157 réponses à ce sujet

[PinkShoes]

[quote]RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

[quote]Cyberstrike nTo wrote...
Doesn't stop him/her from trying though...[/quote]

You're opinion's wrong!

No, your opinion's wrong!

No...

Repeat 20,000 times...

[/quote]

Lets not fight. Its okay to disagree.

[/quote]


I didn´t feel that way at all.  I just ran to all of
the statues to touch them until I faced the boss after which it was
pure hack/hack/hack/hack/hack. Booring as h*ll.



[/quote]

Yeah i dont think it was THAT tatcial but thinking of all the end game boss' in the DA series its one of the best.

[Sutekh]

PinkShoes wrote...

Yeah but DA2 wasnt story driven.

Come again?

DA2 is story driven. That's the very foundation of the game. Whether you think said story in good / interesting / well executed is another topic entirely, but it's there. Everywhere. In every dialog, cinematic, companion, romance and whatnot.

A non-story driven, combat-oriented game would be say... Diablo. Minimal script and story and lots and lots of combat goodness.

This said, I have nothing against the idea of adding a new, harder level of difficulty for players who wish to suffer a greater challenge. I wouldn't use it, but why not?

DA2, as it is, is, IMHO, rather good difficulty-wise. With levels suitable to the largest part of the gamers' spectrum  (although I just had a taste of Casual, and, Maker, it's so easy you might as well skip combat altogether). Keeping in mind that I'm not speaking of the quality of combat mechanics which is (yet again) another topic.

What does difficulty have to do with "adult", though?

Also,

I didn't hate the graphics but at the same time the high fantasy style was completely taken away from this game.

I hardly consider DA as high fantasy, especially DA2. Not with all the focus on various politics, and lack thereof on "fantastic beings, creatures and settings". It's not quite low fantasy either. Perhaps somewhere in the middle?

[Sylvius the Mad]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...
Doesn't stop him/her from trying though...

You're opinion's wrong!

No, your opinion's wrong!

No...

Repeat 20,000 times...

If that's all you think I'm saying, you're obviously not paying attention.

I point out where people's opinions are inconsistent or foundationless.

[Morroian]

PinkShoes wrote...

What does everyone else feel?

What I think is this thread is no different from the DA2 is for kids thread.

[PinkShoes]

Morroian wrote...

PinkShoes wrote...

What does everyone else feel?

What I think is this thread is no different from the DA2 is for kids thread.

But i dont think it is for children. I think sure DA2 isnt as mature as DAO but i dont think children should be playing it.

[PinkShoes]

Sutekh wrote...

PinkShoes wrote...

Yeah but DA2 wasnt story driven.

Come again?

DA2 is story driven. That's the very foundation of the game. Whether you think said story in good / interesting / well executed is another topic entirely, but it's there. Everywhere. In every dialog, cinematic, companion, romance and whatnot.

A non-story driven, combat-oriented game would be say... Diablo. Minimal script and story and lots and lots of combat goodness.

This said, I have nothing against the idea of adding a new, harder level of difficulty for players who wish to suffer a greater challenge. I wouldn't use it, but why not?

DA2, as it is, is, IMHO, rather good difficulty-wise. With levels suitable to the largest part of the gamers' spectrum  (although I just had a taste of Casual, and, Maker, it's so easy you might as well skip combat altogether). Keeping in mind that I'm not speaking of the quality of combat mechanics which is (yet again) another topic.

What does difficulty have to do with "adult", though?

Also,

I didn't hate the graphics but at the same time the high fantasy style was completely taken away from this game.

I hardly consider DA as high fantasy, especially DA2. Not with all the focus on various politics, and lack thereof on "fantastic beings, creatures and settings". It's not quite low fantasy either. Perhaps somewhere in the middle?

I said the graphics not the actual game.

And Mike Laidlaw has said that DA2 was more combat driven thats why we are getting more story DLC.

[Sutekh]

PinkShoes wrote...

I said the graphics not the actual game.

But shouldn't the graphics reflect the actual game? If you play a gritty, dark, low fantasy story, then gritty, dark, low fantasy graphics are a good thing, yes? It pulls you deeper in the mood (Holy Immersion and all that sort of things). I'm not a complete fan of DA2 graphics, tbh. Some things I like, some I don't, but I don't think they're cartoonish, and they reflect the middle fantasy quite well, personal taste not considered.

And Mike Laidlaw has said that DA2 was more combat driven thats why we are getting more story DLC. 

"More combat driven" doesn't mean there's no or very little story. Strip the story from DA2 proper, you're left with... err... OK. Not much. Strip the story from Diablo, you still have Diablo almost intact. Combat in DA2 is not the main point. If you're looking for combat centered games, look elsewhere, maybe? 

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I point out where people's opinions are inconsistent or foundationless.

:lol:  Hang on hang on...  got to...  got to... catch....  :lol::lol:  my breath...

[Mark of the Dragon]

Your not alone. We all want a more realistic art style then the cartoon that is DA2. I kind of picture a better vamped up version of Dragon Age Origins graphics and a bit more serious content. I'm sorry its hard to take a game serious when it looks like your watching cartoon network.

[UltiPup]

Mark of the Dragon wrote...

Your not alone. We all want a more realistic art style then the cartoon that is DA2. I kind of picture a better vamped up version of Dragon Age Origins graphics and a bit more serious content. I'm sorry its hard to take a game serious when it looks like your watching cartoon network.

..nooo thanks. Origin characters were ugly and had monster hands. It was sort of off putting at times when characters tried to show emotion.

Like Cartoon Network? Don't you think you are taking the "cartoon feel" a tad too far?

[ScotGaymer]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...
Doesn't stop him/her from trying though...

You're opinion's wrong!

No, your opinion's wrong!

No...

Repeat 20,000 times...

If that's all you think I'm saying, you're obviously not paying attention.

I point out where people's opinions are inconsistent or foundationless.

Wait! What?

Are you serious here?

You air your opinion that "deeper" RPG elements are fun and action elements are boring. And yet you attack someone else for their opinion declaring them to have not paid attention because they disagree with you, and think something different?

Really?

I find that mind boggling.

What he said was his subjective opinion about what he liked and disliked about DA2, and about RPGs in general.

What you said was a subjective opinion on your part as well. And you are perfectly allowed to air it. I dont see why you feel that you have the right to declare anyone elses opinion on what they like and dont like less valid than your own likes and dislikes.
Sorry to say but you dont have that right.

Its actually incredibly rude; and rather trollish of you.

[Sylvius the Mad]

By presenting the opposite opinion in the same terms as his, I demonstrate that his opinions - indeed, anyone's opinions - on their own, are valueless.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

By presenting the opposite opinion in the same terms as his, I demonstrate that his opinions - indeed, anyone's opinions - on their own, are valueless.

No, they aren't.

[Sylvius the Mad]

They lack prescriptive force. All opinions do.

[ScotGaymer]

That doesnt make them valueless.

Liking something (or disliking) something doesnt make you inherently wrong just because someone happens to dislike (or like as the case may be) that particular thing, whatever it may be.

It doesnt mean that it is worthless either.

It really depends.

If you have developed an erroneous opinion based on something factual, like I dunno if you were a holocaust denier, then you would be blatantly wrong and your opinion WOULD be valueless.
But if you have an opinion about a form of entertainment? Or something thats subjective like that?

It isnt worthless or valueless if people dont agree with you. It just means that you think and feel differently.
And no offense but that kind of thinking is a rather dangerous road to go down.

[PinkShoes]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

They lack prescriptive force. All opinions do.

Okay time to stop this. The comment you said has insulted people. So either say sorry or dont say anything more on the matter.

[Sutekh]

Mark of the Dragon wrote...
I'm sorry its hard to take a game serious when it looks like your watching cartoon network.

Mythal's left pinky nail! I wonder what kind of cartoon they're airing on Cartoon Network these days 

[Morroian]

Mark of the Dragon wrote...

Your not alone. We all want a more realistic art style then the cartoon that is DA2. I kind of picture a better vamped up version of Dragon Age Origins graphics and a bit more serious content. I'm sorry its hard to take a game serious when it looks like your watching cartoon network.

DAO looks just as much a cartoon as DA2, its more generic but not realistic.

[PinkShoes]

Sutekh wrote...

PinkShoes wrote...

I said the graphics not the actual game.

But shouldn't the graphics reflect the actual game? If you play a gritty, dark, low fantasy story, then gritty, dark, low fantasy graphics are a good thing, yes? It pulls you deeper in the mood (Holy Immersion and all that sort of things). I'm not a complete fan of DA2 graphics, tbh. Some things I like, some I don't, but I don't think they're cartoonish, and they reflect the middle fantasy quite well, personal taste not considered.

And Mike Laidlaw has said that DA2 was more combat driven thats why we are getting more story DLC. 

"More combat driven" doesn't mean there's no or very little story. Strip the story from DA2 proper, you're left with... err... OK. Not much. Strip the story from Diablo, you still have Diablo almost intact. Combat in DA2 is not the main point. If you're looking for combat centered games, look elsewhere, maybe? 

Graphics dont make a game.

DA2 did have a story i wont deny that but it was pretty weak. I just felt like its combat was the main focus of the game.

I really didnt hate DA2, it was okay it had some really good elements. And the combat was so much better than DAO but i still dont think its perfect. The one thing i loved about DAO was the story and the character interaction but i felt like that was taken down a whole lot. I dont want a combat centered game but i want every part of the DA series to be amazing because i loved DAO so much.

[PsychoBlonde]

Marionetten wrote...

I'd also like to see the difficulty improved but with instantly regenerating health and mana I feel as if the franchise is kind of doomed as a dungeon crawler. Remove those cheap elements and bring back proper resource management and I think it would provide for a far more intense experience. Also, it'd make health regenerating and the like far more useful statistically speaking. But yeah, I think the automatic replenishment needs to go.

Yeah, I wasn't too enthused with this concept in the first game--it takes attrition completely off the table as a gameplay factor.  They initially said something along the lines of "we did this so we could make every encounter interesting and challenging"--except they weren't.  They were just long and tedious.  DA2 increased the length and tedium factor threefold.

The thing is, if you're going to make every encounter interesting and challenging, you have to have many, many more *types* of foes who use many, many more *types* of strategies.  Not 500 repetitions of the same stuff.  Heck the fights later in DA2 with *type of foe* would include every.  single.  enemy. under that type.  You're fighting Qunari?  There will be at least one Leader, Melee, Ranged, and Mage.  In every.  single.  fight.  You're fighting demons?  There will be shades, rage demons, desire demons, and a pride demon.  in every. single. fight.  You're fighting undead?  There will be melees, archers, shadow assassins, and revenants.  In every. single. fight.

Heck, mixing it up even a LITTLE bit would have radically changed the nature of the game.  How about you have a "boss fight" that consists entirely of 10 rage demons.  That's it.  Just 10 rage demons.  You're going to have to come up with a strategy for dealing with those bastards so they don't assassinate everyone in your party in 2 seconds.  How about a fight with 4 mages?  Or 30 archers?

Anyway.  I really, really hope that in DA3 they marry the gameplay and story together a lot better.  That right there would increase the "adult" aspect of the game dramatically just by increasing the complexity of involvement. 

[PinkShoes]

Morroian wrote...

Mark of the Dragon wrote...

Your not alone. We all want a more realistic art style then the cartoon that is DA2. I kind of picture a better vamped up version of Dragon Age Origins graphics and a bit more serious content. I'm sorry its hard to take a game serious when it looks like your watching cartoon network.

DAO looks just as much a cartoon as DA2, its more generic but not realistic.

I have to disagree with you. DAO graphics were terrible no one can deny that but i just feel like DA2 style became a little childish. Like for example the talent/spell icons.

[Raven_26]

Actually if you think back to when DA was first coming out, they said that it was the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate but more dark and gritty, which DA:O was.
The combat wasn't very "interactive" as my hubby likes to call it, but it make you think and use foresight before rushing in, the mages in DA:O could be a pain in the ass at hardcore and nightmare difficulty, the curse of mortality and prison could easily kill me, if a mage didn't have dispel or I didn't have a templar handy. And lets not forget the Dragons (e.g High dragons and Archdemon). So in short yes I liked it
That is what I dislike about combat in DA2, I mean the new combat style is very nice but it could have been so much better if got to keep some of the tactics, honestly more often then not it felt like playing DMC4(Devil may cry 4) that my hubby loves so much (shudders), sure the new moves are more flashy but there isn't a single challenge in the game if you up the diffulty all you get are more mobs that turns the game into a hack and slash game (which for me is very boring).

Story wise DA2 plays a little to much like ME2 - I don't mind it devided into Acts,or the little "rush feel added to the story" but I am sadden that the companions are lessens the way they where in the game, you learn so much about your compainions in DA:O compared to DA2 and the only one I could really relate to was Anders - boy did he break my heart with the hole Chantry thing lol ( and no, 6 out of 9 times, I just couldn't kill him XD)
Fenris was sort of, well hard to get to know, but I liked him by the 3 time I played the game, I know ppl complain and say Anders whimes to much about the plight of mages but Fenris is just the same but magic is bad, very very bad - Even when he romances a mage! lol ( Hipocrit lol)

But sorry didn't mean to write a small novel XD - My point is that both games have something to offer and everyone will have different opinions.

For me, would love to have a better combat in DA3, doesn't have to cater to hardcore gamers but is it to much to ask to have a Boss fight to actually be a itty bitty challenging?
And the story...while not bad, it could try to invoke a feeling or something XD

[PsychoBlonde]

PinkShoes wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

They lack prescriptive force. All opinions do.

Okay time to stop this. The comment you said has insulted people. So either say sorry or dont say anything more on the matter.

Don't bother arguing with Sylvius, he completely lacks any sort of perspective.  That, and he can't tell the difference between his *own* opinions and facts.  If he likes it, it's Right, if he dislikes it, it's Wrong--no matter how many people disagree with him or what reasons they have.

Opinions do, in fact, have prescriptive force if people are able to describe *why' they like something--at least, if they can do so in better than generic terms like "it increases immersion".  Nothing inherently increases or ruins immersion on its own--different things work for different people.  Some things that utterly wreck my immersion, other people praise to the sky.  So you have to go at least one level deeper than that.

For me, contradictions and consistency errors tend to be glaring.  This is one of the reasons why I don't much like the insistance on cameos and references to earlier games.  They tend to be full of errors and/or bugs that don't match up.  But I don't like it when the descriptive text on an item doesn't match what you were told in-game, either.  I don't like it when NPC's behave erratically.  I don't like it when demons are supposed to be horrific and nigh-irresistable--and you steamroll over hundreds of them.  Some people don't notice some of them.  Some people are FAR more irked than I am.  However, the "lack of an ending" didn't bother me at all, nor Hawke's lack of agency in the story, because I have a diferent approach to *how* I enjoy the story.

[PinkShoes]

Raven_26 wrote...

Actually if you think back to when DA was first coming out, they said that it was the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate but more dark and gritty, which DA:O was.
The combat wasn't very "interactive" as my hubby likes to call it, but it make you think and use foresight before rushing in, the mages in DA:O could be a pain in the ass at hardcore and nightmare difficulty, the curse of mortality and prison could easily kill me, if a mage didn't have dispel or I didn't have a templar handy. And lets not forget the Dragons (e.g High dragons and Archdemon). So in short yes I liked it
That is what I dislike about combat in DA2, I mean the new combat style is very nice but it could have been so much better if got to keep some of the tactics, honestly more often then not it felt like playing DMC4(Devil may cry 4) that my hubby loves so much (shudders), sure the new moves are more flashy but there isn't a single challenge in the game if you up the diffulty all you get are more mobs that turns the game into a hack and slash game (which for me is very boring).

Story wise DA2 plays a little to much like ME2 - I don't mind it devided into Acts,or the little "rush feel added to the story" but I am sadden that the companions are lessens the way they where in the game, you learn so much about your compainions in DA:O compared to DA2 and the only one I could really relate to was Anders - boy did he break my heart with the hole Chantry thing lol ( and no, 6 out of 9 times, I just couldn't kill him XD)
Fenris was sort of, well hard to get to know, but I liked him by the 3 time I played the game, I know ppl complain and say Anders whimes to much about the plight of mages but Fenris is just the same but magic is bad, very very bad - Even when he romances a mage! lol ( Hipocrit lol)

But sorry didn't mean to write a small novel XD - My point is that both games have something to offer and everyone will have different opinions.

For me, would love to have a better combat in DA3, doesn't have to cater to hardcore gamers but is it to much to ask to have a Boss fight to actually be a itty bitty challenging?
And the story...while not bad, it could try to invoke a feeling or something XD

I agree with everything you said. Im not a hardcore gamer myself i just want when im player on a harder mode to feel like i am actually playing on a harder mode. The mages in DAO were a damn nightmare and i was always scared in DA2 well..meh.

Character interaction i want back! I just never felt like i was learning anything about them which was wierd because apperently i've known them 7+ years and i know what? Fenris likes wine, hates fish and hates mages? Deep. lol

[Ariella]

PinkShoes wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Mark of the Dragon wrote...

Your not alone. We all want a more realistic art style then the cartoon that is DA2. I kind of picture a better vamped up version of Dragon Age Origins graphics and a bit more serious content. I'm sorry its hard to take a game serious when it looks like your watching cartoon network.

DAO looks just as much a cartoon as DA2, its more generic but not realistic.

I have to disagree with you. DAO graphics were terrible no one can deny that but i just feel like DA2 style became a little childish. Like for example the talent/spell icons.

I wouldn't call them childish or cartoony, especially next to say the Fable series. There is a realism there, it's just a bit hyper. certain colors (reds for example) are sharpened, for example. There is a little anime influence, but that's not surprising considering. I don't really see childish though. "Human" face and form attempts to be realistic and I'd say is on par with Mass Effect's human character graphics.

The talent/spell icons aren't that different from the ones in DAO, except in how they're arranged and how the player can access them. The only difference I noticed was the icons were somewhat simplified in their art. Rather than overdetailing on icons most people aren't going to notice anyway, they went to simplier line based shapes. It's a little bit more modern of a look, which may be why you see it clashing. But I wouldn't call it childish.