337 réponses à ce sujet

[macrocarl]

I like lard and vodka and DA2.

[uberdowzen]

Everwarden wrote...

What it needed was to be more taco, less burger, and more thoroughly cooked. In other words, less dumbed down and with more time/effort involved.

Let's take the cooking out of the equation (I think we can all agree that DA2 could have used a bit more cooking in certain areas) and focus on the idea of the taco-burger.

The first thing I need to point out before I get into this is that I think the analogy falls apart when you consider that video games are (arguably) a form of art whereas tacos are fast food. Art needs innovation and change whereas fast food is simply designed to scratch a particular itch as efficiently as possible. Be honest, you wanted a taco but a burger (or anything that comprises mostly of meat and salt) would have met your fast food cravings. Also, once you've eaten fast food it's gone and you have to buy more before you can eat it again. Video games (for the most part) don't disappear after you've played them.

OK, now the nitty-gritty. You use the term dumbed down, which is a term that really annoys me. Dumbing a game down implies removing core game mechanics which add depth to the gameplay or the plot. Streamlining is the removal of mechanics which could be considered to be fluff and don't contribute to the gameplay or the plot. For example, removing skills is an example of streamlining. Skills didn't improve the gameplay in anyway, in fact they hindered it in some situations (e.g. making a really useful tactics system and then forcing the player to sacrifice skill points to use it properly).

Yrkoon wrote...

 If I can redirect that question towards myself....

That
would be a pleasant turn of events  (hey,  I never imagined I'd like
the Taco-burger hybrid!   Cool.)    But   that doesn't address the real
problem here, at least as  many DA2 critics  (like me) perceive it.

To 
people like me,  DA2's problems   exist at the core-level.  They go
much deeper than simply being un-spiced and under-cooked.   The entire
direction  of the game from the ground up is just... wrong.  To use  the
 taco metaphor again, it's like they replaced the ground beef with 
Tofu, or something equally vile.   No amount of seasoning is going to
fix that.

In my  humble, and extremely singular opinion,  
Bioware should decide that Dragon Age will be their classic, traditional
RPG, and then work   hard to make it the best one they've ever done. 
They should leave their "hybriding" and their "experimentation" for  one
of their  other wonderful-but-different IPs.  Is that too much to ask?

What if they replaced the ground beef with bacon?

I think the issue here is very similar to the issue many people had with ME2. The games we ended up getting weren't the games everyone was expecting (people assumed ME2 was going to be ME1 with a fixed up inventory) and there is something inherently disappointing about that. To be objective though, you need to look past that and judge the game on it's own merits. And DA2 has a lot of merits. The combat feels solid and brutal, the graphics are much better (mostly), the story at the very least has a more interesting premise than DAO's and the storytelling is some of the best in any game ever. You're really going to dismiss all of that because it's not Baldur's Gate 3?

[KilrB]

Stanley Woo wrote...

KilrB wrote...
So, your "community" now only includes only those who liked DA2 and bought the dlc?

Nice to know where of us (now apparently) former members who didn't like DA2 and refuse to pay for more of it now stand ...

In this particular instance, since you have removed yourself from the group of people who have played Legacy and/or Mark of the Assassin and posted a review of it, yes, in this particular instance, when I say "well received by our community" I am excluding those who have not played and reviewed those things.

You are still part of the BioWare Social Network, you still have opinions and ideas regarding Dragon Age II, and you are part of the "community" when I discuss how Dragon Age II was received. But when I say something like "Dragon Age II was received okay by our community," I am not saying that each and every community member likes it okay. I am, in that case, averaging the totality of the discussions I have seen posted here and generalizing the sentiments I have seen posted by individuals.

If you wish to disagree with me, you are free to do so. This is a forum where we encourage people to share ideas. if, on the other hand, you wish to be disingenuous by taking what I say out of context to fuel your righteous indignation at a game you dislike, then I would encourage you to please try a different tactic. I prefer sincerity, just as I believe you would prefer it from me.

Disingenous!?!?

Let's be clear here.

It was you who said they were "well received by our community".

Well, from where I'm standing that's not true.

No one I know personally likes DA2, at all.

The majority of people here and elswhere online don't care much for it either.

Why then would we bother paying more for the dlc?

Now, for the sake of your "well received by our community" statement you allow that you are "excluding those who have not played and reviewed those things" from your definition of the BioWare "community".

Who's being disingenous?

You can't have it both ways Stan.

Are we, the BioWare customers and fans who didn't like DA2 and refuse to be taken for more money, part of the BioWare "community" or not?

It's simple ... YES or NO.

(Edit for spelling.)

Modifié par KilrB, 14 octobre 2011 - 10:15 .

[Everwarden]

uberdowzen wrote...
OK, now the nitty-gritty. You use the term dumbed down,

I stand by that, too. I recognize that streamlining and dumbing down mean two different things, -but- the things that Bioware called 'streamlining' in Dragon Age 2 really were just dumbing down. I'm not talking about crafting here, or skills (though I do like skills), I'm talking about Bioware treating the people playing the game like they aren't intelligent enough to handle story and character development for more than one minute nuggets between paradropping bandit fights.

For example, a change Bioware made that I feel really represents the philosophical failure of Dragon Age 2 in miniature: The beginning.

In Origins the game introduces itself to you as an intelligent, story and character driven game that established that your character actually has a place in the world. You see your friends, family, do everyday things, and then your world is turned upside down after having some time understanding what it is to have a normal life in the world of Thedas (albeit briefly). This gives the player an emotional anchor into the world.

Compare to Dragon Age II. You start out running, smashing enemies, and (SPOILERS, sort of) then you see two people you don't know or care about die. This is a scene that typifies Dragon Age 2 as a whole every well. This wasn't a mistake, or something forced through because of time constraints, this was a deliberate design choice because Bioware thinks that the mainstream is too stupid to handle something more intelligent.

That is -not- streamlining, that is dumbing down for the sake of appealing to a mass market, because the devs saw metrics that suggested a percentage of people didn't get past the Tower of Ishal. 

Modifié par Everwarden, 15 octobre 2011 - 12:21 .

[Stanley Woo]

KilrB wrote...
You can't have it both ways Stan.

I can indeed have it both ways. I can generalize and average the opinions of Mark of the Assassin based on the feedback I see being posted in the MotA feedback thread. I can (and should be able to) sum up the general trend or tone of the average and apply the word "community" to it without having to append all my sentences involving "community" with "but some people disagree."

The disingenuousness that I refer to is you deliberately taking your interpretation of the word "community, which you have already decided will upset you, cramming it into my words to make it sound like I intend to upset you, and then, predictably, getting upset about it.

Are we, the BioWare customers and fans who didn't like DA2 and refuse to be taken for more money, part of the BioWare "community" or not?

It's simple ... YES or NO.

Yes, absolutely. Very yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. A million times yes.

I will counter with: Do you, as an individual, speak for and represent all of "the BioWare customers and fans who don't like DA2 and refuse to be taken for more money"?

It's simple... YES or NO.

Because if you do, then future conversations with you will be very simple and we'll be working under the same assumptions and definitions. If not--if even one of the people you purport to speak for doesn't totally agree with you--then you have the same problem you are accusing me of having: the accuracy of your every opinion will be called into question unless you specifically address the fact that you do not represent 100% of those who didn't like DA2 and didn't purchase the DLC.

It's not the best way to argue, because if you want to be upset by something, you'll always find a way to do it, so I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. i will always assume that they like something about the company or the game, and that their passion stems from some of their expectations not being met, rather than malice. I would hope that even the folks who disagree with me or don't like me will grant me the same courtesy.

[Yrkoon]

uberdowzen wrote...
I think the issue here is very similar to the issue many people had with ME2. The games we ended up getting weren't the games everyone was expecting (people assumed ME2 was going to be ME1 with a fixed up inventory) and there is something inherently disappointing about that. To be objective though, you need to look past that and judge the game on it's own merits. And DA2 has a lot of merits. The combat feels solid and brutal, the graphics are much better (mostly), the story at the very least has a more interesting premise than DAO's and the storytelling is some of the best in any game ever. You're really going to dismiss all of that because it's not Baldur's Gate 3?

LOL

I think there's enough criticism of DA2's craptacular, consolized, uber-flashy combat to be pointed to on this board  (and other boards, and magazines, and blogs) to pretty much Rule out the notion that you're being objective here.  Ditto with the claim that the story telling in DA2 ranks among the best ever.

Or to tie this into the thread's subject:  It's not very objective to claim that Taco Bell serves some of the finest food in the world. 

Modifié par Yrkoon, 15 octobre 2011 - 12:38 .

[Stanley Woo]

Everwarden wrote...
Compare to Dragon Age II. You start out running, smashing enemies, and (SPOILERS, sort of) then you see two people you don't know or care about die. This is a scene that typifies Dragon Age 2 as a whole every well. This wasn't a mistake, or something forced through because of time constraints, this was a deliberate design choice because Bioware thinks that the mainstream is too stupid to handle something more intelligent.

That is -not- streamlining, that is dumbing down for the sake of appealing to a mass market, because the devs saw metrics that suggested a percentage of people didn't get past the Tower of Ishal.

Emphasis mine.

I will disagree with your reasoning there, as I don't think insulting those with different tastes in videogames is conducive to mature, civil, productive discussion of this topic. It is even less productive when you accuse others of thinking that way.

When it comes to deliberate design choices, there is a huge difference between "too stupid to handle something" and "prefer to not do something." Just as an example using an RPG game feature from way back, I am not "too stupid to handle" food and hunger mechanics in RPGs; however, I "prefer to not" be required to buy or hunt for food, and eat for fear of starvation. by the same token, I am not "too stupid to handle" complex rule systems in RPGs. Being a longtime pen-and-paper RPG player, I have played and run games with many different rule systems. But I "prefer to not" deal with too many rules.

"Streamlining" can be defined as removing some features that a certain class of players "prefer to not do." Many like to categorize themselves as the few, the proud, the elite while cursing the mainstream as "kiddie" or unsophisticated. This kind of classism doesn't make for constructive discussion, so let's please try to avoid it. Thank you.

[ElitePinecone]

This is a really interesting thread, Plus I'm hungry.

[Everwarden]

Stanley Woo wrote...
I will disagree with your reasoning there, as I don't think insulting those with different tastes in videogames is conducive to mature, civil, productive discussion of this topic. It is even less productive when you accuse others of thinking that way.

I'm not insulting people with different tastes. I'm pointing out that the philosophy behind Dragon Age 2 was misguided. 

"Streamlining" can be defined as removing some features that a certain class of players "prefer to not do." Many like to categorize themselves as the few, the proud, the elite while cursing the mainstream as "kiddie" or unsophisticated. This kind of classism doesn't make for constructive discussion, so let's please try to avoid it. Thank you.

I'm not being classist. I actually don't think the action fanbase -is- stupid. I'm not calling anyone stupid here, I'm saying that Bioware's design philosophy is predicated upon the notion that fans want less choice/story, and more exploding enemies. I don't think that all that many 'prefer' exploding enemies and instant action in lieu of narrative and character development.

Modifié par Everwarden, 15 octobre 2011 - 12:49 .

[TEWR]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Everwarden wrote...
Compare to Dragon Age II. You start out running, smashing enemies, and (SPOILERS, sort of) then you see two people you don't know or care about die. This is a scene that typifies Dragon Age 2 as a whole every well. This wasn't a mistake, or something forced through because of time constraints, this was a deliberate design choice because Bioware thinks that the mainstream is too stupid to handle something more intelligent.

That is -not- streamlining, that is dumbing down for the sake of appealing to a mass market, because the devs saw metrics that suggested a percentage of people didn't get past the Tower of Ishal.

Emphasis mine.

I will disagree with your reasoning there, as I don't think insulting those with different tastes in videogames is conducive to mature, civil, productive discussion of this topic. It is even less productive when you accuse others of thinking that way.

When it comes to deliberate design choices, there is a huge difference between "too stupid to handle something" and "prefer to not do something." Just as an example using an RPG game feature from way back, I am not "too stupid to handle" food and hunger mechanics in RPGs; however, I "prefer to not" be required to buy or hunt for food, and eat for fear of starvation. by the same token, I am not "too stupid to handle" complex rule systems in RPGs. Being a longtime pen-and-paper RPG player, I have played and run games with many different rule systems. But I "prefer to not" deal with too many rules.

Aww but I liked doing that in Metal Gear Solid 3! Eating food was awesome, and it even went rotten over time!

But you do have a point about it not needing to be done by the player. Still, it would be nice to see it in cutscenes. All we've seen Hawke do is drink and drink and drink. Man's got an iron liver, doesn't he?

However, in regards to the post you quoted, forcing the player to watch two people die that they don't know is a poor game design thing imo. I don't know anything about the sibling or Wesley beyond a few obvious things. Who are they to me?

This is why a prologue that started off in Lothering, led to Ostagar, and eventually led to where the base game began is crucial imo. It allows the player to get to know both siblings as they play, and I personally feel that the game would've been strengthened much more had both siblings survived along with Leandra. Wesley and Ostagar would've been enough for a person to understand the death toll a Blight causes.

Had both siblings survived, the Mage-Templar conflict could've been strengthened much more for reasons I've mentioned in other threads.

[Stanley Woo]

Everwarden wrote...
I'm not being classist. I actually don't think the action fanbase -is- that stupid. I'm not calling anyone stupid here, I'm saying that Bioware's design philosophy is predicated upon the notion that fans want less choice/story, and more exploding enemies. I don't think that all that many 'prefer' exploding enemies and instant action in lieu of narrative and character development.

Acknowledged. Thank you for clarifying.

[TEWR]

Ah I forgot to mention that it forces the player to metagame in order to care about the sibling's death. That's primarily why I see it as bad.

[Stanley Woo]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
But you do have a point about it not needing to be done by the player. Still, it would be nice to see it in cutscenes. All we've seen Hawke do is drink and drink and drink. Man's got an iron liver, doesn't he?

I know, right? My theory is that eating looks a lot stranger if you don't have a chewing animation, and there was likely no way to make food and the eating of it look good in cinematics. I mean, eating, chewing, swallowing, maybe cutting of meat, using utensils, all for how much benefit? Probably not a huge benefit for all that work, I'm guessing.

However, in regards to the post you quoted, forcing the player to watch two people die that they don't know is a poor game design thing imo. I don't know anything about the sibling or Wesley beyond a few obvious things. Who are they to me?

This is why a prologue that started off in Lothering, led to Ostagar, and eventually led to where the base game began is crucial imo. It allows the player to get to know both siblings as they play, and I personally feel that the game would've been strengthened much more had both siblings survived along with Leandra. Wesley and Ostagar would've been enough for a person to understand the death toll a Blight causes.

Had both siblings survived, the Mage-Templar conflict could've been strengthened much more for reasons I've mentioned in other threads.

I am inclined to agree with you on this matter. i found the Serial Killer plot to be extremely effective, and I would almost tear up every time I had to test it. Such a heart-wrenching finale to that quest chain, I thought. Bringing your sibling to the Deep Roads was less emotionally wrenching, but I thought we did it with a certain panache that would tug at the heartstrings a little. Having your sibling turn up in Act 2 (i think it was) based on what you did in Act 1 was pretty amazing, i thought. but you're right, we probably could have done way more to make characters like Wesley more awesome and memorable so that, when stuff happens, the player cares more about them.

Joss Whedon does this pretty well, and I sometimes curse George R.R. Martin for going the opposite route on this: making the reader care about a character just so he can do horrible, horrible things to them.

EDIT: Bringing your sibling into Legacy helps as well, and it's pretty awesome.

Modifié par Stanley Woo, 15 octobre 2011 - 12:58 .

[Everwarden]

Stanley Woo wrote...
Acknowledged. Thank you for clarifying.

Not a problem.

While on the subject, I'll tackle the issue from a different perspective: I actually love action games.

Even pretending Dragon Age II was an action game, I don't think it was well executed. Allow me to compare it to an action title in my collection at random...

Batman: Arkham Asylum. Spoilers incoming, by the way. Now, this game is undeniably focused primarily on action, but it opens in a completely different way. Instead of opening in the middle of combat, essentially skipping the prologue and first few chapters to get to the juicy bits, the game starts the player off slow. The Joker is brought in, processed, and everything seems fine. The tension slowly builds over the course of the introduction sequence, the Joker cracking wise and putting everyone on edge. This sets the stage for meaningful action that the player can actually get invested in. Dragon Age II did not pull this off at all. The player has no connection to this world (except for one brought in from the first game), the characters, or what's going on. 

[TEWR]

Stanley Woo wrote...


I know, right? My theory is that eating looks a lot stranger if you don't have a chewing animation, and there was likely no way to make food and the eating of it look good in cinematics. I mean, eating, chewing, swallowing, maybe cutting of meat, using utensils, all for how much benefit? Probably not a huge benefit for all that work, I'm guessing.

Oh I don't know I think it could be done. I've seen a few games with some chewing animations and a few CGI movies.

You don't even have to focus on the character's face as they eat. Just focus on the back of the head and have them cut their food and bring it to the mouth.

Still, there isn't much to it by itself. But it could be used to help the story. Like with the Kirkwall Killer. I think a simple scene with Hawke and Leandra eating dinner and talking about the Kirkwall Killer would've been great, because Hawke is warning his mother about a threat in Kirkwall and wants her to be safe. It wouldn't have to focus on them actually chewing.

Though I don't know why anyone would bring up a vicious serial killer during dinner, but then again it'd be kinda funny. Maybe they just talk about their day as they eat and before they head off to bed Hawke tells her about it? And this is all in theory. I don't really know much about cinematic design (barely anything if at all), so it might not work in practice.

I am inclined to agree with you on this matter. i found the Serial Killer plot to be extremely effective, and I would almost tear up every time I had to test it. Such a heart-wrenching finale to that quest chain, I thought. Bringing your sibling to the Deep Roads was less emotionally wrenching, but I thought we did it with a certain panache that would tug at the heartstrings a little. Having your sibling turn up in Act 2 (i think it was) based on what you did in Act 1 was pretty amazing, i thought. but you're right, we probably could have done way more to make characters like Wesley more awesome and memorable so that, when stuff happens, the player cares more about them.

Joss Whedon does this pretty well, and I sometimes curse George R.R. Martin for going the opposite route on this: making the reader care about a character just so he can do horrible, horrible things to them.

EDIT: Bringing your sibling into Legacy helps as well, and it's pretty awesome.

I agree that the Serial Killer plot was nice, though I think an investigation should've been launched sooner since there was more than enough evidence to do so.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
He had enough information to warrant a search. 







[*]He knew the trail ended in an old foundry in the "rusty metal spike district" as Varric put it




[*]He had influence with the Captain of the Guard. More than Emeric did.




[*]He saw Quentin fleeing the scene of the crime.




[*]He found a severed hand in the old foundry.




[*]He has found out 4 times prior to Leandra's abduction that lilies were involved in the kidnappings




[*]He had Gascard DuPuis to testify that someone was indeed kidnapping women using lilies.
[/list]

With an investigation, it at least gives Hawke and the player a sense of trying to stop the Kirkwall Killer (A.K.A the White Lily Killer) before things get worse. He could still fail, but it's the effort that matters.

But that aside, I think that it was definitely a nice story arc. My only other gripe with it is that Leandra was flopping around in the battle. It kinda killed the drama for me and made me start laughing on my first playthrough. Afterwards it didn't kill the drama. Still made me laugh though.

It's nice to see though that you admit things could've been done better for people like Wesley and everyone to make the player care more about them. That gives me more hope for the future

Also, I still need to read the George R.R. Martin series of books A Song of Ice and Fire. My brother gave the whole set of books to my mom for her birthday but she let me borrow them and I haven't yet read much of them.

I've watched Game of Thrones though. I like the series and I like how it apparently really follows the book series very closely according to Martin, so I'll enjoy reading the books. I just know it.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 15 octobre 2011 - 02:20 .

[Everwarden]

PresidentCowboy wrote...

We don't have Taco Bell over here so this thread is lost on me.

Europe? 

You're lucky. I wish I lived in Europe. 

[KilrB]

Stanley Woo wrote...

KilrB wrote...
You can't have it both ways Stan.

I can indeed have it both ways. I can generalize and average the opinions of Mark of the Assassin based on the feedback I see being posted in the MotA feedback thread. I can (and should be able to) sum up the general trend or tone of the average and apply the word "community" to it without having to append all my sentences involving "community" with "but some people disagree."

The disingenuousness that I refer to is you deliberately taking your interpretation of the word "community, which you have already decided will upset you, cramming it into my words to make it sound like I intend to upset you, and then, predictably, getting upset about it.

Are we, the BioWare customers and fans who didn't like DA2 and refuse to be taken for more money, part of the BioWare "community" or not?

It's simple ... YES or NO.

Yes, absolutely. Very yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. A million times yes.

I will counter with: Do you, as an individual, speak for and represent all of "the BioWare customers and fans who don't like DA2 and refuse to be taken for more money"?

It's simple... YES or NO.

Because if you do, then future conversations with you will be very simple and we'll be working under the same assumptions and definitions. If not--if even one of the people you purport to speak for doesn't totally agree with you--then you have the same problem you are accusing me of having: the accuracy of your every opinion will be called into question unless you specifically address the fact that you do not represent 100% of those who didn't like DA2 and didn't purchase the DLC.

It's not the best way to argue, because if you want to be upset by something, you'll always find a way to do it, so I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. i will always assume that they like something about the company or the game, and that their passion stems from some of their expectations not being met, rather than malice. I would hope that even the folks who disagree with me or don't like me will grant me the same courtesy.

Are we also going to be working on the assuption and definition that YOU accurately represent absolutely 100% of those who did like DA2 and purchased the DLC?

I had been under the impression that you were one of, if not the most fair-minded and reasonable of the Bioware reps here.

Maybe I was wrong about that ...

If you are going to reserve for yourself the right to redefine "community" as you see fit in order to bolster your arguments you can of course justify near any statement you care to make.

We are either all, those who liked DA2 and shelled-out for the dlc and those who didn't, part of the Bioware "community" or we're not.

If all of us ARE, then you cannot make the blanket statement that "they were well received by the community".

Of course they were "well received" IF you don't count all of us who refused to buy them.

If you EXCLUDE us from the "community".

If you had said well received by those who like DA2 I could understand.

But you didn't, tou said "community".

I consider, or maybe considered now, myself a member of the BioWare "community".

I personally introduced 4 fellow gamers who never played rpg's to DA:Origins.

Like myself, they are still playing it.

None of us liked DA2.

Of course we didn't buy any of the dlc.

You say we're part of the "community".

Yes, absolutely. Very yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. A million times yes.

Yet insist you have the authority/right to exclude those of us who didn't like DA2 and purchase the dlc from said "community" when used to justify your statements.

If you mean the BioWare "community" as a whole, or even just the
Dragon Age "community" then I question the truthiness of your statement.

Or were you talking about some exclusive "DA2 lovers only community"?

If you mean the BioWare or Dragon Age "community" then ... you can't have it both ways Stan.

Either we're ALL part of the "community" ALL the time, and have to be treated and counted as such ...

... or we're not part of the "community", period.

(Edit for grammar.)

Modifié par KilrB, 15 octobre 2011 - 02:29 .

[uberdowzen]

Everwarden wrote...

I stand by that, too. I recognize that streamlining and dumbing down mean two different things, -but- the things that Bioware called 'streamlining' in Dragon Age 2 really were just dumbing down. I'm not talking about crafting here, or skills (though I do like skills), I'm talking about Bioware treating the people playing the game like they aren't intelligent enough to handle story and character development for more than one minute nuggets between paradropping bandit fights.

For example, a change Bioware made that I feel really represents the philosophical failure of Dragon Age 2 in miniature: The beginning.

In Origins the game introduces itself to you as an intelligent, story and character driven game that established that your character actually has a place in the world. You see your friends, family, do everyday things, and then your world is turned upside down after having some time understanding what it is to have a normal life in the world of Thedas (albeit briefly). This gives the player an emotional anchor into the world.

Compare to Dragon Age II. You start out running, smashing enemies, and (SPOILERS, sort of) then you see two people you don't know or care about die. This is a scene that typifies Dragon Age 2 as a whole every well. This wasn't a mistake, or something forced through because of time constraints, this was a deliberate design choice because Bioware thinks that the mainstream is too stupid to handle something more intelligent.

That is -not- streamlining, that is dumbing down for the sake of appealing to a mass market, because the devs saw metrics that suggested a percentage of people didn't get past the Tower of Ishal. 

I think those are two different approaches to the beginning, one of which worked a lot better (bearing in mind that the Origin stories were one of the draw cards of the original game so they were obviously going to be very well done). I think the problem is your looking for things in DA2 that didn't work and then deciding that the best solution is to go back to the way Origins did things. Companion conversations for instance. I personally thought that these were done much better in DA2  than in DAO. They placed a much greater emphasis on "show don't tell" than in Origins where it was very much "this is the part where they'll talk for ages and ages". I know that sounds like I'm an impatient teenager who wants to get to the part where you kill things but honestly Origins' companion conversations felt like they had been written for a book rather than a video game. Don't get me wrong, I love reading but when I'm playing a video game I don't want the equivalent of having a book read out to me. I also don't want long stretches of combat without any character development or interesting story though. Short bursts of both are the key. I think the best example of this is Mordin's loyalty mission in ME2. It struck a great balance between great character development and exciting combat sections.

I feel I may have drifted off topic a bit though. What I'm trying to say is just because the taco-burger didn't work perfectly doesn't mean that you should just forget about it and go back to making normal tacos. Try making the taco-burgers again but this time spend a bit more time working out the recipe, don't under cook it and try a few extra spices. You never know, it might even end up being better than the tacos.

[uberdowzen]

Yrkoon wrote...

LOL

I think there's enough criticism of DA2's craptacular, consolized, uber-flashy combat to be pointed to on this board  (and other boards, and magazines, and blogs) to pretty much Rule out the notion that you're being objective here.  Ditto with the claim that the story telling in DA2 ranks among the best ever.

Or to tie this into the thread's subject:  It's not very objective to claim that Taco Bell serves some of the finest food in the world. 

Combat:

I'm going to counter this one word at a time

Craptacular: Purely subjective, dismissed.
Consolized: consolized implies changes made to PC focused gameplay to make it work on a TV and on a gamepad. I stuggle to see anything in DA2 which has been compromised for this. Arguably fewer abilities but many PC players wanted this too.
Uber-flashy: so the combat is automatically bad because it's flashy? It might not be your cup of tea but that doesn't mean it's objectively bad.

Could I also point out that a lot of magazines, blogs and people on boards have also praised the combat (PC Gamer, PC Format, Gametrailers and PC Powerplay to name a few) so your argument doesn't really hold water when it comes to ruling out that I'm not being objective.

And what's wrong with the storytelling? It's the continuation of what Bioware games have been trying to do since KOTOR and I think it's one of the best implementations of it I've seen so far. Bear in mind I'm not claiming it's the best story ever, I'm just saying that I think it's very well told.

[Zanallen]

Everwarden wrote...

Europe? 

You're lucky. I wish I lived in Europe. 

Moo Mesa, actually. That's President Cowboy of Moo Mesa.

[TheRealJayDee]

Stanley Woo wrote...
I am inclined to agree with you on this matter. i found the Serial Killer plot to be extremely effective, and I would almost tear up every time I had to test it. Such a heart-wrenching finale to that quest chain, I thought. Bringing your sibling to the Deep Roads was less emotionally wrenching, but I thought we did it with a certain panache that would tug at the heartstrings a little. Having your sibling turn up in Act 2 (i think it was) based on what you did in Act 1 was pretty amazing, i thought. but you're right, we probably could have done way more to make characters like Wesley more awesome and memorable so that, when stuff happens, the player cares more about them.

Joss Whedon does this pretty well, and I sometimes curse George R.R. Martin for going the opposite route on this: making the reader care about a character just so he can do horrible, horrible things to them.

EDIT: Bringing your sibling into Legacy helps as well, and it's pretty awesome.

That's interesting, and I would actually love to have some sort of statistic about how players felt about the Hawke family members and their respective fate(s). And I would love to spy on you guys who wrote, implemented and tested it. Because I know myself to be somebody who tends to be rather emotional, and it's not that hard for a game/movie/book to remind me of that. You mentioned Whedon and Martin, and they sure know how to make both their characters and their audience suffer, but it usually doesn't take that much get me emotionally involved. Still somehow DA2 managed to take away my character's whole family without me feeling sad at all, all it produced was a mix between anger and annoyance.

Carver I never got to know, he was just randomly squished by an ogre because I usually play a warrior first.
Bethany I started to get to know and like during act 1. I took her to the Deep Roads, because there was nothing else my character could have done in that situation, and she just randomly got tainted off-screen and died.
And Leandra, oh boy. I never really liked her, to be honest. But nevertheless her disappearance was the first thing that really had me on the edge of my seat. Until the finale of the quest, which just had me staring at the screen in disbelief and frustration. Because not only did I realize I never had a chance to save her and that nothing I had done so far had any influence on the events, I was honestly almost sad I had to kill a certain somebody. Because what I guess was supposed to be an extremely shocking, then extremely sad moment did not work for me. At all. All I could think afterwards was that if there was something like a Nobel Prize for magic, this guy would’ve frickin’ deserved it. What he did was disgusting, but spectacular and probably groundbreaking. If I was O I’d have supported him too. It didn’t help that with Leandra my Hawke’s last reason to stay in Kirkwall had gone…
 
Anyways, that was all kind of off topic, but I felt like writing it down (again). Obviously the whole family thing worked for a lot of people, and that’s nice. For me it did not, and I’m really sorry about it, because the whole “hero with a family” angle I think could have been great. Hopefully I’ll be able to enjoy similar things in potential future games, I believe you can do better. Maybe I’ll even replay DA2 with DLCs someday…
 
Oh, and please, could you try not to use the word 'awesome' more than once per post? I love the word and use it all the time, but seeing it being used in a Dragon Age context makes my stomach feel funny. And I'm only half kidding here...

 
@Taco Bell
 
European here, but I get the point.

[TEWR]

Carver I never got to know, he was just randomly squished by an ogre because I usually play a warrior first. Bethany I started to get to know and like during act 1. I took her to the Deep Roads, because there was nothing else my character could have done in that situation, and she just randomly got tainted off-screen and died.

Actually, when you meet Sandal down there you can clearly see she's starting to suffer from the effects of the Blight disease. It's subtle and easily missed though.

[TEWR]

Yrkoon wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...
I think the issue here is very similar to the issue many people had with ME2. The games we ended up getting weren't the games everyone was expecting (people assumed ME2 was going to be ME1 with a fixed up inventory) and there is something inherently disappointing about that. To be objective though, you need to look past that and judge the game on it's own merits. And DA2 has a lot of merits. The combat feels solid and brutal, the graphics are much better (mostly), the story at the very least has a more interesting premise than DAO's and the storytelling is some of the best in any game ever. You're really going to dismiss all of that because it's not Baldur's Gate 3?

LOL

I think there's enough criticism of DA2's craptacular, consolized, uber-flashy combat to be pointed to on this board  (and other boards, and magazines, and blogs) to pretty much Rule out the notion that you're being objective here.  Ditto with the claim that the story telling in DA2 ranks among the best ever.

Or to tie this into the thread's subject:  It's not very objective to claim that Taco Bell serves some of the finest food in the world. 

Eh I don't see the entirety of DAII's combat being uber flashy. Some things are over the top, but overall there's a lot that isn't.

Fireball, Firestorm, Tempest, Chain Lightning, Rock Armor, Elemental Weapons, the Force Mage tree, some things from the Blood mage tree, Virulent Walking Bomb, Spirit Bolt, Pommel Strike, Taunt, etc. aren't unrealistic or uber flashy

Those are just what I'm looking at as I'm playing a Mage Hawke, so I can't really mention the Rogue abillities because I can't remember them all and I'm not looking at them. But I did make a blog entry discussing all aspects of DAII's combat and what seemed completely unrealistic and what was fine.

The sheer one-sided nature of the combat though was something I hated, and even Legacy and MotA still feel one sided because you rarely fight an enemy with the same basic animations and skills as the characters. Hell not all the enemies need all of the basic animations. Just some. The more powerful ones can have all of the basic animations while the rest have a few from the same style.

To be more clear: A Mage boss could fire his staff in all 5 animations that are currently used, while other mage enemies fighting with him could use the last 3 animations. But they'd all have spells and sustainable modes that the player could also use.

And Corypheus didn't feel like the boss fight he should've, mainly because of a few things. The horrid AI movement of the companions and the fact that I wish he alternated between an earth maze and raising earth stalagmites from the ground while also having icicles stalactites fall, as well as having a few more attacks that weren't just some pathetic bolt. Like picking up an enemy and using some sort of blood magic to drain the health from them to replenish his, finishing it off by throwing them across the arena. And other things.

[Everwarden]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Fireball, Firestorm, Tempest, Chain Lightning, Rock Armor, Elemental Weapons, the Force Mage tree, some things from the Blood mage tree, Virulent Walking Bomb, Spirit Bolt, Pommel Strike, Taunt, etc. aren't unrealistic or uber flashy

The -entire- blood mage tree wasn't terrible, but dear God, that self-impalement animation is just the definition of retarded and over-the-top.