474 réponses à ce sujet

[ElitePinecone]

TheRealJayDee wrote...
Yes, if DA2 had not come after DA:O the dissapointment would have been not as great, as far as I'm concerned. Still, there are a lot of things that would have hurt DA2 even as a standalone game. Fact is, DA2 is the direct sequel to DA:O, has been marketed as such and will be judged as such.

Yeah, I don't think it's possible to have your cake and eat it too, so to speak. 

Either DA2 is the sequel to DAO and an entry in the series, marketed as both of those and judged accordingly with reference to its precedessor... 

... or it's not. Advertising something as a sequel invites inevitable comparisons, I think any effort to say DA2 should be judged out of the shadow of the first game is being disingenuous - especially if the shadow is being used to market and sell the game. 

Does the second game measure up reasonably well on its own? Sure, it's a fine story-driven RPG with some significant shortcomings.  

But if the fan reaction really did catch some of the developers off guard, I can't help but wonder what they expected people to think - especially when the comparison is so stark. 

[John Epler]

If you're going to create an alt, please, at least -try- and avoid making it incredibly obvious. It's no fun.

[alex90c]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

If you stop and try to think logically for a moment; take the expectation out of the equation, if you imagine it as a completely new game for a completely new IP. Do you think you would have disliked it as much as you do?

Initially I had the same negative reaction as most people about DA2. I was massively dissapointed at how short it was, at how boring the parachuting waves of heavily armoured ninja's made combat, how irritatingly uninteresting the repeated maps made the game feel, and at how the ending felt like the game had slapped me and laughed at me like Nelson going "haw haw your choices mean nothing, there was no point to playing this game".
But when I stopped myself, and thought about WHY I disliked the game, and what I disliked about it and indeed what I liked about it; I came to the conclusion that half of my dissapointment and dislike for the game was simply because it was called DRAGON AGE 2 and it was a BIOWARE GAME; therefore I expected something that I didnt get.

Taking that away I thought to myself "this game was actually alright, not fantastic but alright. a decent effort that could have used a longer dev cycle to be properly polished."
That was my ultimate response, and that is the stance I take today.

"Bring your standards down enough and you'll enjoy this game"

Sorry, nah. I'm not going to go through mental acrobatics with myself just to try and like a game; if I expect a good game and it ends up being a pile of sh*t, then it's a pile of sh*t and that applies for any game I get, and I'm not going to purposely distort my view on a game just so I can enjoy it.

Besides, a game must be pretty bad if you have to go out of your way to convince yourself that it was good by not comparing it to good games and actually lowering your standards far enough so that it's actually better than your new standards.

My stance is DA:O was great, DA2 is awful, Bioware are working to fix the mistakes they made in DA2 in future DA installments (including their DLCs MotA and Legacy) and DA3 will probably be a pretty good game.

[bEVEsthda]

Firky wrote...
I never used to understand why people would say that the pro-DA2 crowd were being nasty. Being pro-DA2 myself, all I saw were a whole bunch of people calling me "stupid" etc. Recently, though, I criticised an aspect of the game and felt like I was attacked for it, so now I get it. It's not nice from either side and that whole "Love it or go away" thing feels awful to a long time BioWare fan. But, I do think the moderators have been doing a great job in a tricky situation.

As for fan reaction and being caught off guard... I was anticipating "backlash" before the game was released, but I do think that the way many detractors have gone about really stamping hard on the game's reputation, and very overtly challenging people who do like it or think it's great, has made it difficult for a truer picture to emerge. I can't really think of another game that has had quite that kind of reception. (I thought DAII would be received like Civ V, pre-release.)

ElitePinecone wrote...
This is true.

It means that constructive criticism (even if it's negative) is swamped by unreasonably harsh rhetoric, and positive sentiments, even if they're qualified, are greeted by claims of trolling or fanboyism. It's a very ugly atmosphere sometimes.

The polarising reaction is troubling, because there seems to be a fair number of people who are just... pathologically bent on being dissatisfied with every single aspect of DA2, and can't process the notion that things might get better.

For sure, some people might despise DA2 and everything it stands for; some might love it to bits unconditionally. But I'd wager there are a lot of people in the middle who have helpful things to offer about what they liked and disliked, and at the moment it's hard to be in this position without being accused of being a blind hater or an equally blind slave to EA corporatism (or whatever ridiculous rhetoric people are using this week).

I guess I'd hope that feedback methods like the Constructive Criticism thread on the BSN give Bioware a way to sort through the criticism and praise carefully, without thinking that the seething rage-threads represent all the diversity of opinion about the game.

To me, the reasons why DA2 is so harshly received are very obvious. Those who dislike DA2 do it with a passion that is far more deeply rooted than just because of the trivial 'flaws' of DA2. The emotional 'heat' stems from something else. Those emotions are then projected on every 'flaw' that is possible to find in the game. But those flaws wouldn't be a big deal if people had actually liked the game.

The dislike/hate is fueled by DA2's connection with DA:O. True. But it's not primarily about expectations. Of course people had expectations, and of course there are reasons for disappointment. But heated dislike (hate) is fueled by something else. If DA2 was just a game like others, we'd just drop it in the can and say "Well good luck with that POS, Bioware, and good luck trying to sell me another game", and turn our backs to it. -Or, maybe we'd even enjoy it enough on some superficial plane, and put it on the shelf, and indifferently forget all about it.

But that's not where we are.
First, I'm convinced that the reasons for the dislike is often primarily the "new style". The new style is from an advertisers simplistic "vision". And that advertiser thinks videogames are for kids. And that vision is about a fully integrated DA world of comics, anime, movies. A DA universe as a Disney or Transformers universe, with a fixed and easily recognizable cast of stereothypical persona. The mood and emphasis of the new style - whether it's about humor, apparel, weapon and armor design, animation, looks, combat - is surface only, over-the-top, cartoony, childish, unrealistic, flippant, "kewl", "fun".

But for many of us, the appeal of games like DA:O and TW2 is the mature and serious mood. That it's not just about surface but 'the inner form'. It takes itself seriously. And the 'flamboyant' style that DA2 and many eastern games for teenagers embraces, is not just something we don't care about. We can easily get into a position where we actually despise it. Have contempt for it. We maybe wouldn't, if we intentionally purchased something we expected that flamboyant style from, but...

So here we were, bubbling with excitement about DA, expecting to be so cosy with a big, important franchise, for years. Finally a fantasy RPG franchise that was, very much, not perfect but close enough, what we had always wanted, all the time since BG. And what do EA's advertisers do with it? probably brainwashing Bioware staff in long meetings, just like they did with Maxis and Spore? They turn it into just another silly, childish console romp, that looks in many elements to be pathologically influenced by generic, low-quality fantasy games and anime. Something contemptible.
Objectively, it's maybe not exactly "contemptible". But from the overbearing stench of advertisers calculation/speculation, and viewed from the position of wanting a game more in the mood and style of DA:O and TW2, - it is contemptible.
DA2 is hated because it killed the DA of DA:O.

So there you have the "heat" of the emotions, the everlasting bashing of DA2. IMO of course.
But I do believe this. And that leads to a word of warning: A DA3 that is just a polished and better DA2, might be slightly better received than DA2, simply because of better gameplay and because most of the hatred from the betrayal of DA:O's heritage has fumed away over the years, but I'm not gonna buy it. And neither will a lot of other people.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 22 octobre 2011 - 11:25 .

[AlexXIV]

Bleh, don't go all psychologist on us DA2 critics. Most of us just expected that if they make a sequel they take the good and keep it, and and just improve the bad about the original. Which is what companies usually do. But Bio changed too much, they basically made it something completely new, aside from the story. And then it happened to have even more flaws than DA:O. Not saying that DA:O was perfect at all, but closer than DA2. Anyway, it's not about us being heartbroken or emotionally overpowered or whatever. It's just plain and simple fan disappointment. That's what it looks like, not pretty. Bioware can make up with DLCs and DA3, but I personally have a hard time accepting DA2 as a sequel to DA:O, even more to accept it as a worthy sequel. It is the nature of a 'series' like the DA franchise or ME franchise that with every game of the series there is more at stake than just the game. You can ruin a franchise if you don't watch it. And as people said already, DA:O wasn't perfect either, so a percieved 'not so good' sequel does not really improve the opinion of people who were disappointed at DA:O already.

So to make a long story short they had the chance to improve it with relatively little means, but chose to invest and change alot and ended up worse. That's what for people like me is hard to understand. There was no need to take risks.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 22 octobre 2011 - 11:43 .

[Firky]

I read the whole post, bEVEsthda. I'm not going to debate it or add anything, because I really can relate to everything you've said, there. (Proof of my understanding of the desperate desire for a "spiritual successor to BG" is my username. Firkraag, which practically every gamer friend knows me as, got shortened to Firky over the years.)

I am still in the odd position of ultimately thinking that DA2 was more enjoyable/better than Origins, though. Not a better RPG, but an evocative experience that actually brought many aspects of gameplay to a more interesting place. (In my opinion.) And, I did go through a fairly long process of actually letting go of wanting DA2 to be something its not, before release.

But more on topic, I don't know if you're playing Might and Magic Heroes VI, but I was vaguelly wondering if it was going to get a DA2 style backlash. They've totally "streamlined" heaps of features, like allowing you to recruit all your units from any town, allowing you to convert towns to your faction to allow for a homogenous army, etc. It changes play on the adventure map a lot. Concurrently, however, they've implemented a cleverly organic choice/consequence thing and really focussed on detail (like a pauldron armour slot, wow.) As someone who adores HOMM, it seems to have struck quite a good balance of old and new, IMO. (Some fans of the series aren't overly happy, but it's more akin Civ V reception than DAII at the moment.)

I really don't see why they have to alienate the old fans while moving forward. I can really see both sides of this one.

(PS. I do get the emotional side of gaming. I've been playing games since I was tiny, and they pretty much frame my existance. Also, people should have a better understanding of gamer psychology, IMO. It's important.)

Modifié par Firky, 22 octobre 2011 - 11:50 .

[bEVEsthda]

AlexXIV wrote...

Bleh, don't go all psychologist on us DA2 critics. Most of us just expected that if they make a sequel they take the good and keep it, and and just improve the bad about the original. Which is what companies usually do. But Bio changed too much, they basically made it something completely new, aside from the story. And then it happened to have even more flaws than DA:O. Not saying that DA:O was perfect at all, but closer than DA2. Anyway, it's not about us being heartbroken or emotionally overpowered or whatever. It's just plain and simple fan disappointment. That's what it looks like, not pretty. Bioware can make up with DLCs and DA3, but I personally have a hard time accepting DA2 as a sequel to DA:O, even more to accept it as a worthy sequel. It is the nature of a 'series' like the DA franchise or ME franchise that with every game of the series there is more at stake than just the game. You can ruin a franchise if you don't watch it. And as people said already, DA:O wasn't perfect either, so a percieved 'not so good' sequel does not really improve the opinion of people who were disappointed at DA:O already.

So to make a long story short they had the chance to improve it with relatively little means, but chose to invest and change alot and ended up worse. That's what for people like me is hard to understand. There was no need to take risks.

Though I don't recognize your name as one of DA2's more vitriolic bashers, you seem - to me - to say exactly the same as I did, in my "psychologist" post.
Only, you don't put in the reference frames that people like Firky and ElitePinecone, who like DA2, would need to understand.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 22 octobre 2011 - 11:53 .

[ScotGaymer]

Sorry guys.

I wasnt meaning to say that expectation was unreasonable or wrong; or that I reckoned people should "bring down" their standards.

My point was more the fact that the haters will rant on and on and on about DA2s flaws and talk about DAO as if it is this perfect flawless game (when we all know it isnt) as if these flaws in DA2 were the worst thing in the world ever.
And that their hatred of DA2 comes entirely from that. Which to me is rather dishonest because DA2 isnt the worst game ever and DAO isnt the best game ever; and making out like they are to justify irrational hatred of the former over the latter is, well stupid.

As I said a lot of the people who dislike/hate DA2 if they were completely honest with themselves feel that way because of the dissapointment caused by the hype, their own expectation and excitement, and Bioware's poor marketing in relation to the game and not because of any inherent flaws of the game.
If the games flaws put u off on their own, thats fine, thats your opinion and your allowed to feel that way. As long as you arent lying and misrepresenting yourself to yourself and to others then i couldnt care less frankly.

For me it is more about honesty and fair play than anything else. If you dislike DA2 and wish to express your dislike for it in an open, honest, and constructive manner then I totally get it, I understand why people might dislike the game on its own merits even if I dont agree.

I just find a lot of the haters simply are not being fair or honest about it, and because of that some of them seem determined to derail any positive discussion about DA2 and the future DA3. And if they were being fair about it they might well find like me that they dont dislike the game as much as they thought.

I hope I have been a bit clearer this time lol.

[ElitePinecone]

I think the analysis in the last few posts of some of the more vitriolic criticism of DA2 is reasonably accurate - fans were disappointed, not just in the game itself but in the lost potential to make a sequel to Origins that kept its predecessor's quality and depth of content.

But I don't agree - at all - with that level of abject seething hatred. I think it's counter-productive, pointless, unfair and ungrateful.

Let me point out that I don't count myself by any means as an unqualified supporter of DA2. At all. Many parts of the game were infuriatingly lacking in detail, scope, quality and care. The vision for the sequel seemed smaller, not more focused, and it lacked both the epic narrative and emotional investment with the protagonist that I loved from Origins. I'm baffled at some of the design decisions and that it was released in the state it was.

Nevertheless, it was still a good game, in parts - the writing and companions, in particular. The cutscenes, which made conversations far removed from the static head-bobbing of Origins. I can go on. I didn't necessarily *like* DA2, but I don't hate it either. It was disappointing and upsetting, but I'm not going to get angry about it, or demand people be fired.

The fact that people did get so unreasonably angry about DA2 is probably a sign of how popular the franchise is, how much passion it inspires in people, and how much they were disappointed by the changes that were made or the perceived lack of quality.

Ultimately Bioware are going to make the decisions they make, the reasons for which are not always obvious (or will never be obvious) to their fans. We can be disappointed that DA2 turned out like it did, but it comes with a responsibility to acknowledge that there are more factors involved in game development than just appeasing a few thousand fans who are the most devoted.

Clearly disengagement with DA2 is reasonably widespread - I'm sure Bioware have clearer numbers - and if people truly do have a problem with the franchise, it'll be reflected in future content. For pragmatic commercial reasons if not a genuine desire to improve the series.

Modifié par ElitePinecone, 22 octobre 2011 - 12:29 .

[TwistedComplex]

Everwarden wrote...

Amusingly, my claim of a double-standard has been called 'childish bickering' and been removed. 

They'll likely call this 'confirmation bias', but doesn't that kinda prove my point? I'm not accusing Bioware of being a bunch of draconian censors, but the anti-DA2 crowd certainly has to walk a tightrope to stay unbanned.

If i may quote Bill Maher while tweeking said quote to fit this situation..


"Not every DA2 detractor is a troll, but if you're a troll.. You're PROBABLY a DA2 detractor"

That's why you see so many "critique" posts get deleted 

Modifié par TwistedComplex, 22 octobre 2011 - 12:58 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

While we can deplore the level of vitriol some haters put in their 'reviews', let's not forget that some people aren't throwing their bile up on the internet because they particularly care about the game, or Bioware, or anything other that spewing negativity then glorifying in the reactions they incite.

In short, I agree with TwistedComplex/Bill Maher.

[bEVEsthda]

Firky wrote...

I read the whole post, bEVEsthda. I'm not going to debate it or add anything, because I really can relate to everything you've said, there. (Proof of my understanding of the desperate desire for a "spiritual successor to BG" is my username. Firkraag, which practically every gamer friend knows me as, got shortened to Firky over the years.)

I am still in the odd position of ultimately thinking that DA2 was more enjoyable/better than Origins, though. Not a better RPG, but an evocative experience that actually brought many aspects of gameplay to a more interesting place. (In my opinion.) And, I did go through a fairly long process of actually letting go of wanting DA2 to be something its not, before release.

But more on topic, I don't know if you're playing Might and Magic Heroes VI, but I was vaguelly wondering if it was going to get a DA2 style backlash. They've totally "streamlined" heaps of features, like allowing you to recruit all your units from any town, allowing you to convert towns to your faction to allow for a homogenous army, etc. It changes play on the adventure map a lot. Concurrently, however, they've implemented a cleverly organic choice/consequence thing and really focussed on detail (like a pauldron armour slot, wow.) As someone who adores HOMM, it seems to have struck quite a good balance of old and new, IMO. (Some fans of the series aren't overly happy, but it's more akin Civ V reception than DAII at the moment.)

I really don't see why they have to alienate the old fans while moving forward. I can really see both sides of this one.

(PS. I do get the emotional side of gaming. I've been playing games since I was tiny, and they pretty much frame my existance. Also, people should have a better understanding of gamer psychology, IMO. It's important.)

I'm afraid I belong to the CoD crowd. ...sorta.
Explained: Yes, I have all CoD games, and have played them all out and through. And intend to buy next one too. But while I do think the maps of MW2 are awesome, I'm not one of those 'high-on-pwning' teenagers that scream abuse over the voice channel. The CoD games have remained 'good enough' for me to buy them. It doesn't mean I'm happy with the direction of the series. I hold the first CoD and CoD-MW high. The rest is sort of meh, and need you to focus on the production qualities to be able to ignore all the crap.
I hold the original, first 'Far Cry' to be the finest FPS of all time. Others worthy of mention are Half Life and Max Payne. In general I think the modern trend of the shooters is as bad as what has happened to RPGs. Dumbed down, linear, convenient.

Explained continued: I'm not an old-hand RPG gamer. I play all kinds of other games, including action games like Japanese fighting games and simulaters like Sim games. I've never played a PnP. My first ever RPG was BG. That introduced me to the genre. What I look for in a RPG are not explicitly the so called rpg-elements, or any particular gameplay mechanics. What I want are not any specific elements, but something early D&D rules largely managed to deliver. What I want is the adventure, and the 'responsibility' of that adventure. I don't want to be told a story. I want to experience the story and have responsibility for it, and have some freedom about it.
But as only a part-time RPG player, I mainly only play the 'big' cRPGs, like BG, IWD, FO, NWN, E-S, so I'm afraid I've never played a HOMM game, so wouldn't have a clue what you're talking about.

I do see a general trend, in all genres, towards dumbing down (I won't call it streamlining, because it's not, it's dumbing down alright). And I don't see it as moving "forward" either. Many genres seem just to be converging back to the old paradigms from videogamings cradle, Like Mario and Donkey Kong. It would seem like there is a school of thought, of how to make a videogame. Any game. The great inventions and rich eco-system of the early 90'ies, when games like Civ was born, seem completely forgotten. All the big publishers seem to want is the same ol', same ol' bash-the baddies-pick-up-the-jewels-whittle-down-the-Boss-advance-to-next-level , in every single established genre, be it from FPS, RTS, RPG to racing simulators.
And yes, I detest that. Every single step backwards. Very much. I want less symbolic representations of "same ol'" and more elements of simulation in games, generally.

[jarrekk2002]

I have played and completed both games multiple times and DA2 is a much better game all round.....of course there are problems, all game have them, but in all honesty can anyone who has played both games really say Origins has better controls, AI, combat, cutscenes, graphics, charcter models etc really......a combat system that requires no skill to use, a great story which is just a different version of Lord of the Rings,....of course the re-used backround in DA2 is annoying but it doesn't affect the game play which is much better and for those who give out about the story, rpg games are about plot lines that develop as you play the game not go here do that over and over again, kill this and win....that is what Gears of War, Call of Duty, Halo etc which alot of rpg fans hate are about and if you look at Origins that is what it's about....go here there's a problem, resolve the problem and oick a side, you do this or a version of this in every main quest....

You can never keep everybody happy but rpg games are not as popular as Halo or Call of Duty not because there too complicated or because they're too long but because they simply do not play well which DA2 does....there is a reason that 48% of people who started Origins did not finish and about 11% of those played it for 5 hours or less

[Eudaemonium]

PresidentCowboy wrote...

Oh wow everyone agrees the game has flaws! Guess it must be the worst game ever cause no other game has flaws.

Yeah, I'm pretty certain that even the most ardent DA2-defenders acknowledge the game had significant shortcomings. At least I'd hope they do, even if they're just the technical flaws like area recycling.

There seems to be a very good debate going on here with some very well-thought-out posts. This makes me happy. It has restored some of my faith in internet discussion.

[Joy Divison]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Sorry guys.

I wasnt meaning to say that expectation was unreasonable or wrong; or that I reckoned people should "bring down" their standards.

My point was more the fact that the haters will rant on and on and on about DA2s flaws and talk about DAO as if it is this perfect flawless game (when we all know it isnt) as if these flaws in DA2 were the worst thing in the world ever.
And that their hatred of DA2 comes entirely from that. Which to me is rather dishonest because DA2 isnt the worst game ever and DAO isnt the best game ever; and making out like they are to justify irrational hatred of the former over the latter is, well stupid.

As I said a lot of the people who dislike/hate DA2 if they were completely honest with themselves feel that way because of the dissapointment caused by the hype, their own expectation and excitement, and Bioware's poor marketing in relation to the game and not because of any inherent flaws of the game.
If the games flaws put u off on their own, thats fine, thats your opinion and your allowed to feel that way. As long as you arent lying and misrepresenting yourself to yourself and to others then i couldnt care less frankly.

For me it is more about honesty and fair play than anything else. If you dislike DA2 and wish to express your dislike for it in an open, honest, and constructive manner then I totally get it, I understand why people might dislike the game on its own merits even if I dont agree.

I just find a lot of the haters simply are not being fair or honest about it, and because of that some of them seem determined to derail any positive discussion about DA2 and the future DA3. And if they were being fair about it they might well find like me that they dont dislike the game as much as they thought.

I hope I have been a bit clearer this time lol.

You are saying the same thing.

I can honestly assure you my dislike/disappointment/annoyance in DA2 comes from inherent flaws of the game.

We don't think DA:O is a perfect flawless game, we think there were enough good qualitites in the game to overcome its flaws.

You act as if one cannot be "fair" and dislike DA2.  What exactly does it mean to be "fair"?  Why would I spend $60 on something and want to ruin a franchise I really enjoyed?

Modifié par Joy Divison, 22 octobre 2011 - 02:15 .

[seraphymon]

jarrekk2002 wrote...

I have played and completed both games multiple times and DA2 is a much better game all round.....of course there are problems, all game have them, but in all honesty can anyone who has played both games really say Origins has better controls, AI, combat, cutscenes, graphics, charcter models etc really......a combat system that requires no skill to use, a great story which is just a different version of Lord of the Rings,....of course the re-used backround in DA2 is annoying but it doesn't affect the game play which is much better and for those who give out about the story, rpg games are about plot lines that develop as you play the game not go here do that over and over again, kill this and win....that is what Gears of War, Call of Duty, Halo etc which alot of rpg fans hate are about and if you look at Origins that is what it's about....go here there's a problem, resolve the problem and oick a side, you do this or a version of this in every main quest....

You can never keep everybody happy but rpg games are not as popular as Halo or Call of Duty not because there too complicated or because they're too long but because they simply do not play well which DA2 does....there is a reason that 48% of people who started Origins did not finish and about 11% of those played it for 5 hours or less

I dont think i could disagree more, and not only that but your statements are soo contradicting as well.

I have played both like many others and i can honestly say Origins is better IMO.

Controls. Id say both are the same,  But to some people  with DAO having ISO view, people had better control for Aoe targeting and could plan things betters.

Cutscenes. DA2 mostly had more major ones, and more altogether, and they are good. Origins though for me were much more memorable such as the battle for Ostagar.

AS for AI. DAO hands down. we had more tactics in DA2, but the AI was beyond stupid. AS evidenced majorly in Legacy. The hold button only works for a certain distance, and at times no matter what the AI simply wont do as it should.

Graphics. This i find is always subjective. While the graphics may be considered better, the art style was much worse.

Character models. This is the only one where DA2 i see wins out. Mostly because of more unique body models.

The combat system, I find was much better in an overall sense than DA2. but of course its subjectiv. I like DA2 smoothness, but i would say its also more simpler than DAO.

Story. Yes it reminds me of Lord of the rings, and other movies. BUt every story has been done. Just cause DA2 did what it did doesnt make it good. AT least DAO story was epic for me. You say its not about go here and go there and kill this, but DA2 did this problem multiple times more than DAO. DAo had its plot where it makes you keep going and drawing you in, DA2 wasnothing more than something out of an MMO, go here and kill this.

AS for your last statement about RPGs. i Don't think you could be anymore wrong. AS I find people just like action action action, which FPS give. Saying RPgs arent done right except for DA2 is a joke.  It may have entertained you, but then why is it such a flop to the majority of people? I dont get where you get half the people who played origins quit.

[Joy Divison]

ElitePinecone wrote...

But I don't agree - at all - with that level of abject seething hatred. I think it's counter-productive, pointless, unfair and ungrateful.

Unfair and ungrateful? I'd agree.

Counter-productive and pointless?  I'm not so sure.  The point has been made loud and clear to Bioware and EA.  How they respond to the community reaction is, of course, another matter.

[jarrekk2002]

seraphymon wrote...

jarrekk2002 wrote...

I have played and completed both games multiple times and DA2 is a much better game all round.....of course there are problems, all game have them, but in all honesty can anyone who has played both games really say Origins has better controls, AI, combat, cutscenes, graphics, charcter models etc really......a combat system that requires no skill to use, a great story which is just a different version of Lord of the Rings,....of course the re-used backround in DA2 is annoying but it doesn't affect the game play which is much better and for those who give out about the story, rpg games are about plot lines that develop as you play the game not go here do that over and over again, kill this and win....that is what Gears of War, Call of Duty, Halo etc which alot of rpg fans hate are about and if you look at Origins that is what it's about....go here there's a problem, resolve the problem and oick a side, you do this or a version of this in every main quest....

You can never keep everybody happy but rpg games are not as popular as Halo or Call of Duty not because there too complicated or because they're too long but because they simply do not play well which DA2 does....there is a reason that 48% of people who started Origins did not finish and about 11% of those played it for 5 hours or less

I dont think i could disagree more, and not only that but your statements are soo contradicting as well.

I have played both like many others and i can honestly say Origins is better IMO.

Controls. Id say both are the same,  But to some people  with DAO having ISO view, people had better control for Aoe targeting and could plan things betters.

Cutscenes. DA2 mostly had more major ones, and more altogether, and they are good. Origins though for me were much more memorable such as the battle for Ostagar.

AS for AI. DAO hands down. we had more tactics in DA2, but the AI was beyond stupid. AS evidenced majorly in Legacy. The hold button only works for a certain distance, and at times no matter what the AI simply wont do as it should.

Graphics. This i find is always subjective. While the graphics may be considered better, the art style was much worse.

Character models. This is the only one where DA2 i see wins out. Mostly because of more unique body models.

The combat system, I find was much better in an overall sense than DA2. but of course its subjectiv. I like DA2 smoothness, but i would say its also more simpler than DAO.

Story. Yes it reminds me of Lord of the rings, and other movies. BUt every story has been done. Just cause DA2 did what it did doesnt make it good. AT least DAO story was epic for me. You say its not about go here and go there and kill this, but DA2 did this problem multiple times more than DAO. DAo had its plot where it makes you keep going and drawing you in, DA2 wasnothing more than something out of an MMO, go here and kill this.

AS for your last statement about RPGs. i Don't think you could be anymore wrong. AS I find people just like action action action, which FPS give. Saying RPgs arent done right except for DA2 is a joke.  It may have entertained you, but then why is it such a flop to the majority of people? I dont get where you get half the people who played origins quit.

I don't see how my statements were contradicting?

Controls: The lay out of both is identical I agree with that but the responsivness in DA2 is much better than Origins IMO but I do understand that like many things it is subjective.

Cutscenes: You mentioned that DAO had more memorable cutscenes like what happened at Ostagar but the point I was trying to make was that the fluidity of the characer interatcion, the lack of big long pauses of silence while you were reading through the huge amount of options to choose from and also the fact that Hawke spoke and showed an emotional response to a given situation which the Warden (at least in my game anyway) never did made the cutscenes as a whole more enjoyable to go through

AI: You mentioned that DAo wins hands downs and the example you gave was the hold option in Legacy.....it is annoying when the AI keeps moving up if you go to far ahead but then again I have never been hurt by my AI companions in DA2 which I have been multiple times in DAO by area based attacks, even after disabling them in the tactics options.....

Graphics: The graphics are better in DA2 but the art style is worse???? I guess we can agree to disagree on this....I thinks the clothing and equipment for example are much more stylish in DA2

Combat System: This I cannot understand....at no stage when I played Origins did I feel I was actually playing the game....all you have to do is press A, once and the computer takes over.....where's the skill??? I know the response is where is the skill in pressing multiple times?? I agree not a huge amount here either but at least I actually have to do something.....the biggest issue with the combat is DAO is that you have and you enemy have to be stationary before you can attack even in boss fights....the 1st thing I was though when playing combat games, particularly against bosses is never be stationary, always hit and move and use your environment to your advantage which you cannot do in DAO IMO

Story: I agree of course that every story has been done and I do not disgaree that it was very good but there has been alot of criticism of the story in DA2 being to like Halo for example for being to linear compared to Origins and the point I was making is that Origins is linear and repetative as all games are...I was never surprised by anthign that happen in DAO but I was surprised with some of the things that occured, particularly in Year 4 in DA2 and I much prefered that...i like stories that develop over time aswell as the more straigh forward kill everything, but for people ot be critical of DA2 for story and not being critical of DAO for the same reasons I find annoying...


I did not say that RPG games were not done right, I said they don't play well in comparison to other games....take ME1 for instance, the basic elements of the game, controls, AI, combat etc leave alot to be desired and I am being generous on that....the Mako vehicle never went the right way, the cover system never worked right and you could set your weapons up in such a way that you never had to worry about them overheating.....simple things like these are what make games fun to play...what is wrong with keeping the great RPG elements, story, characters, inventory management, epic cutscenes and making the bad parts of the games work right controls, AI and combat....until ME2 and DA2 i hadn't played and RPG that had good controls, AI and combat.....

The part about the 48% was gotten from an artical written about 4 or 5 months ago (can't quite remeber) on IGN but a game reviewer from Australia about the "Death of the Old School RPG's" like ME1 and DAO and there evolution into ME2 and DA2 which happen to be most enjoyable games I've played

[bigSarg]

Do any of you honestly think that they are going to come right out and say that they screwed up? This is just damage control nothing more. It is painfully obvious that the game was not ready for release, everyone knows it and I sincerely hope that the DA development team knows it and does better with DA3, I also hope that EA got the message and realizes that they can't take their customers for granted or treat them like idiots.

My biggest problem with DA2 was the storyline, it didn't make any sense if you played a mage, its fine if you play a rogue or warrior, but seriously how can someone go all over Kirkwall throwing spells around and no one notice?  Doesn't seem very plausible to me and takes away from any type of immersion, I mean theres a point in the game where your actually casting spells in front of a templar and he doesn't even comment about it or seem to notice, that is just plain bad writing; the AI is terrible, a rogue shouts out that there is a trap and then proceeds to step on it or another team member will step on it, how stupid is that! And some of the companion commands don't seem to work very well or maybe as intended.  I'm not saying that DA2 is the worst game I've ever played nor am I comparing it to DA:O, I'm simply disgusted with it on its own flaws, I'm not going to bother to get into the reuse of maps and armor designs thats just plain laziness.  I will admit that there are some things about the game that I did like but not enough to overshadow the obvious flaws, this whole thing about being "Caught off -guard" is BS and everyone knows it, either that or Bioware has totally lost touch with its customer base.  I think corrective criticism is a good thing but not the down and out name calling or demand for someones head on a platter, it's important for companies to get feedback but whether they listen and how they react to it is another story.

Modifié par bigSarg, 22 octobre 2011 - 03:56 .

[seraphymon]

jarrekk2002 wrote...

seraphymon wrote...

jarrekk2002 wrote...

I have played and completed both games multiple times and DA2 is a much better game all round.....of course there are problems, all game have them, but in all honesty can anyone who has played both games really say Origins has better controls, AI, combat, cutscenes, graphics, charcter models etc really......a combat system that requires no skill to use, a great story which is just a different version of Lord of the Rings,....of course the re-used backround in DA2 is annoying but it doesn't affect the game play which is much better and for those who give out about the story, rpg games are about plot lines that develop as you play the game not go here do that over and over again, kill this and win....that is what Gears of War, Call of Duty, Halo etc which alot of rpg fans hate are about and if you look at Origins that is what it's about....go here there's a problem, resolve the problem and oick a side, you do this or a version of this in every main quest....

You can never keep everybody happy but rpg games are not as popular as Halo or Call of Duty not because there too complicated or because they're too long but because they simply do not play well which DA2 does....there is a reason that 48% of people who started Origins did not finish and about 11% of those played it for 5 hours or less

I dont think i could disagree more, and not only that but your statements are soo contradicting as well.

I have played both like many others and i can honestly say Origins is better IMO.

Controls. Id say both are the same,  But to some people  with DAO having ISO view, people had better control for Aoe targeting and could plan things betters.

Cutscenes. DA2 mostly had more major ones, and more altogether, and they are good. Origins though for me were much more memorable such as the battle for Ostagar.

AS for AI. DAO hands down. we had more tactics in DA2, but the AI was beyond stupid. AS evidenced majorly in Legacy. The hold button only works for a certain distance, and at times no matter what the AI simply wont do as it should.

Graphics. This i find is always subjective. While the graphics may be considered better, the art style was much worse.

Character models. This is the only one where DA2 i see wins out. Mostly because of more unique body models.

The combat system, I find was much better in an overall sense than DA2. but of course its subjectiv. I like DA2 smoothness, but i would say its also more simpler than DAO.

Story. Yes it reminds me of Lord of the rings, and other movies. BUt every story has been done. Just cause DA2 did what it did doesnt make it good. AT least DAO story was epic for me. You say its not about go here and go there and kill this, but DA2 did this problem multiple times more than DAO. DAo had its plot where it makes you keep going and drawing you in, DA2 wasnothing more than something out of an MMO, go here and kill this.

AS for your last statement about RPGs. i Don't think you could be anymore wrong. AS I find people just like action action action, which FPS give. Saying RPgs arent done right except for DA2 is a joke.  It may have entertained you, but then why is it such a flop to the majority of people? I dont get where you get half the people who played origins quit.

I don't see how my statements were contradicting?

Controls: The lay out of both is identical I agree with that but the responsivness in DA2 is much better than Origins IMO but I do understand that like many things it is subjective.

Cutscenes: You mentioned that DAO had more memorable cutscenes like what happened at Ostagar but the point I was trying to make was that the fluidity of the characer interatcion, the lack of big long pauses of silence while you were reading through the huge amount of options to choose from and also the fact that Hawke spoke and showed an emotional response to a given situation which the Warden (at least in my game anyway) never did made the cutscenes as a whole more enjoyable to go through

AI: You mentioned that DAo wins hands downs and the example you gave was the hold option in Legacy.....it is annoying when the AI keeps moving up if you go to far ahead but then again I have never been hurt by my AI companions in DA2 which I have been multiple times in DAO by area based attacks, even after disabling them in the tactics options.....

Graphics: The graphics are better in DA2 but the art style is worse???? I guess we can agree to disagree on this....I thinks the clothing and equipment for example are much more stylish in DA2

Combat System: This I cannot understand....at no stage when I played Origins did I feel I was actually playing the game....all you have to do is press A, once and the computer takes over.....where's the skill??? I know the response is where is the skill in pressing multiple times?? I agree not a huge amount here either but at least I actually have to do something.....the biggest issue with the combat is DAO is that you have and you enemy have to be stationary before you can attack even in boss fights....the 1st thing I was though when playing combat games, particularly against bosses is never be stationary, always hit and move and use your environment to your advantage which you cannot do in DAO IMO

Story: I agree of course that every story has been done and I do not disgaree that it was very good but there has been alot of criticism of the story in DA2 being to like Halo for example for being to linear compared to Origins and the point I was making is that Origins is linear and repetative as all games are...I was never surprised by anthign that happen in DAO but I was surprised with some of the things that occured, particularly in Year 4 in DA2 and I much prefered that...i like stories that develop over time aswell as the more straigh forward kill everything, but for people ot be critical of DA2 for story and not being critical of DAO for the same reasons I find annoying...


I did not say that RPG games were not done right, I said they don't play well in comparison to other games....take ME1 for instance, the basic elements of the game, controls, AI, combat etc leave alot to be desired and I am being generous on that....the Mako vehicle never went the right way, the cover system never worked right and you could set your weapons up in such a way that you never had to worry about them overheating.....simple things like these are what make games fun to play...what is wrong with keeping the great RPG elements, story, characters, inventory management, epic cutscenes and making the bad parts of the games work right controls, AI and combat....until ME2 and DA2 i hadn't played and RPG that had good controls, AI and combat.....

The part about the 48% was gotten from an artical written about 4 or 5 months ago (can't quite remeber) on IGN but a game reviewer from Australia about the "Death of the Old School RPG's" like ME1 and DAO and there evolution into ME2 and DA2 which happen to be most enjoyable games I've played

Maybe not so much your statements as much as your views, when you condemn one game for doing things like "go here kill this" when another does it to an even greater extreme and much more obvious.

Cutscenes - What you seem to mention is more of the dialogue sequences versus cinematics. and really that is subjective too. The main difference is that in those scenes, it was more than the over the shoulder POV and included more. Again though the fact of the Main protag being voiced is subjective in terms of what is better. Strictly Cinematic wise both had its moments, but as i said earlier the ones that Origins did, "the few they actually" had were more epic for me.

AI - I never had my companions die, at least not all at once, but having to micro manage or take baby steps to avoid it, is annoying. In DAO i never had this problem,, as any of my mage aoes i handled myself mostly in order to avoid hitting my guys, even so at least it is alot more forgiving than friendly fire in DA2, because of the health ratio, one good aoe accident hit and your dead.

graphics -  clothing and equipement i have no issues with, not even the fact that they wanted a more iconic appearances for characters, but they coulda done so with the style of DAO, and not look cartoonish, or less detailed in their armors.

Combat System -  Like you mentioned all you do in DA2 is auto attack, because theres nowhere near as many options as in DAO, at least for rogues and warrios, nor can you set up in advance for battles such as traps and such. I agree that the smoothness and non shuffling aspect of DA2 is better, and that the stand in place to attack wasnt something i liked. But neither is kiting. Such as kiting the ogre and just auto attacking. Being able to kite infinitly is something i dont think should be there either.

Story - I do enjoy alot variety types of stories, even ones over time, as long as they are done well. DA2 i felt failed soo hugely, because i felt as if time never passed, unlike other games such as Ocarina of time.

Theres nothing wrong with you liking what DA2, brought,  and while some of those aspects you mentioned in DAO such as the responsiveness of combat etc. I think they went way to far and overboard, in relation to everything else. While at the same time sacrificing in other areas.

That part about the 48% if thats where you got it from, then that is hardly reliable. I believe that is very farfetched. The devs have mentioned they had some evidence that people did quit, some even before Ostagar, for looking overly complicated (which i disagree with)  But no matter what game some are gonna quit before finishing.

[KilrB]

bigSarg wrote...

Do any of you honestly think that they are going to come right out and say that they screwed up? This is just damage control nothing more. It is painfully obvious that the game was not ready for release, everyone knows it and I sincerely hope that the DA development team knows it and does better with DA3, I also hope that EA got the message and realizes that they can't take their customers for granted or treat them like idiots.

I dunno, it seems to work for them in all the other gaming genres ...

People rant-on about how "evil" they are, but keep throwing money at them.

Maybe us rpg players are just too stubborn?

 ....

Nah, I don't think so either.

[jarrekk2002]

seraphymon wrote...

jarrekk2002 wrote...

seraphymon wrote...

jarrekk2002 wrote...

I have played and completed both games multiple times and DA2 is a much better game all round.....of course there are problems, all game have them, but in all honesty can anyone who has played both games really say Origins has better controls, AI, combat, cutscenes, graphics, charcter models etc really......a combat system that requires no skill to use, a great story which is just a different version of Lord of the Rings,....of course the re-used backround in DA2 is annoying but it doesn't affect the game play which is much better and for those who give out about the story, rpg games are about plot lines that develop as you play the game not go here do that over and over again, kill this and win....that is what Gears of War, Call of Duty, Halo etc which alot of rpg fans hate are about and if you look at Origins that is what it's about....go here there's a problem, resolve the problem and oick a side, you do this or a version of this in every main quest....

You can never keep everybody happy but rpg games are not as popular as Halo or Call of Duty not because there too complicated or because they're too long but because they simply do not play well which DA2 does....there is a reason that 48% of people who started Origins did not finish and about 11% of those played it for 5 hours or less

I dont think i could disagree more, and not only that but your statements are soo contradicting as well.

I have played both like many others and i can honestly say Origins is better IMO.

Controls. Id say both are the same,  But to some people  with DAO having ISO view, people had better control for Aoe targeting and could plan things betters.

Cutscenes. DA2 mostly had more major ones, and more altogether, and they are good. Origins though for me were much more memorable such as the battle for Ostagar.

AS for AI. DAO hands down. we had more tactics in DA2, but the AI was beyond stupid. AS evidenced majorly in Legacy. The hold button only works for a certain distance, and at times no matter what the AI simply wont do as it should.

Graphics. This i find is always subjective. While the graphics may be considered better, the art style was much worse.

Character models. This is the only one where DA2 i see wins out. Mostly because of more unique body models.

The combat system, I find was much better in an overall sense than DA2. but of course its subjectiv. I like DA2 smoothness, but i would say its also more simpler than DAO.

Story. Yes it reminds me of Lord of the rings, and other movies. BUt every story has been done. Just cause DA2 did what it did doesnt make it good. AT least DAO story was epic for me. You say its not about go here and go there and kill this, but DA2 did this problem multiple times more than DAO. DAo had its plot where it makes you keep going and drawing you in, DA2 wasnothing more than something out of an MMO, go here and kill this.

AS for your last statement about RPGs. i Don't think you could be anymore wrong. AS I find people just like action action action, which FPS give. Saying RPgs arent done right except for DA2 is a joke.  It may have entertained you, but then why is it such a flop to the majority of people? I dont get where you get half the people who played origins quit.

I don't see how my statements were contradicting?

Controls: The lay out of both is identical I agree with that but the responsivness in DA2 is much better than Origins IMO but I do understand that like many things it is subjective.

Cutscenes: You mentioned that DAO had more memorable cutscenes like what happened at Ostagar but the point I was trying to make was that the fluidity of the characer interatcion, the lack of big long pauses of silence while you were reading through the huge amount of options to choose from and also the fact that Hawke spoke and showed an emotional response to a given situation which the Warden (at least in my game anyway) never did made the cutscenes as a whole more enjoyable to go through

AI: You mentioned that DAo wins hands downs and the example you gave was the hold option in Legacy.....it is annoying when the AI keeps moving up if you go to far ahead but then again I have never been hurt by my AI companions in DA2 which I have been multiple times in DAO by area based attacks, even after disabling them in the tactics options.....

Graphics: The graphics are better in DA2 but the art style is worse???? I guess we can agree to disagree on this....I thinks the clothing and equipment for example are much more stylish in DA2

Combat System: This I cannot understand....at no stage when I played Origins did I feel I was actually playing the game....all you have to do is press A, once and the computer takes over.....where's the skill??? I know the response is where is the skill in pressing multiple times?? I agree not a huge amount here either but at least I actually have to do something.....the biggest issue with the combat is DAO is that you have and you enemy have to be stationary before you can attack even in boss fights....the 1st thing I was though when playing combat games, particularly against bosses is never be stationary, always hit and move and use your environment to your advantage which you cannot do in DAO IMO

Story: I agree of course that every story has been done and I do not disgaree that it was very good but there has been alot of criticism of the story in DA2 being to like Halo for example for being to linear compared to Origins and the point I was making is that Origins is linear and repetative as all games are...I was never surprised by anthign that happen in DAO but I was surprised with some of the things that occured, particularly in Year 4 in DA2 and I much prefered that...i like stories that develop over time aswell as the more straigh forward kill everything, but for people ot be critical of DA2 for story and not being critical of DAO for the same reasons I find annoying...


I did not say that RPG games were not done right, I said they don't play well in comparison to other games....take ME1 for instance, the basic elements of the game, controls, AI, combat etc leave alot to be desired and I am being generous on that....the Mako vehicle never went the right way, the cover system never worked right and you could set your weapons up in such a way that you never had to worry about them overheating.....simple things like these are what make games fun to play...what is wrong with keeping the great RPG elements, story, characters, inventory management, epic cutscenes and making the bad parts of the games work right controls, AI and combat....until ME2 and DA2 i hadn't played and RPG that had good controls, AI and combat.....

The part about the 48% was gotten from an artical written about 4 or 5 months ago (can't quite remeber) on IGN but a game reviewer from Australia about the "Death of the Old School RPG's" like ME1 and DAO and there evolution into ME2 and DA2 which happen to be most enjoyable games I've played

Maybe not so much your statements as much as your views, when you condemn one game for doing things like "go here kill this" when another does it to an even greater extreme and much more obvious.

Cutscenes - What you seem to mention is more of the dialogue sequences versus cinematics. and really that is subjective too. The main difference is that in those scenes, it was more than the over the shoulder POV and included more. Again though the fact of the Main protag being voiced is subjective in terms of what is better. Strictly Cinematic wise both had its moments, but as i said earlier the ones that Origins did, "the few they actually" had were more epic for me.

AI - I never had my companions die, at least not all at once, but having to micro manage or take baby steps to avoid it, is annoying. In DAO i never had this problem,, as any of my mage aoes i handled myself mostly in order to avoid hitting my guys, even so at least it is alot more forgiving than friendly fire in DA2, because of the health ratio, one good aoe accident hit and your dead.

graphics -  clothing and equipement i have no issues with, not even the fact that they wanted a more iconic appearances for characters, but they coulda done so with the style of DAO, and not look cartoonish, or less detailed in their armors.

Combat System -  Like you mentioned all you do in DA2 is auto attack, because theres nowhere near as many options as in DAO, at least for rogues and warrios, nor can you set up in advance for battles such as traps and such. I agree that the smoothness and non shuffling aspect of DA2 is better, and that the stand in place to attack wasnt something i liked. But neither is kiting. Such as kiting the ogre and just auto attacking. Being able to kite infinitly is something i dont think should be there either.

Story - I do enjoy alot variety types of stories, even ones over time, as long as they are done well. DA2 i felt failed soo hugely, because i felt as if time never passed, unlike other games such as Ocarina of time.

Theres nothing wrong with you liking what DA2, brought,  and while some of those aspects you mentioned in DAO such as the responsiveness of combat etc. I think they went way to far and overboard, in relation to everything else. While at the same time sacrificing in other areas.

That part about the 48% if thats where you got it from, then that is hardly reliable. I believe that is very farfetched. The devs have mentioned they had some evidence that people did quit, some even before Ostagar, for looking overly complicated (which i disagree with)  But no matter what game some are gonna quit before finishing.

 
It's very interesting and refreshing to see someone elses view points on the 2 games and while I don't necessarily agree that DAO is better its still nice to see an intelligent viewoint rather than the general idiocy thats going around.

If it was a member of the IGN team then I agree, it's suspect at best, but if memory serves me right the article was not written for IGN and the person doing was not one of there reviewers....he did mention where he got the figures and it did seem reliable but I can't remeber where he got them since it was 4 or 5 months back...but i agree totally that no matter the game or how great some think it is someone will always have an issue with it...

I think either which we all want DA3 to be better than both and not just a rehash of either.....take the best pats of both games, leave out the worst and make a truely great game, but then again I guess even if they do that someone will complain

Out of curiousity, have you played DA2 since early September and if so has your game glitched badly or is just mine?? being trying to find answers for ages and can't find anyone having the same probs even on the tech forum.....just curious

[AlexXIV]

bEVEsthda wrote...
Though I don't recognize your name as one of DA2's more vitriolic bashers, you seem - to me - to say exactly the same as I did, in my "psychologist" post.
Only, you don't put in the reference frames that people like Firky and ElitePinecone, who like DA2, would need to understand.

I'm seeing myself bit of a basher because despite the things that DA2 did well I still don't leave doubt in my posts that I am disappointed. Of course I am not saying it is utter crap or something along this because that's not criticism, it would just make myself look like a hater and weaken my points. I don't know why some people are so aggressively bashing DA2 either, because lack of composure is not really helping with creditability of anything you say.

Anyway, I didn't read past your first paragraph tbh, because you wrote something about projection etc. which basically means that the flaws we see are not real flaws, but rather some other problem we have and project it on the game. And that's what I find slightly condescending.

Thing is I had problems with DA:O already, because Bioware has always been streamlining and not offering as many freedoms for players as other games. But so far it has always been ... acceptable. Just it looks like they are pushing towards giving players less and less option to actually interact with the story, as in letting players write a part of it too.

I think, rather than projection, the problem some people have with DA2 is the same as they had with all their games. Even though I enjoyed all of them, I always saw the difference between their games and Obsidian/Bethesda. Being that other developers allow the player to tell their own story, as in opposite to Bioware who is telling the story and at best give the player an illusion of choice.

As I said it was always so with Bioware. But some people maybe hoped they would start to give more freedoms to players some time, but realized they go more and more the other direction. Which culminated in DA2 where you basically feel like nothing you do changes anything. Even though it may not always be true, it is the general vibe of the game. And then we can stop making roleplaying games tbh, because that's what rpgs are about. Other than that we can just watch a movie or play a shooter or other action games who also have a story in which the player does also not have much influence other than maybe tactics to kill enemies.

And the whole romance and friendship thing is getting a bit of a turnoff as well. Not because I dislike it, but because that's suddenly the only part that shines, and all those who are into it celebrate DA2 as the best game ever, and those who focus on the main story and a protagonist who actually changes the course of it are clearly disappointed.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 22 octobre 2011 - 04:30 .

[Reaverwind]

AlexXIV wrote...

Thing is I had problems with DA:O already, because Bioware has always been streamlining and not offering as many freedoms for players as other games. But so far it has always been ... acceptable. Just it looks like they are pushing towards giving players less and less option to actually interact with the story, as in letting players write a part of it too.

I think, rather than projection, the problem some people have with DA2 is the same as they had with all their games. Even though I enjoyed all of them, I always saw the difference between their games and Obsidian/Bethesda. Being that other developers allow the player to tell their own story, as in opposite to Bioware who is telling the story and at best give the player an illusion of choice.

As I said it was always so with Bioware. But some people maybe hoped they would start to give more freedoms to players some time, but realized they go more and more the other direction. Which culminated in DA2 where you basically feel like nothing you do changes anything. Even though it may not always be true, it is the general vibe of the game. And then we can stop making roleplaying games tbh, because that's what rpgs are about. Other than that we can just watch a movie or play a shooter or other action games who also have a story in which the player does also not have much influence other than maybe tactics to kill enemies.

Bioware has long been criticised as 'masters of the illusion of choice', so it should surprise no one that their increasing focus on a restricted cinematic approach is not going to be well-received by those who want to evolve their own stories within the game's framework - which is the main reason I play RPG's. If I wanted a more structured approach - I'd play Halo, which does a much better job letting you actually experience the story than any of Bioware's games - which brings me to another criticism: Bioware's bad habit of telling, not showing. Imo, Bioware went from bad to worse with DA2.

Modifié par Reaverwind, 22 octobre 2011 - 04:52 .