144 réponses à ce sujet

[Vlad_Dracul]

People are a little repetitive. Recycling, waves of enemies, graphic, Navi elves etc.
So tell me, what you PERSONALLY hate on DA2. Perhaps there will be a consensus in a few things.


1. Creepy commoners, like from some game in 1998. Is really so complicated create a few new commoners?



2. Sloppy armors. Especially robe from tevinter evil mage, what exactly looks like Chantry robe. Are you serious, guys? Armors from Packs I a II are good enough, but for money. Cheap shot, Bioware, cheap shot...



3. Pitiful design of Dalish camp. No hallas. I get it. But where are these cute fat land ships from DAO? Where are at least one statue of elven god? Camp is a tiny, by the way, without good reason, cause place around is large.

Modifié par Vlad_Dracul, 09 octobre 2011 - 04:47 .

[Firky]

What does "bunglary" mean? (If it's a typo no probs, but I still can't figure out what you meant.) Also, your last screenshot has an aravel. (Land ship.)

I'm not sure I'd say HATE but, 3 dislikes...

1. Being able to too easily dodge commanders melee attacks.
2. Wanting less early abilities to be locked out by prerequisites.
3. Wishing that I didn't have to fight - spoiler beginning with O.

[Feanor_II]

1) Inventory and party equipment restrictions
2) Overaccelerated combat system
3) Art direction (cartoonish graphics and over the top animations)

[DarkSun522]

1. Hypocritical mages
2. Act III
3. No Arcane Warrior

[Foolsfolly]

1. Inventory Management. With armor now Hawke-only the rings and amulets have gone treasures you keep and pass around the party to complete garbage and a pain to sort through.
2. Act 3.
3. Just beat The Witcher 2 and now I'm spoiled. I want scabbards for my damn swords now. Hanging bare blades off of my back like magic irks me now. The scabbards look so much cooler.

[Vlad_Dracul]

OK, if you dont like word "hate", you can write your three biggest "dislikes":innocent:

Modifié par Vlad_Dracul, 09 octobre 2011 - 10:11 .

[edeheusch]

1) No isometric camera.
2) No race choice (I don’t see the point of playing a fantasy RPG if I can only play it as a human).
3) To much combat focused (for example, you start the game with a fight when in DAO, in all origins, when you start the game you really learn more about the story of your character before to fight anything).

[Cribbian]

1. Lifeless world (Leaves should rustle in the wind, flags should wave and there should be much more commotion in the city)

2. Lack of companion customization (armor and weapon-styles)

3. All the jumping around that rogues does in combat

Modifié par Cribbian, 09 octobre 2011 - 10:52 .

[Fast Jimmy]

1. Making enemies that were bosses in their own rights in DAO cannon fodder in DA2 (a pride demon, sloth demon, rage demon and desire demon were all bosses in DAO, but in one quest in DA2, you fight about twenty demons, a mix of the above mentioned, just as a side quest). Bioware wanting to get away from the Blight and the Darkspawn for a while should not mean I am killing abominations as easily as I slayed hurlocks in DAO.

2. The chances they had to make the story epic, but didn't. This is one I really do HATE. The Band of Three notes... there was even a 360 Achievement for collecting them all, like they had some significance. It would have been great if they had used that, or one of about a dozen things about Kirkwall, the place they stuffed us in for a decade, that would have been great venues for an end game. Instead? Broken Circle Part 2. Why not have it that when a certain Companion does what we all know he does in Act 3, that it rips the veil on Sundermount, or unleash the spellforms that Kirkwall is built into, or anything at all other than what wound up happening? As is, they stuck us in Kirkwall, made it interesting with teases of oddness and craziness... and then did absolutely nothing with it. And, given the backlash against being stuck in one city the entire game, we probably won't get a chance to go back to Kirkwall and revisit any of these ideas. What a waste.

3. One star Silver Ring (or insert generic item name here) being epically more powerful than an actual named, set piece of equipment. That just screams lack of testing and design.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 09 octobre 2011 - 12:11 .

[alex90c]

1) Hawke
2) All of the companions except Varric
3) Awful combat

Was pretty hard to narrow things down to three, I have a much more extensive list of hates.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Gameplay/story segregation and a lack of respect or consequences for the player's decisions. The two also have quite a bit of crossover.

I don't mean "you don't get x choice to y problem" like with Hawke's mother, I mean, too many choices weren't respected and given appropriate consequences.

Examples:

Why wasn't there more reaction to whether you chose to side with Mages or Templars in x quest about abusing Templar y and crazy Blood Mage z? No unique questlines? No faction mechanics?

Plot relevant specialisations/classes. Blood Mage? Obvious. Why no reaction from Templars/Guards for magic in the streets, why no questlines or even cutscenes helping you deal with the Underground or even dealing with Demons and Temptations if you're a Mage? Why are there no quests for specific types of characters, like the stealing side quests in DA:O?

Why did choosing a way into Kirkwall not really matter? Where's Hawke's political power from helping the Tevinter Magistrate? Where's the subplot about the Ferelden refugees? What if Hawke donated money? What if Hawke helped them out in the Bone Pit?

And so on.

Granted, I accept it's something that can never be wholly dealt with (story/gameplay segregation) and that a rushed development were why these aspects were handled so poorly in Dragon Age 2 specifically. But what gets at me is that unlike "iconic looks", unlike debating whether Dragon Age 2 was aimed at kids, unlike the intracacies of particular romances, unlike whether the game was "innovative" or unlike Felicia Day cosplaying material, things like improving core gameplay and addressing gameplay/story segregation doesn't even seem to be acknowledged by BioWare as remotely important in interviews, let alone something to discuss on the forums.

It's annoying, more than it should be, but I guess that's my inner nerd just raging away.

While it's not a Dragon Age 2 specific problem, I also have another pet peeve.

Lack of statistical importance outside of combat.

DA:O didn't really have much of this either, but it's something I want to see being worked on for future products. Raising my Cunning stat ought to make my character more Cunning by opening up options in dialog or quests, not just give me access to more dagger moves. Dexterity ought to increase running speed, Strength increasing the amount of items you can carry, Magic and Willpower ought to open up options in dialog, in quests and maybe even interactions with Demons, etc.

RPGs ought to aim for a statistical representation of characters for physical and mental capability, with the player's imagination providing a character's personality and "soul". I hope that's looked at in future games. It broadly enters into the "no consequences given for choices" because making statistics important outside of unlocking abilities - through broad gameplay elements like character speed as well as specific ones like multiple solutions, non combat content and skills checks - enforces different gamestyles and experiences for different characters. Which makes roleplaying much more satisfying, even if it may reduce the amount of total content. Still, games like New Vegas prove that it can be done very well, despite being rushed.

So 1) Gameplay/story segregation, 2) Lack of tangible and appropriate consequences for choices, story or otherwise and 3) Lack of statistical importance in building all aspects of a character.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 09 octobre 2011 - 01:02 .

[Flashing Steel]

only 3? hmm...
1) No arcane warrior - It really irked me that in a game which was so combat focused they disposed of the one mage spec that would have been so fun to thrash out in this game.

2) No branching of the story line - Take origins for example,  you get to make a lot of choices in the game. You can choose path A and it will result in ending A or choose Path B and it will result in ending B. Two alternate routes to Two different outcomes. In DA2 if you are presented with a choice, MOST of the time if you choose path A it will result in ending A, and if you choose path B it will result in ending A!

(To elaborate - in DA:O with in the 4 big missions, elves V werewolves, Orzammar, Mage tower, arl of redcliff:

I can choose to kill all the elves and have the werewolves fight by my side, or the other way round.

I can choose who gets to rule Orzammar and whether to destroy the anvil or keep it, thus giving me golems to use in the final battle.

I can choose to uphold the right of anulment, kill all the mages or save them instead.

I can choose to kill the Arl's son and corrupt the actual ashes of andraste or save him, keep the ashes a secret and even kill genetivi!

Giving the player another route to take makes me 1, want to play the game over to do things differently 2, increases my role-playing experience)


3) dead and lifeless city - take a gander at assassins creed, people everywhere! lovers quarrelling, people being mugged, guards seen frequently patrolling, the whole city was alive and the noise was spectacular. DA2 was horrendous, the WHOLE game took part in ONE city, I would have thought they'd do everything to make that city come to life but it was stale and bland.

Modifié par Flashing Steel, 09 octobre 2011 - 01:23 .

[In Exile]

mrcrusty wrote...
 things like improving core gameplay and addressing gameplay/story segregation doesn't even seem to be acknowledged by BioWare as remotely important in interviews, let alone something to discuss on the forums.

Bioware's been divorcing gameplay/story since KoTOR. You had cut-scene interrupts in KoTOR to prevent enemy NPCs from dying at the wrong time (e.g. Malak and Calo Nord) and suggesting a power scale tottally divorced from the ruleset. 

And DA:O just decided to segregate gameplay and story entirely, with 1 ruleset for the cutscenes  and another one for the game. The devs were upfront during DA:O's development (for example) that magic items are not as rare as they are in game, but they're adding them in for loot purposes.

DA2 just sticks with DA:O's design here.

A different (but related) problem Bioware had is story and lore segregation. 

Which is to say that the story they showed us (that operated on different rules from the gameplay) didn't at all match up to the lore they told us. 

So there were really three independent things going on at the same time, and that just added to the incoherence. 

Lack of statistical importance outside of combat.

DA:O didn't really have much of this either, but it's something I want to see being worked on for future products. Raising my Cunning stat ought to make my character more Cunning by opening up options in dialog or quests, not just give me access to more dagger moves. Dexterity ought to increase running speed, Strength increasing the amount of items you can carry, Magic and Willpower ought to open up options in dialog, in quests and maybe even interactions with Demons, etc.

Bioware doesn't have much of this in general. The D&D games did, but the D&D had rulesets designed to do this. Otherwise, Bioware has always had the same (from my PoV) design philosophy: it is up to the player to pick the story outcome they like.

So something like whether or not you persuade a character seems to be left up to the player given dialogue choices, rather than based on the mechanics & build. 

RPGs ought to aim for a statistical representation of characters for physical and mental capability, with the player's imagination providing a character's personality and "soul". I hope that's looked at in future games. It broadly enters into the "no consequences given for choices" because making statistics important outside of unlocking abilities - through broad gameplay elements like character speed as well as specific ones like multiple solutions, non combat content and skills checks - enforces different gamestyles and experiences for different characters. Which makes roleplaying much more satisfying, even if it may reduce the amount of total content. Still, games like New Vegas prove that it can be done very well, despite being rushed.

I agree with you here, but disagree that New Vegas did it well. 

The dialogue system is just a statistically based ''I win'' button. You pick the right skill, and then you win dialogue in different ways. It's not a way to make statistics meaningfully represent a character.

[DriftSpace]

(In no particular order.)

1) The change in stealth, which is less functional and seems to not depend on character experience, environmental attributes (lighting, angle of attack, field of vision, etc.) and makes it so I can't scout-out an area with my rogue (which I have done in EVERY role-playing game I have EVER played) effectively.

2) Bug, bugs, bugs; invincible bosses, trophies not unlocking, the SAME duplication bug from the first game is also in the sequel, and a thousand others. This game was totally HALF-BAKED.

3) Repetitive area designs. This really takes me out of the experience and only serves to remind me how half-baked this game is. Every time I entered an area I had already seen i felt like someone in the design department is telling me they don't have time for me or the quality of my gaming experience, or that they think I am a total moron and wouldn't notice. It removes most (if not all, sometimes) of the player's immersion in the game world.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

In Exile wrote...

I agree with you here, but disagree that New Vegas did it well. 

The dialogue system is just a statistically based ''I win'' button. You pick the right skill, and then you win dialogue in different ways. It's not a way to make statistics meaningfully represent a character.

I was actually thinking of how SPECIAL was integrated in general gameplay, or other non-dialog skill checks. But I've made my opinions on dialog quite clear for a while and New Vegas is not what I'd like to see in future.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 09 octobre 2011 - 10:26 .

[In Exile]

mrcrusty wrote...
I was actually thinking of how SPECIAL was integrated in general gameplay, or other non-dialog skill checks. But I've made my opinions on dialog quite clear for a while and New Vegas is not what I'd like to see in future.

Oh, yeah, I remember. Totally my bad. Haven't been on the forum in a long time.

I absolutely agree with you on how SPECIAL was handled. But Obsidian is just so much better at structuring a conversation. I honestly think they just have better logic trees, because when you get down to it both conversation branches/statistics and story branches are just related to gating everything well. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Better at structuring a conversation? Maybe. But I think the DA and ME series have better dialogue, personally.

[R0vena]

1. Import bugs.
2. Other bugs and no patch to fix it...
3. Enemies out of thin air (but this is fixed in Legacy).

Repetitive areas I can live with as long as other content is present (a lot of dialog, interesting side quests and companion quests). But if they will be actually more variant in the future, the better.

[AlexXIV]

1. They killed Hawke's mom. They should have killed a companion, maybe even LI instead. Because this at least takes balls to do.

2. The endings were too similar. I would have liked the endgame give more credit to Hawke's decisions during the whole game.

3. Qunari uprise was too harmless. In the game you have the feeling Meredith and the templars could have handled it without Hawke. It is THE important story part of how Hawke became the Champion, for that it was too meager. Where was the epic (as it was 'promised' in the destiny trailer)?

[Foolsfolly]

2. The endings were too similar. I would have liked the endgame give more credit to Hawke's decisions during the whole game.

The ending's exactly the same in every meaningful way. Unless you think being told that Hawke was Viscount for a little bit is meaningful.

[R0vena]

spoiler

AlexXIV wrote...






1. They killed Hawke's mom. They should have killed a companion, maybe even LI instead. Because this at least takes balls to do.

end of spoiler

I think by definition of the motives of the killer nobody of Hawke's companions would be qualified for that purpose.
 
But in any case no companion killing for me, thanks. At least not if somebody else but Hawke is doing it. I am still shocked and angry at the events in the end of Act 2 in NWN 2...

Modifié par R0vena, 10 octobre 2011 - 01:13 .

[Romantiq]

1) Boring characters and conversations.
2) Bad "VS" story with lack of choices that matter and very unsatisfying ending.
3) Over the top combat animations and gore effects. They are also bad quality bald ragdolls.

[devSin]

1) Tiny set. If you've seen all there is to see before Act II begins, the story better be something else they expect you to stick around for the rest of the game (and it wasn't).
2) Party management. I should be able to take care of them without having to do the party shuffle every single time.
3) Lack of detail. There are no sharp corners in this game; they have all been cut.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

1. Story/Segregation.


The story makes me feel like an audience:


Instead of being part of the story like this:


or Shaping my own story like I used to do with toolset like this:


And because of that, DA 2 story is boring, unfocus and no purpose and motivation.

2. Hawke as Player Character
Until to this day, I don't recognize Hawke as my character. He does not meet minimum requirement to be my character. I tried so hard to make him 50% diplomatic/neutral and 50% funny like Alistair. Unlike other people who choose only certain events to be either diplomatic/sarcastic/aggresive, I tend to mix sarcastic tone with diplomatic tone in almost every conversations ( much like Alistair did ). By doing so, Hawke sound very weird and this ruined my role-play. Paraphrase, Plot Jump and Hawke tendecy to talk and act on his own, is making it harder and further disconnecting me from Hawke. 

3. Dull companions.
None of the DA2's companions interest me physically and mentally. They are shallow one dimensional interaction companions who are good for nothing other than trying to manipulate me to do their personal quest.  They never change for 7 years except for Aveline. Anders remain an anti templar-chantry. Merril remain a naive blood magic user and Isabela remain a backstabbing pirate with the golden heart and a sl*t. Not only that, unable to customize their equipment give more reasons why I shouldn't be bothered with them. And romance doesn't occur with only one dimensional interaction. It is meaningless and feel been forced.  Another great aspect from DAO is missing from my playthroughs.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 10 octobre 2011 - 10:06 .