384 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

Addai67 wrote...

Another example is recruiting the Tal Vashoth to help you shank his former crew. Only aggroHawke can recruit him, for the others he refuses.  It just looks like any other dialogue option.

I think i actually selected that one with my trollHawke. And yeah, he refused and it never occured to me that could've done differently, because iirc not even the game manual mentions a word these buttons are anything more than "choose the door number 1, 2 or 3".

sigh, BioWare.

[tmp7704]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Um... what? 

In DAO, they didn't tell you what coercion actually did. I just knew it "helped" persuade or intimidate.

Yes. which was enough imo -- you were given notification that persuasion (or another attribute) was associated with a dialogue option, so getting a failure after selecting that option meant the relevant attribute wasn't raised high enough. 

In contrast, this DA2 alternative gives you no indication whatsoever. The only way to find it out would be to play through this part again with different dominant personality, which --given the way dominant personality system is set-- would be rather time consuming.

I didn't see it as necessarily a good or bad thing, really. I made role-playing choices, and I was pleasantly surprised by the effect my Hawke's personality had.

My objection here is based mainly on the fact i appreciate knowing the game allows more than single outcome for a made choice. When this is hidden, i remain unaware such situations exist and the game appears more limited -- in contrast when making my rp choices i wasn't 'pleasantly surprised by effects of Hawke's personality' because there was no indication that there were any such effects of Hawke's personality at all, and the only way for me to find out about them would be to play the game multiple times or read external sources (which is something i don't do)

[tmp7704]

Morroian wrote...

And a coercion skill as in DAO is an I win button.

If it's maxed out, yes. If it's not you will pass some situations and fail ones which set the bar too high for your character's skills.

Personally i find the win buttons boring, which is why i had much more fun with character with low level of coercion. A setup like that made each coercion check a gamble -- it was entertaining when i'd occasionally win, but i didn't mind when the check would fail. The entertainment was in being aware i was gambling in the first place.

Modifié par tmp7704, 12 octobre 2011 - 08:18 .

[Blastback]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

That... ugh, that sounds dumb. Srsly, the last thing i want from the game is to be completely opaque about presenting actual fork in a story, giving me no clue that "hey, maybe if your character had different personality, things would went different here". At least in DAO you could see in advance that character's attribute was going to be used to determine the outcome, and if the check failed you knew why.  :|

Um... what? 

In DAO, they didn't tell you what coercion actually did. I just knew it "helped" persuade or intimidate. The systems in DAO were very opaque; most of them were only explained via wiki and external sources (such as poking through the toolset). I found stats like 'armor penetration' and 'death blow' on my weapons, but hadn't any idea what they did because the game never told me. I had to look them up to figure out what they did or how they worked, and I found that extremely annoying because I didn't know that bows used both strength and dexterity to determine damage for the longest time.

I didn't see it as necessarily a good or bad thing, really. I made role-playing choices, and I was pleasantly surprised by the effect my Hawke's personality had. I wish they were a little more transparent about the personality's effects, but I wish DAO was a lot more transparent about their gameplay mechanics too.

Makes me miss the old novel length game manuels...

[Joy Divison]

Persephone wrote...

Jow Divison wote...
It's ok to like or prefer DA2 to DA:O.  However, that does not mean DA2 has the same level of complexity or wasn't simplfied.

Depends on your definition of the word complexity. DAO's plot is as complex as a Philippa Gregory novel to my eyes. (And I do enjoy DAO. But complex? PULEAAAAZE!)

I didn't say DA:O's plot was complex.  I said the game DA:2 was less complex than DA:O. And it isn't dependent on how complexity is defined.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 12 octobre 2011 - 08:36 .

[Persephone]

Joy Divison wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Jow Divison wote...
It's ok to like or prefer DA2 to DA:O.  However, that does not mean DA2 has the same level of complexity or wasn't simplfied.

Depends on your definition of the word complexity. DAO's plot is as complex as a Philippa Gregory novel to my eyes. (And I do enjoy DAO. But complex? PULEAAAAZE!)

I didn't say DA:O's plot was complex.  I said the game DA:2 was less complex than DA:O. And it isn't dependent on how complexity is defined.

It is. As I completely disagree and will stand by that viewpoint.

[hoorayforicecream]

tmp7704 wrote...

I didn't see it as necessarily a good or bad thing, really. I made role-playing choices, and I was pleasantly surprised by the effect my Hawke's personality had.

My objection here is based mainly on the fact i appreciate knowing the game allows more than single outcome for a made choice. When this is hidden, i remain unaware such situations exist and the game appears more limited -- in contrast when making my rp choices i wasn't 'pleasantly surprised by effects of Hawke's personality' because there was no indication that there were any such effects of Hawke's personality at all, and the only way for me to find out about them would be to play the game multiple times or read external sources (which is something i don't do)

Are you complaining that the system sucks overall, or that DAO was better? I think DAO was just as bad with this (like not telling me what Berserk actually does, and why it is the bomb diggity with dual wield), if not worse about it. I found DA2 to be somewhat *more* transparent most of the time. I agree that it would be nice to see more transparency, though.

[billy the squid]

tmp7704 wrote...

Morroian wrote...

And a coercion skill as in DAO is an I win button.

If it's maxed out, yes. If it's not you will pass some situations and fail ones which set the bar too high for your character's skills.

Personally i find the win buttons boring, which is why i had much more fun with character with low level of coercion. A setup like that made each coercion check a gamble -- it was entertaining when i'd occasionally win, but i didn't mind when the check would fail. The entertainment was in being aware i was gambling in the first place.

I think that stems partially from DAO's bloated attribute system, there seemd to be so many points which were able to be allocated, putting a few into cunning really didn't take that much out of the others and one could still create a character with an increadibly high strength and dexterity score.

[Anomaly-]

Wozearly wrote...
IMO, where it becomes 'dumbing down' is where the player is immunised from the consequences of their decisions - particularly negative ones.

Yes, that is a useful distinction. However, I think most of my points still stand in that regard. Another example is a certain quest on a certain expedition. If you take a certain companion with you, despite being advised against it, something bad happens. When this first happened to me, I really enjoyed the fact that my choice mattered -- I made a bad one, and I paid for it. So I reloaded a previous save, went through the process again making different choices, and in the end the same thing essentially happened, with different pretenses.

Narrowing choices down, or making your choices not matter altogether is akin to immunising you from the consequences of said choices.

Adding dialogue icons simplifies the previous complexity of trying to psychically predict what your character would say in full, particularly the tone, and how this might impact the other character.

Wait, what previous complexity? In DA:O, you knew exactly what your character would say in full, you just didn't know what effect it would have. That's how real conversation works. In DA2, the effect is given to you, but it seems like they tried to still surprise you by saying something different from what you thought you would say. Imo, the mechanic is backwards and only served to make things awkward.

Making it so that it doesn't really matter what you say, it just adds flavour and doesn't have further consequences, would be dumbing down.

When it comes to the story, this is essentially the case. In companion interactions, it's true that it matters what you say. Unfortunately, in most cases, how it matters is already given to you. Imo, having fewer dialogue choices is simplification, while telling you the effects of those choices before you choose them is dumbing down.

The first gives you fewer things to think about, while the latter makes it so you don't have to think about it at all.

Equally, making item sets more clearly useful and/or bound to certain careers is simplification, since this already existed to a fair extent within Origins. Making it so that its an absolute no-brainer which armour to pick, or removing choice entirely to negate the need for player input (companion armour took a step in that direction) is dumbing down.

I'm not against item sets being useful, but they're all the same in terms of their stats. It is an absolute no-brainer which equipment to pick, because depending on your class, pretty much everything adds bonuses to the same 2-4 stats. You don't have to choose between these stats or those stats, they're the same, so you just go with the higher numbers.

In this case, I think having fewer equipment choices to choose from would be simplification, while making those choices all the same by giving you one clear choice (going back to what you said earlier about immunising you to consequences) is dumbing down.

Persephone wrote...
It is. As I completely disagree and will stand by that viewpoint.

Even after all the examples, and acknowledgement from Bioware themselves that they tried to make it more accessible, you still won't allow that DA2 is simplified in relation to DA:O?

Modifié par Anomaly-, 12 octobre 2011 - 10:21 .

[tmp7704]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Are you complaining that the system sucks overall, or that DAO was better? I think DAO was just as bad with this (like not telling me what Berserk actually does, and why it is the bomb diggity with dual wield), if not worse about it. I found DA2 to be somewhat *more* transparent most of the time. I agree that it would be nice to see more transparency, though.

Both, but this is specifically concerning the mechanics of skill/attribute-dependent checks in the dialogue and existence of forks in there, not about some overall game-wide level of transparency (or lack thereof)  Descriptions of abilities and such were very limited in DAO, no argument about it, but that's to me entirely different kettle of fish because it's not related to dialogue and/or plot forks (which i thought were the subject)

[element eater]

i think the personality system in da2 would be better if you always had access to the various persuades, intimidates and what not regardless of personality type. Rather than being an automatic win situation depending on dominant tone there success would be based on the amount you use that personality and the difficulty of the situation.

[aftohsix]

Still playing it and loving it. Just an FYI people... the game did come out a pretty good amount of time ago at this point. Are we still really creating these threads? Really? We haven't moved on yet?

They put co-op in Mass Effect. Hop on over to those forums and vent your pent up frustration or something...

Modifié par aftohsix, 13 octobre 2011 - 01:40 .

[Anomaly-]

aftohsix wrote...

Still playing it and loving it. Just an FYI people... the game did come out a pretty good amount of time ago at this point. Are we still really creating these threads? Really? We haven't moved on yet?

There isn't much else to talk about until we have a new game. Besides, some of the discussion is still quite interesting. Of course, if you're not interested in the discussion, you don't have to read it. I wouldn't recommend commenting if you haven't actually read it, though.

They put co-op in Mass Effect. Hop on over to those forums and vent your pent up frustration or something...

Not as interested in Mass Effect. That's probably why I'm on the Dragon Age forums.

Modifié par Anomaly-, 13 octobre 2011 - 01:49 .

[aftohsix]

I'm not interested in the discussion because it's been a cyclical discussion going on since March. I've been away from the forums for a few months and I'm just surprised that there are still people creating threads which focus on the subject "Dragon Age 2 wasn't a good game."

This horse has been beaten more terribly than any horse in the history of horses.

[Anomaly-]

aftohsix wrote...

I'm not interested in the discussion because it's been a cyclical discussion going on since March. I've been away from the forums for a few months and I'm just surprised that there are still people creating threads which focus on the subject "Dragon Age 2 wasn't a good game."

True, a lot of it has been repeated. You shouldn't be surprised though, as new people come to the forums and speak their minds on many of the same things the people before them have. People like myself continue to chime in here and there, because as I said, there isn't much else to talk about until we get a new game. Occasionally, someone even makes a new point.

If you're not interested in the discussion, you can simply avoid it.

Modifié par Anomaly-, 13 octobre 2011 - 02:38 .

[WhiteKnyght]

What's mediocre about DAII is the idiots playing it.

Closed minded fools who are afraid of change and creativity.

You say you don't like the game, but you keep playing it, now don't you? You keep coming here. You keep coming for more.

You all are just being nitpicky and pissy.

[KilrB]

aftohsix wrote...

I'm not interested in the discussion because it's been a cyclical discussion going on since March. I've been away from the forums for a few months and I'm just surprised that there are still people creating threads which focus on the subject "Dragon Age 2 wasn't a good game."

This horse has been beaten more terribly than any horse in the history of horses.

Just as it deserves.

"Mediocre" is giving it more credit than it deserves.

Had it been the first game in a brand new IP it would have rated less than mediocre.

As the sequel to Origins it rates just above "Utter Crap".

It will continue to be beaten long after we have finished complaining about The Witcher2, Deus EX:HR, Skyrim, Rage, and probably a half-dozen other games that haven't even been released yet.

This shall be it's enduring claim to fame.

Not that it was "innovative" or whatever else EA/Bioware try to convince us it is ...

[Lux]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

What's mediocre about DAII is the silly people playing it.

Closed minded people who are afraid of change and creativity.

You say you don't like the game, but you keep playing it, now don't you? You keep coming here. You keep coming for more.

You all are just being nitpicky.

Whatever happened with having a civil discussion?

Should I now reply with: "DA2 was guano, the lead designer is evil, the devs were sleeping during the whole process, they only want money, I now hate
BioWare for all time because of one inferior game (and until my temper
tantrum lasts). Everyone who liked the game is silly people and I
continue to post just because of utter spite."

I regret to say that I'm
not here because of that.

I'm a "silly person" who didn't like the lack of polish and half-baked innovation in DA2. I would very much like for BioWare to grow in quality instead of going the opposite way with short deadlines that are not possible to accomplish properly with the current limitations in videogame making, especially with RPGs.

I also don't think that the development team can be that much inspired with a constant state of crunch time throughout a short cycle and stingied resources. I've been playing enough videogames and experienced enough about the industry to have noticed a negative trend with DA2; I don't want one of my favorite studios to have their creativity and inspiration suffocated by strict corporate rationale of profit over art.

I'll continue to support and engage in this type of discussion until something awesome does happen, and I'm not just talking about a proverbial button.

Cheers.

[Joy Divison]

Persephone wrote...

It is. As I completely disagree and will stand by that viewpoint.

OK.  Just tell me, who is a more complex, sophisticated, and intriguing character as they play out in these two games: Loghain or Merideth?

[CuriousArtemis]

I don't think either DA:O or DA2 was better. I enjoyed them both, but probably DA2 a bit more. Keep in mind I played DA2 first, and liked it so much that I went out and bought DA:O.

Personally, DA2 wins out for me because Hawke has a discernible personality whereas the Warden doesn't, not really (guy/girl doesn't even speak).

And I also tend to prefer political fantasy to high sword-and-sorcery type fantasy. Both are great, but I prefer the first; hence, I like DA2's storyline better.

All the characters are equally well-written and fleshed out in my opinion. I would say DA2 characters feel more like real people (they're neither 100% morally right or wrong; they're so human and hence lovable) whereas DA:O people are slightly more "epic" in their personalities.

[BeefoTheBold]

Anomaly- wrote...

aftohsix wrote...

I'm not interested in the discussion because it's been a cyclical discussion going on since March. I've been away from the forums for a few months and I'm just surprised that there are still people creating threads which focus on the subject "Dragon Age 2 wasn't a good game."

True, a lot of it has been repeated. You shouldn't be surprised though, as new people come to the forums and speak their minds on many of the same things the people before them have. People like myself continue to chime in here and there, because as I said, there isn't much else to talk about until we get a new game. Occasionally, someone even makes a new point.

If you're not interested in the discussion, you can simply avoid it.

When you come back to thread tomorrow (assuming you're asleep) I just wanted to leave a message that I just finished reading this thread for the first time and I loved the conversation back and forth between you and a couple of others. Thanks for providing it.

[Gunderic]

Persephone wrote...

Gunderic wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Gileadan wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...
So DA2 without mods is simplified then?

DA2 scrapped all this for a simpler dialogue system where your character's attributes and skills no longer mattered, and an icon told you whether you were being nice, snarky, mean or flirty. I'd call that simplified alright.

and skill dots allowing me to "persuade" characters into 180% personality flips. But that's just me.

... that's how RPG's always worked...

The ENTIRE Might and Magic series begs to differ. But true, these classics aren't "true" RPGs, I suppose. :innocent:

Pen & Paper RPG's beg to differ. Conversation skills were ALWAYS a part of roleplaying games.

[Anomaly-]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
I always preferred my games to be more fun, and not more complex. Solving fourier transforms is also more complex than DA2, but I don't think I'd play a game dedicated to doing so.

Somehow I missed this.

Anyway, taking an example to an extreme to prove that the premise behind it is bad is a fallacy, and doesn't make for a very strong argument. I could just as easily say doing my laundry is also more simple than DA:O, but I don't think I'd play a game dedicated to doing so.

Whether people use the word complex, or depth, or whatever else is beside the point. Obviously, what we're all trying to say is that more complexity/depth/whatever would make the game more fun for us, because we simply didn't find DA2 to be as intellectually stimulating as we'd like.

BeefoTheBold wrote...
When you come back to thread tomorrow (assuming you're asleep) I just wanted to leave a message that I just finished reading this thread for the first time and I loved the conversation back and forth between you and a couple of others. Thanks for providing it.

Awesome. Thanks for reading it, and I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Modifié par Anomaly-, 13 octobre 2011 - 10:07 .

[CHawk15]

This horse has been dead and the bones are showing, the problems boil down to 3 words "shortened development cycle".  Any problem with the story, gameplay or look come down to the fact that the game wasn't finished.  You can nitpick it all you want, but that's the answer to why DA2 is perceived as mediocre.  I thought the first 2 acts were actually very well done, except for the repetitive dungeons.  Act 3 is where the lack of polish was most obvious to me, I think that the final sequence of the game didn't really make sense and probably should've been done a little different.   

[Ryzaki]

Il Divo wrote...

Gunderic wrote...

MorrigansLove wrote...

Well obviously Mike Laidlaw should stick to writing then!

I rest my case.

I hope not. I couldn't finish Jade Empire. Would've played on strictly for the story, if it was a good one. I kept hoping to get hooked, but man, this is one of the most cliched BioWare stories I've ever witnessed, and in an Asian-themed setting.

/critique off 

Jade Empire's story was cliched? Compared to.. what Bioware games, exactly? KotOR, Mass Effect, and Origins were the very definition of cliches.

Okay as a JE fangirl I found JE's story 9000x better than DA2's. Like seriously.