299 réponses à ce sujet

[dragonfire100]

Bestyj669 wrote...

Hmmm ... It's off/on on ps3. Whether it works different then it's pc I have no idea.

I still fail to see how that doesn't make it hack & slash for the pc though.

Nightmare only worked for me up until the assassins came to play. Either I'm not smart enough to find an effective counter to their stealth -> one hit the healer -> stealth, or there simply isn't one ...

This:i enjoyed DA2 on PC and it had tactics as much as origins people and its not that bad when you get far story mayby but not gameplay so listen to Bestyj669.

[Bryy_Miller]

TRfore wrote...

EA doesnt tell Bioware what to do?
Explain this then:
http://nexus404.com/...d-2012-bioware/
or this
http://www.joystiq.c...d-half-of-2009/

Games get delayed. How does this make EA the bad guy? I thought we hated them because they rushed their games. 

[Ariella]

Atakuma wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Is it really that hard for some people to believe that BioWare just might put out a product they don't like, or even rush a product? Do we really need to make threads about it and dissect it? Do we really need to hate EA/Parent Company X that much?

But by their own word, BioWare doesn't rush out products until they feel they're ready. Thats what Muzyka said not too long ago:

Q: Is that decision not to rush and to take your time a company rule?


Ray Muzyka: Yeah, very much. It's one of our core values and in the  time we've been at EA we've been very supported in that as well. The  great thing is we have a strong culture and a strong vision and values  as Bioware and we're part of a larger whole that has that strong vision  and culture as well. ..

So if we're going to take Muzyka at his word, not rushing products out the door is a core value for BioWare. So that doesn't really do much for everyone dismissing DA2's lack of quality with the whole "it was just rushed!" excuse.

It was clearly rushed,  I don't know why you would take his word for it since theres plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Considering the game was originally pushed BACK from Feb (something else people are still griping over), I'm thinking that EA's motivation wasn't Evil Empire/let's make a quick buck, but fueled by other more legitimate factors.

[Atakuma]

Ariella wrote...

Considering the game was originally pushed BACK from Feb (something else people are still griping over), I'm thinking that EA's motivation wasn't Evil Empire/let's make a quick buck, but fueled by other more legitimate factors.

Saying that they were planning on releasing it even earlier than what was already too early, doesn't make EA seem any better.

[dragonfire100]

Atakuma wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Considering the game was originally pushed BACK from Feb (something else people are still griping over), I'm thinking that EA's motivation wasn't Evil Empire/let's make a quick buck, but fueled by other more legitimate factors.

Saying that they were planning on releasing it even earlier than what was already too early, doesn't make EA seem any better.

It was the dead line people they had no choice but to put it out early.

[Ariella]

Atakuma wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Considering the game was originally pushed BACK from Feb (something else people are still griping over), I'm thinking that EA's motivation wasn't Evil Empire/let's make a quick buck, but fueled by other more legitimate factors.

Saying that they were planning on releasing it even earlier than what was already too early, doesn't make EA seem any better.

My point is that if it was just a need for cash they would have stuck to the original date and that would have been it. It's possible that there just wasn't any more time or money that EA could give. We tend to think of EA as the Evil Empire that has all this money, but they have bugetary commitments and constraints like everyone, and while I'm no economist, I have to imagine that the crappy economy has hit the luxury item market (like computer games and console games) hard. Which mean it could have been a case of giving the dev team what time they could till the bugdet ran out. My issue is that people seem to want to ascribe malice to EA and Bioware for rushing the game, but it never seems to cross the minds of the same people that it was possible they couldn't afford more time due to various reasons.

[The Executioner]

Ariella wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Considering the game was originally pushed BACK from Feb (something else people are still griping over), I'm thinking that EA's motivation wasn't Evil Empire/let's make a quick buck, but fueled by other more legitimate factors.

Saying that they were planning on releasing it even earlier than what was already too early, doesn't make EA seem any better.

My point is that if it was just a need for cash they would have stuck to the original date and that would have been it. It's possible that there just wasn't any more time or money that EA could give. We tend to think of EA as the Evil Empire that has all this money, but they have bugetary commitments and constraints like everyone, and while I'm no economist, I have to imagine that the crappy economy has hit the luxury item market (like computer games and console games) hard. Which mean it could have been a case of giving the dev team what time they could till the bugdet ran out. My issue is that people seem to want to ascribe malice to EA and Bioware for rushing the game, but it never seems to cross the minds of the same people that it was possible they couldn't afford more time due to various reasons.

The recent Madden lawsuit/scandal is exhibit A your Honor. Just sayin.

[Texhnolyze101]

Jarcander wrote...

Filament wrote...

Noooobody tells BioWare what to do... nobody! Ha ha ha ha!

EA: "Quiet Bioware! Didn't I warn you what would happen if you kept laughing?" *writes down new, even stricter release schedule*
EA: "But let us be civilized, you, customer, you seem to be the one in charge. Tell us, customer, what did you come to expect from Dragon Age series?"
Customer: "Well now, since you aske..."
EA : *flings into rage, sics Bioware and a bunch of random guards at the customer and runs upstairs to play football manager*
Customer: "Right then, saved me a trip to the tower." *morrigan approves +5"

^ that made me giggle

[ElitePinecone]

Ariella wrote...
My issue is that people seem to want to ascribe malice to EA and Bioware for rushing the game, but it never seems to cross the minds of the same people that it was possible they couldn't afford more time due to various reasons.

I completely agree, and this is a great point. 

That said, though, if the game's arguably early release was due to a lack of funds or time in development (instead of rushing it out to get a quick profit, as some would say) why on earth would Bioware run the mother of all marketing campaigns lauding DA2 as the next generation of RPG, a worthy successor to Origins; and unreasonably hype up consumers for what was a disappointing game experience? 

Clearly, coming out and saying "we're short of cash and DA2 suffered as a result" is marketing suicide before release, but I can't exactly fault those who are angry or disappointed that they pre-ordered DA2 expecting a vastly different game to what was eventually delivered. Sure, customers might have unrealistic expectations - but these expectations are boosted (no, that's an understatement - fed rocket fuel) by the ravenous marketing and PR hordes who painted DA2 as some sort of messianic realisation of RPG brilliance. 

You can hardly blame people for being disappointed when nobody at Bioware voiced the doubts that they're now doubting about the game's development and its design process before it released. At the very least dampening expectations, or indicating that their budget was limited, might've eased the sense of crushing disappointment many had.

Were they (we?) being unreasonable or unrealistic to expect a game of Origins' breadth and length after such a short development time? Probably. But nobody attempted to play down the comparison, marketing-wise, and when the games didn't measure up there wasn't a very compelling reason given. I accept that the global economic downturn and limited budgets almost certainly contributed to DA2's quick release and lack of content, but when nothing is done to explain this or tone down the hyperventilating marketing, I can hardly castigate those who were profoundly disappointed. 

[seraphymon]

Its called trying to sell their game. Thats where all the BS marketing comes in. and not just this but every major item from a major brand. Theres so much false or deceptive advertising nowadays.

Modifié par seraphymon, 06 octobre 2011 - 08:14 .

[Terror_K]

Ariella wrote...

My issue is that people seem to want to ascribe malice to EA and Bioware for rushing the game, but it never seems to cross the minds of the same people that it was possible they couldn't afford more time due to various reasons.

The rushed nature of the game paled in comparison to the fact they deliberately screwed with the formula to essentially sell out to the masses and stabbed a good portion of the existing fanbase directly in the back to do it. DA2 wasn't just a rush-job, it was a game intentionally developed to be a shallow, dumbed-down, console-driven action RPG and basically turned its back on the principles and foundations on which the original game was built. The Dragon Age IP was born out of BioWare supposedly getting back to their roots as a deep RPG for PC gamers and spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate. Then the sequel comes along and treads all over that, being none of those things and just ending up rebooted as another action-oriented console-driven affair for the masses. DA2 was pretty much anti-everything the original game stood for and was created for. It almost feels like a bait-and-switch: as if BioWare created the original game solely to perk the heads up of those born on Baldur's Gate and NWN and even earlier stuff so they'd get hooked, simply so they could pull the rugs out from under their feet with the sequel.

Again, everybody makes mistakes. Mistakes can be forgiven and understood. BioWare's intent when making DA2 was direct and malicious though and they knew what they were doing and wanted to do it. The only reason they admitted to its faults afterwards and apologised even slightly was because the gamble didn't pay off for them. They probably figured "it worked with ME2, so it'll probably work with DA2 as well!" The problem is, the original DA:O was a far richer, deeper and proper RPG than Mass Effect ever was, and the change was too sudden and jarring to pay off.

[seraphymon]

Terror_K wrote...

Ariella wrote...

My issue is that people seem to want to ascribe malice to EA and Bioware for rushing the game, but it never seems to cross the minds of the same people that it was possible they couldn't afford more time due to various reasons.

The rushed nature of the game paled in comparison to the fact they deliberately screwed with the formula to essentially sell out to the masses and stabbed a good portion of the existing fanbase directly in the back to do it. DA2 wasn't just a rush-job, it was a game intentionally developed to be a shallow, dumbed-down, console-driven action RPG and basically turned its back on the principles and foundations on which the original game was built. The Dragon Age IP was born out of BioWare supposedly getting back to their roots as a deep RPG for PC gamers and spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate. Then the sequel comes along and treads all over that, being none of those things and just ending up rebooted as another action-oriented console-driven affair for the masses. DA2 was pretty much anti-everything the original game stood for and was created for. It almost feels like a bait-and-switch: as if BioWare created the original game solely to perk the heads up of those born on Baldur's Gate and NWN and even earlier stuff so they'd get hooked, simply so they could pull the rugs out from under their feet with the sequel.

Again, everybody makes mistakes. Mistakes can be forgiven and understood. BioWare's intent when making DA2 was direct and malicious though and they knew what they were doing and wanted to do it. The only reason they admitted to its faults afterwards and apologised even slightly was because the gamble didn't pay off for them. They probably figured "it worked with ME2, so it'll probably work with DA2 as well!" The problem is, the original DA:O was a far richer, deeper and proper RPG than Mass Effect ever was, and the change was too sudden and jarring to pay off.

sadly amen.

[Ariella]

The Executioner wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Considering the game was originally pushed BACK from Feb (something else people are still griping over), I'm thinking that EA's motivation wasn't Evil Empire/let's make a quick buck, but fueled by other more legitimate factors.

Saying that they were planning on releasing it even earlier than what was already too early, doesn't make EA seem any better.

My point is that if it was just a need for cash they would have stuck to the original date and that would have been it. It's possible that there just wasn't any more time or money that EA could give. We tend to think of EA as the Evil Empire that has all this money, but they have bugetary commitments and constraints like everyone, and while I'm no economist, I have to imagine that the crappy economy has hit the luxury item market (like computer games and console games) hard. Which mean it could have been a case of giving the dev team what time they could till the bugdet ran out. My issue is that people seem to want to ascribe malice to EA and Bioware for rushing the game, but it never seems to cross the minds of the same people that it was possible they couldn't afford more time due to various reasons.

The recent Madden lawsuit/scandal is exhibit A your Honor. Just sayin.

I don't see where it's a scandal at all. The NFL licences has a copyright they protect. EA is a liencee, and most times that's exclusive. It is for clothing and other items, I don't see why it shouldn't be for games as well, and it was the NFL's decision to go exclusive with EA.

And I don't see where this has anything to do with my point in 2011.

[Ariella]

Terror_K wrote...

Ariella wrote...

My issue is that people seem to want to ascribe malice to EA and Bioware for rushing the game, but it never seems to cross the minds of the same people that it was possible they couldn't afford more time due to various reasons.

The rushed nature of the game paled in comparison to the fact they deliberately screwed with the formula to essentially sell out to the masses and stabbed a good portion of the existing fanbase directly in the back to do it. DA2 wasn't just a rush-job, it was a game intentionally developed to be a shallow, dumbed-down, console-driven action RPG and basically turned its back on the principles and foundations on which the original game was built. The Dragon Age IP was born out of BioWare supposedly getting back to their roots as a deep RPG for PC gamers and spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate. Then the sequel comes along and treads all over that, being none of those things and just ending up rebooted as another action-oriented console-driven affair for the masses. DA2 was pretty much anti-everything the original game stood for and was created for. It almost feels like a bait-and-switch: as if BioWare created the original game solely to perk the heads up of those born on Baldur's Gate and NWN and even earlier stuff so they'd get hooked, simply so they could pull the rugs out from under their feet with the sequel.

So the fact that Bioware used a different storytellin techique, didn't go with the usual fomula of save the world and to do so you need to collect something from 4 different major sites... Might I remind you that more than a few people complained about DAO as well. That it was generic and a rip off of LotR or Song of Ice and Fire or Wheel of Time. I'm sorry it felt like a bait and switch to you but they DID make it clear this was going to be a different style of storytelling and play than DAO.

Again, everybody makes mistakes. Mistakes can be forgiven and understood. BioWare's intent when making DA2 was direct and malicious though and they knew what they were doing and wanted to do it. The only reason they admitted to its faults afterwards and apologised even slightly was because the gamble didn't pay off for them. They probably figured "it worked with ME2, so it'll probably work with DA2 as well!" The problem is, the original DA:O was a far richer, deeper and proper RPG than Mass Effect ever was, and the change was too sudden and jarring to pay off.

Bull, it wasn't malicious in the least. Bioware wanted to try something new. Wanted to do a more personal story than avatar of (fill in the blank) group saves the world. I don't blame them for that in the least! There's abosultely no proof to your claim they did so in a malicious fashion.

And I'm not going to even address the console comment, because it's just rediculous at this stage of the game.

[Gotholhorakh]

Ariella wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Firky wrote...
Sure, it's hack and slash if that's how you want to play it.

It's hack and slash if that's not how you want to play it, too.

Not really. The story isn't combat dependant. As was pointed out elsewhere if you stripped the story and character interactions out of DA2, you wouldn't have very much at all, where as strip out the story of Diablo there's minimal change. The combat may be tactically simple by your lights, but ithat doesn't make the game hack and slash.

My immediate response to that is that the story doesn't affect whether the combat is hack and slash.

You could add a twelve-part biopic of Irenicus in click-through dialogue, it's not relevant to what type of combat gameplay a game uses.

Whether you liked the combat or not, I think there weren't really any fights in the base game that might require involved planning or tactical play beyond what you might do to win at one of the Street Fighter games, were there?

So yes, the story isn't combat dependent, but neither is the combat gameplay style dependent on the story.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 06 octobre 2011 - 01:23 .

[Ariella]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Firky wrote...
Sure, it's hack and slash if that's how you want to play it.

It's hack and slash if that's not how you want to play it, too.

Not really. The story isn't combat dependant. As was pointed out elsewhere if you stripped the story and character interactions out of DA2, you wouldn't have very much at all, where as strip out the story of Diablo there's minimal change. The combat may be tactically simple by your lights, but ithat doesn't make the game hack and slash.

My immediate response to that is that the story doesn't affect whether the combat is hack and slash.

You could add a twelve-part biopic of Irenicus in click-through dialogue, it's not relevant to what type of combat gameplay a game uses.

Whether you liked the combat or not, I think there weren't really any fights in the base game that might require involved planning or tactical play beyond what you might do to win at one of the Street Fighter games, were there?

So yes, the story isn't combat dependent, but neither is the combat gameplay style dependent on the story.

We've had this conversation before... Hack and slash is a very specific term in RPGs. it means the RPG is combat focused, not story focused.

I pointed out then that there are games that specifically designate themselves hack and slash. D&D Daggerdale was advertised that way, including on Xbox Live.

Just for an FYI: http://en.wikipedia..../Hack_and_Slash

Interestingly they list Demon's Soul as Hack and Slash....

Modifié par Ariella, 06 octobre 2011 - 02:01 .

[ElitePinecone]

Ariella wrote...

Bull, it wasn't malicious in the least. Bioware wanted to try something new. Wanted to do a more personal story than avatar of (fill in the blank) group saves the world. I don't blame them for that in the least! There's abosultely no proof to your claim they did so in a malicious fashion.

Agree that it wasn't malicious - but whatever it was, it arguably backfired. It was bold, brave, innovative, and definitely didn't resonate as well as they'd hoped. 

Fans collectively are probably at best fickle and at worst schizophrenic. Yes, some people complained about the formulaic plot structure of the first game (I, for one, actually liked having an antagonist in DAO who wasn't insane through deus ex machina or magical idols, but maybe that's just me), they probably would've appreciated a more personal story if it had been polished better. But many, many more are bewildered and disappointed by some of DA2's mechanics and a general drop in quality, and for better or worse practically everything that was changed in the sequel gets dragged down in its wake. 

If it had been done well, Hawke's story could've been magnificent - an intensely personal tale about one person changing the world of Thedas. Except that it wasn't done well. Inexplicable time jumps, narrative railroading, the absence of anything to motivate the protagonist beyond money or circumstance, and the game constantly telling us we're powerful when we have no influence - within Kirkwall or on the broader plot. Whatever Bioware were trying to do with the main plot of DA2 just didn't work. The characterisation and minor quests were excellent, though - as they've been in practically every Bioware game I can think of.  

I don't blame the team for wanting to do something different and exciting - two Archdemons stapled together and another mystical order of heroes probably wouldn't have been very innovative - but frankly I would've preferred a game with Bioware's traditional narrative any day. 

At least we'd get more environments (those four 'places to visit in a Bioware game' are all, at least, not Kirkwall), an antagonist and a reason for the hero to actually do anything. Trying to innovate shouldn't be discouraged, and it's certainly not malevolent, but I have to wonder what on earth the developers were thinking. 

[Kidd]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

My immediate response to that is that the story doesn't affect whether the combat is hack and slash.

The combat is more or less the same though, only spell combos were changed for CCCs (imho a better concept in every way, shape and form since it promotes different classes working together instead of mage+mage+mage+rogue) and the auto attack animations + walk speed was sped up. 

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Whether you liked the combat or not, I think there weren't really any fights in the base game that might require involved planning or tactical play beyond what you might do to win at one of the Street Fighter games, were there?

Err, Street Fighter requires a crap ton of thinking and planning. You constantly have to weigh all your options against the opponent's options, while keeping in mind the fact that your opponent can think through your options as well. Cause if the main difficulty was in pulling off combos then I would've won worldwide championships 10 times already ^^;

[dragonfire100]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Firky wrote...
Sure, it's hack and slash if that's how you want to play it.

It's hack and slash if that's not how you want to play it, too.

Not really. The story isn't combat dependant. As was pointed out elsewhere if you stripped the story and character interactions out of DA2, you wouldn't have very much at all, where as strip out the story of Diablo there's minimal change. The combat may be tactically simple by your lights, but ithat doesn't make the game hack and slash.

My immediate response to that is that the story doesn't affect whether the combat is hack and slash.

You could add a twelve-part biopic of Irenicus in click-through dialogue, it's not relevant to what type of combat gameplay a game uses.

Whether you liked the combat or not, I think there weren't really any fights in the base game that might require involved planning or tactical play beyond what you might do to win at one of the Street Fighter games, were there?

So yes, the story isn't combat dependent, but neither is the combat gameplay style dependent on the story.

Hvae you not played nightmare mode? because it has thinking and planning on DA2 lets say you fight a high dragon with enemies spawning you have to think on which one to go after.

[Ariella]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Bull, it wasn't malicious in the least. Bioware wanted to try something new. Wanted to do a more personal story than avatar of (fill in the blank) group saves the world. I don't blame them for that in the least! There's abosultely no proof to your claim they did so in a malicious fashion.

Agree that it wasn't malicious - but whatever it was, it arguably backfired. It was bold, brave, innovative, and definitely didn't resonate as well as they'd hoped. 

Fans collectively are probably at best fickle and at worst schizophrenic. Yes, some people complained about the formulaic plot structure of the first game (I, for one, actually liked having an antagonist in DAO who wasn't insane through deus ex machina or magical idols, but maybe that's just me), they probably would've appreciated a more personal story if it had been polished better. But many, many more are bewildered and disappointed by some of DA2's mechanics and a general drop in quality, and for better or worse practically everything that was changed in the sequel gets dragged down in its wake. 

Thing is, I don't see Meredith as the antagonist of DA2 any more than I see the Archedemon as the antagonist of DAO. They might have been the last "boss fights" but both were just catalysts for the true problems the hero had to overcome (Mage vs. templar in DA2 and Loghain's opposition at every turn in DAO). I do believe some story telling aspects of DA2 could have been tightened up, but I think that of DAO as well.

And I can understand why some people would be disappointed, but we're all supposed to be adults, and the fact of the matter is that a lot of that disappointment was and is subjective and that weighted down the game as much as any flaws on the part of the designers.

If it had been done well, Hawke's story could've been magnificent - an intensely personal tale about one person changing the world of Thedas. Except that it wasn't done well. Inexplicable time jumps, narrative railroading, the absence of anything to motivate the protagonist beyond money or circumstance, and the game constantly telling us we're powerful when we have no influence - within Kirkwall or on the broader plot. Whatever Bioware were trying to do with the main plot of DA2 just didn't work. The characterisation and minor quests were excellent, though - as they've been in practically every Bioware game I can think of.  

Again, I found it worked fine. This was about a person who was swept up in events without ever intenting to be. Circumstance is exactly why the character is designed the way he/she is. And I'd add the motivation of trying to protect his/her family, which is more obvious in some choices than in others (choosing the Greywardens for example).  As for the time jumps, they made sense to me since we're dealing with a specific form of narritive where that happens. And yes, there could have been a little bit more show and less tell, there were consequences. And sometimes it was important that the character BE powerless (all that remains comes to mind), because it demonstrates someof the issues in Kirkwall that can't always be fixed by just one person.

I don't blame the team for wanting to do something different and exciting - two Archdemons stapled together and another mystical order of heroes probably wouldn't have been very innovative - but frankly I would've preferred a game with Bioware's traditional narrative any day. 

At least we'd get more environments (those four 'places to visit in a Bioware game' are all, at least, not Kirkwall), an antagonist and a reason for the hero to actually do anything. Trying to innovate shouldn't be discouraged, and it's certainly not malevolent, but I have to wonder what on earth the developers were thinking. 

I think, if you watch the making of vids and read the commentary before release, you'll get a good idea of what they were thinking. I just believe that they thought they could do it all in the time and with the budget that they had. I honestly believe the economy has a lot to do with what happened. That the buying power of their budget was less than they expected and that their eyes were bigger than their stomachs when it came to time alotment.

But again I also believe that a lot of the fan base built up expectations that were unrealistic considering what we were told from the beginning. And the reactions of certain segments were unwarranted and cruel. It's one thing to say one disliked the game and then give reasons as to why. It's another to jump to accusations of malice and greed and insult the developers on a personal level. It was the toxicity of the attitude which did as much harm to DA2 as anything on the Developer's side.

[Terror_K]

Ariella wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

The rushed nature of the game paled in comparison to the fact they deliberately screwed with the formula to essentially sell out to the masses and stabbed a good portion of the existing fanbase directly in the back to do it. DA2 wasn't just a rush-job, it was a game intentionally developed to be a shallow, dumbed-down, console-driven action RPG and basically turned its back on the principles and foundations on which the original game was built. The Dragon Age IP was born out of BioWare supposedly getting back to their roots as a deep RPG for PC gamers and spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate. Then the sequel comes along and treads all over that, being none of those things and just ending up rebooted as another action-oriented console-driven affair for the masses. DA2 was pretty much anti-everything the original game stood for and was created for. It almost feels like a bait-and-switch: as if BioWare created the original game solely to perk the heads up of those born on Baldur's Gate and NWN and even earlier stuff so they'd get hooked, simply so they could pull the rugs out from under their feet with the sequel.

So the fact that Bioware used a different storytellin techique, didn't go with the usual fomula of save the world and to do so you need to collect something from 4 different major sites... Might I remind you that more than a few people complained about DAO as well. That it was generic and a rip off of LotR or Song of Ice and Fire or Wheel of Time. I'm sorry it felt like a bait and switch to you but they DID make it clear this was going to be a different style of storytelling and play than DAO.

When did I ever mention the "different storytelling technique" of DA2 at all in what I said. While I did have problems with the story (not due to technique so much as execution), my overall problems come down to shifts in gameplay and the style as a whole. About the only thing that relates to what you're talking about that I hated about DA2 beyond the exeuction of the story was the forced voiced protagonist and the artistic redesign that came about more because of non-fans who felt that way than for the fans who actually loved Dragon Age and had no issues with the way it looked and felt artistically.

Which stems from an overall problem the game seemed to have: that it was developed more to bring in new fans and fix non-issues that put people off the original game rather than appeal to people who already loved the series, who seemed to get shafted. Which again comes down to pandering to the masses for the sake of $$$ rather than just making a good game that's consistent with its predecessor and appeals to the fanbase.

Also, if they were so damn short on time to make the game good, why did they put so much effort and time into something so purely cosmetic as a complete artistic change? You can't say, "waah! We didn't have enough time!" when you're wasting it on things like that that aren't needed (especially when it's such a terrible redesign on top of it all).
 

Bull, it wasn't malicious in the least. Bioware wanted to try something new. Wanted to do a more personal story than avatar of (fill in the blank) group saves the world. I don't blame them for that in the least! There's abosultely no proof to your claim they did so in a malicious fashion.

And I'm not going to even address the console comment, because it's just rediculous at this stage of the game.

Again, I'm not talking about story. But there's enough proof in
comments from Laidlaw and co. before launch of the overall dumbing down and pandering of Dragon Age 2 to the mainstream, not to mention comments that almost seem like they want to wash their hands of the original game. There were comments along the lines of, "well, we've done the classic RPG with Origins, so we can move away from that now" fairly early on for one. As for the console comment, you may say it's ridiculous, but I remember Laidlaw saying to CVG directly how they were basically shafting the PC now and that DA2 is a more console-driven game simply because the original game ended up selling more on the consoles.

If you can't see how they deliberately sidetracked Dragon Age from what it originally was intended to be to pander to the masses then you're blind. It's not exactly subtle. Seriously... just go and read a bunch of interviews prior to launch, and even some of Laidlaw's interviews shortly afterwards.

[Ariella]

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

[quote]Ariella wrote...

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

The rushed nature of the game paled in comparison to the fact they deliberately screwed with the formula to essentially sell out to the masses and stabbed a good portion of the existing fanbase directly in the back to do it. DA2 wasn't just a rush-job, it was a game intentionally developed to be a shallow, dumbed-down, console-driven action RPG and basically turned its back on the principles and foundations on which the original game was built. The Dragon Age IP was born out of BioWare supposedly getting back to their roots as a deep RPG for PC gamers and spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate. Then the sequel comes along and treads all over that, being none of those things and just ending up rebooted as another action-oriented console-driven affair for the masses. DA2 was pretty much anti-everything the original game stood for and was created for. It almost feels like a bait-and-switch: as if BioWare created the original game solely to perk the heads up of those born on Baldur's Gate and NWN and even earlier stuff so they'd get hooked, simply so they could pull the rugs out from under their feet with the sequel.
[/quote]

So the fact that Bioware used a different storytellin techique, didn't go with the usual fomula of save the world and to do so you need to collect something from 4 different major sites... Might I remind you that more than a few people complained about DAO as well. That it was generic and a rip off of LotR or Song of Ice and Fire or Wheel of Time. I'm sorry it felt like a bait and switch to you but they DID make it clear this was going to be a different style of storytelling and play than DAO.[/quote]

When did I ever mention the "different storytelling technique" of DA2 at all in what I said. While I did have problems with the story (not due to technique so much as execution), my overall problems come down to shifts in gameplay and the style as a whole. About the only thing that relates to what you're talking about that I hated about DA2 beyond the exeuction of the story was the forced voiced protagonist and the artistic redesign that came about more because of non-fans who felt that way than for the fans who actually loved Dragon Age and had no issues with the way it looked and felt artistically.
[/quote]

When you say "screwed with the formula" what comes to mind is the rather drastic difference in storytelling styles, if that wasn't what you were talking about, I apologize for the assumption.

The artistic redesign didn't just come due to non-fans, there were a lot of fans on the boards saying the same thing: story, art etc were all generic. Assuming they were all "non-fans" is unfair and unrealistic.

[quote]


Which stems from an overall problem the game seemed to have: that it was developed more to bring in new fans and fix non-issues that put people off the original game rather than appeal to people who already loved the series, who seemed to get shafted. Which again comes down to pandering to the masses for the sake of $$$ rather than just making a good game that's consistent with its predecessor and appeals to the fanbase.
[/quote]

Any product is going to try and attract new consumers, that the way of the world. And I would like to point out, I'm part of that fan base, and I had no major problem with DA2, neither did a lot of other fans so generalizing that Da2 didn't appeal to the fanbase as a whole is untrue. It didn't appeal to you, and many others, but that's not the fanbase as a whole. As for pandering to the masses... I'd like to see how they were really doing that. DA is a niche RPG, and while the changes might attract some new people, it's not going to have the same audience as HALO or COD. I know that Ray has said he'd like to see those numbers for a Bioware game some day, but what executive wouldn't want to see those kind of numbers from a product his company produces. First and formost the team told the story they wanted to tell, and built a structure to support it. That it didn't appeal to everybody is fine, that's going to happen, but a portion of those people, rather than express their disappointment in an adult fashion went on like my four year old when she's deprived of something, but for much longer. And some of the people in that portion of disappointed fans insulted both their fellow fans who liked the game (complaints about 'consolization', claiming that the only people who could like DA2 had little intellegence etc) and the developers and were very toxic about it.

None of us know exactly what happened, but if EA really wanted to push out a game that was going to be a money maker, without thought for bugs etc, don't you think they would have put DA2 out in December? And as pointed out before, the game was pushed back another month, why would EA do that if they all they wanted was the money?

[quote]

Also, if they were so damn short on time to make the game good, why did they put so much effort and time into something so purely cosmetic as a complete artistic change? You can't say, "waah! We didn't have enough time!" when you're wasting it on things like that that aren't needed (especially when it's such a terrible redesign on top of it all).
 [/quote]

That it's a terrible redesign is subjective. I don't mind it at all, and there are some things in the new art design I love: armor for example. I also like the new genlocks, and the fact that the elves now match the descriptions DG gave in both the novels rather than skinny humans with pointy ears. Opinion on the redesign is just that, just as opinion on the genericness of DAO was subjective, but Bioware got enough feedback both from critical sources and from the fans that made them take another look at the art design.


[quote]

Bull, it wasn't malicious in the least. Bioware wanted to try something new. Wanted to do a more personal story than avatar of (fill in the blank) group saves the world. I don't blame them for that in the least! There's abosultely no proof to your claim they did so in a malicious fashion.

And I'm not going to even address the console comment, because it's just rediculous at this stage of the game.
[/quote]

Again, I'm not talking about story. But there's enough proof in
comments from Laidlaw and co. before launch of the overall dumbing down and pandering of Dragon Age 2 to the mainstream, not to mention comments that almost seem like they want to wash their hands of the original game. There were comments along the lines of, "well, we've done the classic RPG with Origins, so we can move away from that now" fairly early on for one. As for the console comment, you may say it's ridiculous, but I remember Laidlaw saying to CVG directly how they were basically shafting the PC now and that DA2 is a more console-driven game simply because the original game ended up selling more on the consoles.
[/quote]

It's easy to paraphrase a quote into anything you want it to mean, give the source or don't use it, though I think I know where this one came from, and he was talking about the classic "save the world" storyline, nothing else. It was not a reference to anything else. And the CVG comment: give me a link. Show me exactly what he said in context in a primary source, because I'm betting that's not what he said, but what a lot of people (those who don't like console games) heard because they were predesposed to hearing it.

[quote]

If you can't see how they deliberately sidetracked Dragon Age from what it originally was intended to be to pander to the masses then you're blind. It's not exactly subtle. Seriously... just go and read a bunch of interviews prior to launch, and even some of Laidlaw's interviews shortly afterwards.
[/quote]

I've read them, both before and after, and I saw no attempt to pander to the masses. I saw a game designer excited about doing something new. I read every scrap of news I could get my hands on for DA2, because I wanted to know everything, including spoilers. So no, I wasn't blind to anything, it wasn't there in the first place.

[Sinuphro]

Dubya75 wrote...

Ramus Quaritch wrote...

According to this interview.

So...  Dragon Age 2 being rushed?...

Yeah, I'm just wondering what you are hoping to achieve with this...still bitter about DA2? Isn't it time to move on already?
It is discussions like this that gave DA2 a bad name since day 1, even though in it's own right it is a pretty awesome game (says the guy who's currently on his 7th playthrough and still enjoying it as much as ever).

ur point for moving on would had been considered if bioware has truly seen the error of their ways and show proof that they have changed for the better. unfortunately, da2 legacy still had the same problems da2 has. what were the problems?? well...:

1. No true freedom of choice

2. Inconsistences in the story. Lets see...corypheus can manipulate the taint in grey wardens only. How is it that later on in the story corypheus can manipulate the mind of everyone in kirkwall?? if thats the case, how the heck did he get sealed in the 1st place if supposedly he could control the mind of mages and grey wardens??

3. Exploration limited.

4. Most important of all; bioware knew ppl were upset with the cliffhanger ending of da2. Shouldn't they be making sensible dlc to round up that issue?? the fact that this problem still exists and we have not been given any news about it being fixed in future dlcs is a very very negative indicator for DA3. I for one will be renting it 1st before I decide whether or not to buy it; definitely not preording it.

[Korusus]

Ariella wrote...

My point is that if it was just a need for cash they would have stuck to the original date and that would have been it. It's possible that there just wasn't any more time or money that EA could give. We tend to think of EA as the Evil Empire that has all this money, but they have bugetary commitments and constraints like everyone, and while I'm no economist, I have to imagine that the crappy economy has hit the luxury item market (like computer games and console games) hard. Which mean it could have been a case of giving the dev team what time they could till the bugdet ran out. My issue is that people seem to want to ascribe malice to EA and Bioware for rushing the game, but it never seems to cross the minds of the same people that it was possible they couldn't afford more time due to various reasons.

I don't believe it had anything to do with budgets or running out of money or EA forcing an early release date or anything like that.   BioWare planned the game as a quickie from the very beginning (probably as a reaction to DA:O taking, what like 7 or 8,000 years to develop).  Our motto should be "Remember the recycled environments!" (lest we forget that BioWare decided on recycled environments on purpose, they were surprised at the reaction remember) so that this never happens again.  Someone, somewhere at some point at BioWare raised their hand in a brainstorming meeting and said "Let's do Recycled Environments!" and the people who should have known better said "That's an awesome idea!!"

[Il Divo]

Ariella wrote...

I've read them, both before and after, and I saw no attempt to pander to the masses. I saw a game designer excited about doing something new. I read every scrap of news I could get my hands on for DA2, because I wanted to know everything, including spoilers. So no, I wasn't blind to anything, it wasn't there in the first place.

I'm still reeling from the "pander to the masses" arguments. Do some people here honestly see themselves as being something special because they managed to play through a 50+ hour video game? There is nothing so difficult contained in Origins that the majority of gamers couldn't comprehend.

Modifié par Il Divo, 07 octobre 2011 - 03:40 .