are judging the game based on what it isn't (DAO) instead of what it is. It may not have been a perfect game, but it wasn't the catastrophic failure some would seem to suggest.

[Urazz]

Rob Sabbaggio wrote...

This will probably brand me a heritic, but while I thought DA2 wasnt perfect by any means I still enjoyed it hugely.

And I do think that in some areas it improved upon DAO. Urazz nailed most of them (skill-trees, improved party interaction and banter, extra LI path, some bigger sidequests, voiced protagonist, and I enjoyed the increased timescale and framed narrative).

If they could be married to a DAO-sized quest across a greater variery of areas, more impact of choices, slightly less-ridiculous combat (a bit slower, less waves and explosions) and better options for inventory and customisation, wouldnt this be a good game?

I didn't mind the lack of customization for the companions.  It made them all have unique appearances unlike in DAO where all of my companions looked the same.

And I think they realized the wave system in DA2 was bad in most cases the way it was handled.  I think the Legacy DLC handled it much better and combat definately felt more dynamic and interesting.  Companion interaction was also improved on again I think but for just a single DLC, I think they showed what things will potentially be like with one DLC.

I liked the pace of the combat, as it was much faster than Origins but it did seem ridiculous at some points.  Get rid of that ridiculous stuff in it and it'll be near perfect I think.

Sadly, I think alot of the haters will pretty much hate the game without trying to see the good things that were done in it.

Modifié par Urazz, 30 septembre 2011 - 08:52 .

[Satyricon331]

Brockololly wrote...

dheer wrote...
True. I remember M. Laidlaw saying something along the lines of DA2 already had everything he wanted to keep from DA1. Hopefully he's changed his mind.

Yup:
"I think the big key is to not adjust 180 degrees again, because we've  done this. I think, as a team, we're quite happy with what we've done  with Dragon Age II, and this is establishing a solid foundation that  keeps a lot, in fact almost everything I want to keep about Origins, but still has tons of room to grow and, frankly, a more viable future for  the franchise."

I had missed that interview before and it just adds to the pile of general and specific statements that he's made that makes me think he and I have very different gaming tastes. 

The more I read the more skeptical I am that DA3 will be to my liking.  Who knows, maybe they'll surprise me.

Urazz wrote...
Sadly, I think alot of the haters will pretty much hate the game without trying to see the good things that were done in it.

Believe me, for DA2 I tried.  

[Uccio]

Urazz wrote...

I didn't mind the lack of customization for the companions.  It made them all have unique appearances unlike in DAO where all of my companions looked the same.

Just out of curiosity, how it is a unique appearance if they look the same in each and every playthrough with each and every player who have bought DA2?
Doesn´t the opportunity to change appearance bring the actual unique appearance since you can choose to keep everyone wearing for example leather, or go around in your underwear if you so choose?

Is a school uniform a unique outfit even everyone is wearing it?

Modifié par Ukki, 30 septembre 2011 - 10:58 .

[SirOccam]

Ukki wrote...

Urazz wrote...

I didn't mind the lack of customization for the companions.  It made them all have unique appearances unlike in DAO where all of my companions looked the same.

Just out of curiosity, how it is a unique appearance if they look the same in each and every playthrough with each and every player who have bought DA2?
Doesn´t the opportunity to change appearance bring the actual unique appearance since you can choose to keep everyone wearing for example leather, or go around in your underwear if you so choose?

Is a school uniform a unique outfit even everyone is wearing it?

It's unique because person A doesn't look like person B. You seem to be acknowledging this, by instead arguing they look the same on each playthrough, but then go back and compare it to school uniforms, which makes person A look like person B.

The DAO system is closer to a "school uniform" idea because until you acquire some of the unique armor sets, all your plate wearers will be wearing the exact same plate. Same for all the leather wearers too.

In DA2, the intent was for your companions not to be your "troops," but rather friends and allies. You don't tell your RL friends what to wear, do you?

That said, I wouldn't have minded a little more variation in their clothing as the years passed, but still I'd rather have the system they had than have to put up with the monotony (visual and otherwise) of outfitting each of them with generic armor because it has 1 more attack or whatever. Just let them be big boys and girls who are capable of dressing themselves.

[Captain_Obvious]

Ukki wrote...

Urazz wrote...

I didn't mind the lack of customization for the companions.  It made them all have unique appearances unlike in DAO where all of my companions looked the same.

Just out of curiosity, how it is a unique appearance if they look the same in each and every playthrough with each and every player who have bought DA2?
Doesn´t the opportunity to change appearance bring the actual unique appearance since you can choose to keep everyone wearing for example leather, or go around in your underwear if you so choose?

Is a school uniform a unique outfit even everyone is wearing it?

I think you just provided the actual example of what Urazz was speaking about.  To me, DA:O did not have unique appearances for the party members because you could slap the Robes of Whatever on every mage in the party, now all mages have the same body shape and clothes.  Ditto with warriors and rogues.  That's the school uniform of which you are speaking. 

In DA2, you couldn't do that.  Each character had a unique look that is not similar to any other character (without mods at least).  If I had to pick one, I'd pick DA2 over DA:O.  I preferred the "no two can look the same" to "change them whenever you like."  I'd love to have both, but I don't think the gaming gods can make it happen. 

Edit:  by Sir Occam's Razor above.  Curse you, Science!

Modifié par Captain_Obvious, 30 septembre 2011 - 11:12 .

[Mike_Neel]

I agree I like the "iconic" look better. In Origins I just put them in the best gear available to me at the time while I kept the best for myself, so I had all my warriors in generally the same set of massive armor, maybe with different boots or gloves, but that's it. Same with the mages and their robes.

[CHawk15]

I think the best thing that can be done for DA3 is to not rush it's release date. Most of the problems that people on these forums complained about for DA2 were done that way because the development time was cut short and the product was a rush job. I believe the reason they did that is that if they took the extra 6 months to a year to make the game the way they wanted it, then the release date would too close to Mass Effect 3's release.

They did a lot of things right in DA 2 with the combat in terms of how it felt, Rogues didn't play like weakling warriors that could pick locks and disappear and you didn't have to do the "shimmy" around behind enemies to backstab. Mages actually used staff as a weapon at close range in DA2 The wave mechanic, using the same dungeon over and over again and the death animations were all a result of the game being a rush job, IMHO. If the combat in DA3 is like what was seen in Legacy, it's a step in the right direction. I also think that the overhead camera should make a return, especially in the PC version.

I'd rather wait an extra year and get a much more polished game than a good half done game like DA2 was. I understand the decision, but I think it was a bad one.

[bEVEsthda]

SirOccam wrote...
DA2 did a lot of things better than in DAO.
Cinematography in general is about a million times better, from the use of props to animations to even just camera angles.

"about a million"...eh?    nvm...
- But you see, I hate movies who think they're games.

The voiced protagonist...obviously this one is subjective, but I thought it was fantastic. Jo Wyatt and Nicholas Boulton did a great job.
The rivalry system is better by an order of magnitude than the old approval meter. Can you just imagine what the Morrigan romance might have been like with a Rivalry system? Too amazing for words, that's what it would have been like.

You know, some time back I thought I came to understand that there is often a crucial difference between people who like DA2 and not. The thing is that some DA2 fans want to see a story evolve before them. Just like we other do when we read a novel or watch a movie. I don't play RPGs for that. I want something different.
As for the rivalry system, I don't think it's better than Origin's approval. It's just more convenient. More 'convenient' is often 'less'. Not in this case maybe, but I'm not excited either.

Another subjective one (hell, they're all subjective), but I thought the talent upgrade selection system was better in DA2.
Companion relationships. I'm not saying the companions themselves were necessarily better (though they might have been; it's close), but having entire quest lines devoted to each companion was pretty damn cool, compared to a single quest like visiting Goldanna or killing Marjolaine or Flemeth in DAO.

Maybe it's something in the way I play, but I didn't really notice that the companion quests were so much bigger or more awesome than in Origin. And I didn't like the talent system, nor the talents themselves. Too convenient and too foolproof. And too 'awesome' in the last case.

I stand my my conviction that most of the DA2 haters are judging the game based on what it isn't (DAO) instead of what it is. It may not have been a perfect game, but it wasn't the catastrophic failure some would seem to suggest.

Yes. Definitely. But that doesn't matter. I wouldn't normally buy a game like DA2 in any case. Same as that I don't buy JRPGs, And it IS aggrevating and offensive to destroy 'Spiritual Successor to Baldur's Gate' like that. Childish crap! The anger is righteous. As a successor to DA:O it is a catastrofic failure, and just how big, is something I suspect we're going to learn when sales figures of DA3 starts to drop in.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 01 octobre 2011 - 01:40 .

[dreadpiratesnugglecakes]

Cyberarmy wrote...

xnoxiousx wrote...

Seens like there going mix and take best of both.


http://www.shacknews...irst-games-best

And that is the answer everybody looking for.
The question?

Who is Sandal's parents!!!!!

Dude, that's easy.  Sandal is the god child.  His parents are Morrigan and the Warden.  Why is he a dwarf?  Hey, why do Qunari have stupid horns?  Never said it had to make sense.

[Sepewrath]

Something I wouldn't mind seeing scrapped is the combat system. That "RPG combat" it was sluggish, unresponsive and just boring to look at in Origins. It was responsive, fancy and nice to look at in DA2. But in both, it was nothing but press a button for canned animations and you just spectate by the game punching numbers.

I want a more active, skill based combat system. Yeah you can still have your number churning under the hood, but this is an action RPG; they don't have to pretend to be one like in DA2, it cant actually be one. You look at combat in a game like Dark Souls and I think that would work well for the DA series. Instead of having backstab being an activated move, or the simple stand behind and mash A of Origins, there could be active moves. If you ever played Zelda, think of something like the backslice as a great way to do the backstab.

Blocking attacks yourself with a shield, parrying moves as a rogue. It gets a bit tougher with mages and archers, but I'm sure they can figure it out. Now I know people are already revving up with "No, worst idea ever" But DA's attempt to straddle the line being classic and modern, isn't making anyone happy. People may not want to hear it, but modern is probably the way to go for series viability,

RPG's aren't nearly popular as they use to be. And certainly classic design isn't going to play to the greater audience. I would love to see them scrap that system and go modern.

[tmp7704]

Sepewrath wrote...

You look at combat in a game like Dark Souls and I think that would work well for the DA series.

Small caveat: such active gameplay becomes rather problematic when you manage multiple characters rather than one. Which happens to be DA cornerstone.

RPG's aren't nearly popular as they use to be.

Recent RPGs like DAO and Fallout 3 sold 3-4 million units each, iirc. What titles in the past sold so much better than that, to support this belief?

(looking numbers up, F3 was ~4.7 million which happen to be just couple hundred thousands short of sales of all releases of various installments of Baldur's Gate combined)

Modifié par tmp7704, 01 octobre 2011 - 03:01 .

[mesmerizedish]

tmp7704 wrote...

Sepewrath wrote...

You look at combat in a game like Dark Souls and I think that would work well for the DA series.

Small caveat: such active gameplay becomes rather problematic when you manage multiple characters rather than one. Which happens to be DA cornerstone.

This, times infinity bajillion (which is a technical term in mathematics, I swear).

[Terror_K]

I'm going to repost here what I said at CVG's coverage of the comment/article:-

I wrote...

Saying that they need to marry the two together just says to me that they've missed the point entirely and are (as usual of BioWare lately) trying to have their cake and eat it too by both appealing to the hardcore RPG fanbase that loved Origins, and the mainstream gamer who prefers things simpler. And you can't have both, it just won't work.

And the fact is, in some ways DA:O was already a blend of old-school Baldur's Gate style RPG and more modern games. It had the gameplay and style of an old RPG like Baldur's Gate, but was still more accessible and not as deep, while employing more modern gaming conventions, but not too much to the point of feeling overly watered-down or dumbed down. Marrying DA:O and DA2 is just going to still result in a more watered down, weaksauce game. And this attitude of BioWare's lately (a company who I used to love and respect a lot) I getting tiresome. DA2 lost them the "free pass" they got with me where I simply bought their latest game because it was them, and pretty much killed the Dragon Age IP for me. It completely squandered, ruined and wasted a gaming franchise that had a lot of potential to be a modern day BG and a series with some meat to it for the sake of selling out to the casual console gamers with only the second game in. I went from somebody who had not only bought almost every BioWare game up until then, but also had all the DLC and expansions for them too. DA2 simply gathers dust for me and I've bought no DLC at all, and don't plan to. I'm not giving a company more money who stabs me in the back as a loyal fan for the sake of branching out.

And that's the biggest issue of all, IMO: not so much that the game was poor and disappointing, but that the developers clearly engineered and sabotaged it to be that way. If you read various interviews with the likes of Mike Laidlaw and other devs prior to lauch, you clearly see that they intentionally damn-near rebooted the thing, changing the entire look and style of it to branch out to casual gamers by amping up the action, cutting depth and customisation, making it more for the console than the PC, etc. DA2 wasn't a mistake, it was a deliberate screw-job on the parts of the people behind it, and the only reason they're admitting that it's a bad game is because the gamble didn't pay off like they hoped it would.

While I'm not going to say that BioWare should stop wanting to grow their audience and branch out to appeal to not just the nerdier RPG fan, they definitely do need to stop God-damn sabotaging their existing IPs in order to suit the CoD and Gears audience out there just for the sake of $$$. If they want to make a simpler, military-based action RPG to reach this crowd then they shoulddo so, but keep the deeper RPGs as they were originally meant to be for the audience they were meant for. Because as an RPG nerd it just feels like BioWare is intentionally thrusting the knife in lately for the sake of an audience that is already more than well catered for.

...and...

For me isn't the issue of them "making mistakes" or "faltering" at all really. Everybody makes mistakes. Not every game studio can produce a winner every time. In fact, it's damn rare that they do. BioWare was actually lucky to constantly produce as much gold as they have for so long without slipping, and they should be commended for that during that period.

Again, the issue is that they deliberately make a conscious decision to make the changes they did to Dragon Age 2 and have been making a noticed shift away from their previous nerdier and deeper leanings towards a more casual, mainstream and simpler approach of appealing to the masses. This can even be seen in the changes between Mass Effect and its sequel as well, though on not quite as grand a scale, largely thanks to the original game already being an action RPG with TPS elements in the first place that was born on a console. The point is, there's been a definite shift from the company at around the time EA took the reigns. Since then they seem far more concerned about branching out, appealing to the hardcore CoD/Gears/Halo audience, etc. and it seems they are starting to make their games more with bringing greater numbers in than for the existing fans. Very much an out with the old, in with the new approach, since it's a greater audience to cater too, a safer bet and more $$$ for them. It's not uncommon with AAA game developers as a whole lately to be honest, but it's a shame to see a company that didn't resort to such pandering in the past now falling into the same trap.

That said, at the same time they seem to want to keep their old audience as well to a degree, so their games are thiskind of "have your cake and eat it too" mishmash of their RPG roots mixed with more action, simplicity, etc. resulting in these story-driven action games with mild RPG elements instead of strong RPGs. The problem with this approach is that they're never going to pull it off. The likes of DA2 are too simple and dumbed down to appeal to a hardcore RPG gamer, yet still too complex, convoluted and involved for the average CoD player. On top of that, the things they have to remove and add to make the game appeal more to a more casual shooter fan are the very things that will largely put off their existing audience. In the end, they end up not really pleasing anybody.

And it's also making their games generic. Most AAA titles these days are these story-driven, semi-cinematic action games with mild RPG elements. The hybridization of once more defined genres is just resulting in a bunch of AAA titles these days that are becoming more and more the shame. Action games are becoming more and more cinematic, story-driven and adding more customisation and light RPG elements as a trend. BioWare already had these things, but they're simply coming at the same point from the opposite angle: by adding more action and making their once complex RPG elements simpler and more accessible. In a few years there's going to likely be some genre fatigue and the genre fatigue will not be one specific genre, but that of the hybrid. I'm not saying that this trend hasn't produced some great games in the process, but it's resulting in a distinct lack of variety and real innovation as a whole.

And to prove it isn't just us at the BSN that feel similarly. from the CVG comments:-

The_KFD_Case wrote...

Too little, too late for me I'm afraid. I'm done with the Dragon Age franchise. Mass Effect 3 will be the last BioWare game I buy upon release for the foreseeable future. If I buy DA3 it will not be upon release, it will most certainly be after a price cut, and it will be well after gaming media and private user reviews have perforated the internet. DA2 turned out to be so insipid that I still haven't returned to it after finishing the first chapter - I now doubt whether I ever will complete that game.

KieranTC wrote...

Really BioWare? When you spend around a year developing a game and shipping it thinking we wouldn't notice how poor it was, that says you were more surprised by how many people pulled you up on how poor your work was.

Dragon Age: Origins is one of my favourite games of this gen, the depth and game play is astonishing and Dragon Age 2 is a very dumbed down attempt at that. They took the things that made DA:O so great and replaced it with a generic RPG that had absolutely no soul.....don't even get me started on how poor the story was either.

My hope for Dragon Age 3 is this: Dragon Age: Origins in every single way but with Dragon Age 2's graphics.

Bring back the Origins, bring back the in-depth inventory, weapon and armour you acquire, bring back the big open world for us to explore, bring back interesting and exciting companions, bring back a story of such depth that it's worthy of the BioWare name.

Don't fob us off again BioWare with your generic bull**** and spend a few years making the game.

SWiscool wrote...

@TerrorK and KieranTC,

Boy, you two nailed it. Couldn't agree more.

I was also a die-hard Bioware fan, and DA2 killed that in one extravagant swipe. Obviously a company needs to survive and make money, and clearly there's more money to be had in casual, uncomplicated gaming. But why butcher an IP whose sole purpose was to reinvigorate the traditional RPG? Couldn't DA2 have been a console spinoff?

Ah well, nothing more to say really. I've got no faith in DA3, though.

richardr wrote...

Some astoundingly astute comments here, and they pretty much some up my thoughts on how Bioware dropped the ball. I liked DA:O and was looking forward to its sequel, which I don't think could have disappointed me any more really. I understand the desire to spread out and garner new fans for a series, too often the 'dumbing down' approach is taken. I liked Morrowind and for Oblivion they changed a lot of things that in my eyes worked. For Skyrim the new changes may work and certainly some look very good, but some are just bad. Removing attributes? Why? Don't  Bethesda know that people like RPGs to have attributes?

DA2 took a simplified approach and thought that people wouldn't care or notice. We did and they're shocked that we did. RPGs are RPGs and people like them for certain reasons. If you change what people liked then they won't like it. It's pretty obvious. Couldn't really care about a DA:3 now and am still cautious about any Bioware games. To the point that I won't buy any new.

_Marty_ wrote...

Bioware need to come here and read this thread - some spot on comments, that I totally agree with.

DA2 is one of, if not the biggest gaming disappointment for me, and I really struggle how people can gleen any enjoyment from it. It's tired, lifeless, dull and insipid, and worst of all, a far cry from DA:O. It pains when when I even think about it in fact...

I'm truly worried that Mass Effect 3 goes the same way - there are already several things about ME2 that I didn't like, unnecessary changes to ME1, and I really hope they don't continue down this path...

evilhippo wrote...

This.

The fact is Bioware can either make an RPG or an 'Action Game', it cannot make both. For me the deal breakers were the absurdly speeded up combat animations and the cheesy poses that made the whole think look like "Mortal Kombat with a bit of dialogue"

To be honest this was so screamingly obvious that quite simply I do not believe a word that Bioware's PR machine says: "Surprise?" What is surprising about the reaction of core RPG players of a previously highly successful format to Bioware making the franchise into something very different?

I very much doubt they are really 'surprised', they are just spinning this to hide the fact they made a cold cash calculation that changing the game to make it more "accessible" would increase market share... not that I have any objections to making money but I am dubious how much the riot on metacritic was really so hard to anticipate.

However if they have concluded too many of their 'core' have abandoned the franchise and headed off to Witcher 2 (a serious RPG if there ever was!), never to return, then that explains the rather cack-handed PR spinning

DA:O was about engaging characterization... DA2 was about the combat. Morrigan and Leliana and Alistair were *interesting*... the toons in DA2 were collision boxes that no one gave a damn about.

Modifié par Terror_K, 01 octobre 2011 - 04:36 .

[SirOccam]

bEVEsthda wrote...

SirOccam wrote...
DA2 did a lot of things better than in DAO.
Cinematography in general is about a million times better, from the use of props to animations to even just camera angles.

"about a million"...eh?    nvm...
- But you see, I hate movies who think they're games.

But Dragon Age Origins had cutscenes too, only they were of lower quality. That makes them better? That characters can express themselves in body language and pick up items and interact with their environment means DA2 is a movie trying to be a game?

I really don't understand how you can call shenanigans on my exaggeration, then say something like this as though it were a reasonable argument. Obviously DA2 is as much a game as DAO. Just because you didn't like DA2 doesn't mean you aren't allowed to like anything about it. Clearly the cutscenes were just plain better. Out of everything I listed, this is the closest any of it gets to being fact rather than opinion.

You know, some time back I thought I came to understand that there is often a crucial difference between people who like DA2 and not. The thing is that some DA2 fans want to see a story evolve before them. Just like we other do when we read a novel or watch a movie. I don't play RPGs for that. I want something different.

What exactly does this mean? No, I don't want to passively sit there and watch a story played out. I would just watch a movie or read a book, like you mentioned, if I wanted that.

I think there's something of a tradeoff between tight, cohesive narrative and player freedom. You can't have both to the max, but it's not a binary choice either. You've got to give some of one up in order to get more of the other. On the extreme "narrative" side would be a book or movie, and on the "freedom" side would be a pure sandbox game with no supplied storyline. I doubt either of us want either of those things from Dragon Age.

I think you just think that slider should be farther toward the "freedom" side than I do. But it's not like we have competing, exclusive ideologies. Don't make it out like I don't "really" want an RPG or whatever. Not only is that argument wrong, it really gets on my nerves. People have tried to tell me I want interactive fiction or Choose Your Own Adventure books before, and they are never right. (Not that Choose Your Own Adventure books aren't great.) 

As for the rivalry system, I don't think it's better than Origin's approval. It's just more convenient. More 'convenient' is often 'less'. Not in this case maybe, but I'm not excited either.

Again, I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. How is DA2's rivalry system "convenient?" If anything, being able to dictate approval via spamming gifts was way more convenient. But I don't want "convenient." I want deep, believable characters, and I don't want to have to metagame, to compromise RP immersion for gameplay mechanics (such as bootlicking because I needed a certain class or whatever). Instead, if I want to tell a companion just what I think of him or her, I can do so. And I don't have to worry about how it will affect my gameplay. My lawful good character doesn't have to go along with Isabela's antics, and my more morally dubious character doesn't have to act like a goody two-shoes around Aveline. They are free to be who they are. THAT is the kind of freedom I want.

Some of the arguments were as thrilling as the boss fights in my opinion. The one time DAO approached this was when Alistair blew up at my Warden for sparing Loghain. That gave me chills too. But really, that was just DAO doing what it did (companions disapproving then leaving), only the circumstances around it made it feel more epic. In DA2, when my female Fenris-rivalmancing mage got into a screaming match with Fenris...it wasn't just better, it was better in a whole new dimension. A line can't compete with a square can't compete with a cube. The rivalry system gave both Hawke and the companions a whole new layer of depth that DAO really couldn't give the Warden or his companions.

Maybe it's something in the way I play, but I didn't really notice that the companion quests were so much bigger or more awesome than in Origin. And I didn't like the talent system, nor the talents themselves. Too convenient and too foolproof. And too 'awesome' in the last case.

Fair enough on the companion quests. Pure opinion on that one. But I will say this: compare Alistair's visiting of Goldanna to Fenris' entire questline. If Fenris' was like Alistair's, he'd just be like "oh hey there's Danarius, let's either kill him or don't." Instead, we get to be there to see (and crucially, affect) how he feels before, during, and after both Danarius and his sister. We help shape his entire outlook on life over the course of the game. In DAO, it's like "everyone's out for themselves, Al!" and he's all "okay I'm hardened now."

I stand my my conviction that most of the DA2 haters are judging the game based on what it isn't (DAO) instead of what it is. It may not have been a perfect game, but it wasn't the catastrophic failure some would seem to suggest.

Yes. Definitely. But that doesn't matter. I wouldn't normally buy a game like DA2 in any case. Same as that I don't buy JRPGs, And it IS aggrevating and offensive to destroy 'Spiritual Successor to Baldur's Gate' like that. Childish crap! The anger is righteous. As a successor to DA:O it is a catastrofic failure, and just how big, is something I suspect we're going to learn when sales figures of DA3 starts to drop in.

But this is exactly what I'm talking about. You wouldn't normally buy a game like DA2? Fair enough. It's okay to not like things. But judging it based on what you think it should have been is unfair, in my opinion. DA2 did not destroy DAO. DA2 is an evolution in the series. Some changes were good, some were bad, all were worthwhile. Why should they keep making Baldur's Gate over and over? The anger is not righteous. The anger is ridiculous. The anger is uncalled for.

You seem to fit very neatly indeed into my categorization above. You thought DA2 should have been x, but it was y. So you are judging it based on the differences between x and y. You are free to dislike it for whatever reasons you want, but don't go around acting like the game is garbage because it didn't live up to your personal, arbitrary expectations. And just a piece of personal advice, don't let your anger or frustration prevent you from seeing the good points in DA2. It doesn't mean you have to join me in the BDF, but it's very helpful to be able to see from other people's perspectives. They are not going to un-change everything and go back to DAO (or BG, for that matter). That's just the truth. The sooner you can learn to be okay with change, the happier you'll be.

Modifié par SirOccam, 01 octobre 2011 - 05:48 .