210 réponses à ce sujet

[Joy Divison]

Zjarcal wrote...

That is a good review, at least in the sense that it explains in detail every criticism made. I agree with some and strongly disagree with others.

The unresponsiveness is the one I want to mention. It's true that basic attack animations prevented spells or talents to be activated immediately, but with the exception of ONE mage attack animation, every other animation was so short and fast that the talent or spell could indeed be activated virtually instantaneously. The one mage animation I'm referring to is when the mage bangs their staff against the ground after doing a small backwards move. Other than that overly long animation, no other basic attack animation left me with a feeling of unresponsiveness when playing.

Archery is also problematic in this regard.  You have to wait for some time after the attack animation to move.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 25 octobre 2011 - 01:58 .

[Dave of Canada]

 [SPOILERS]

Curious Sylvius, what'd you think of having the protagonist possibly failing in his/her goal depending on the way you'd roleplay them? I do recall you mentioning you were interested in this a while back before you had played the game and somebody mentioned it.

[/SPOILERS]

[Aiomon]

Who cares if a game is not perfect. Dont compare it. Dont even judge it. If it is fun, its fun. If you had fun, you did. Who cares if it was a good or bad game.
I enjoyed it. I realize it has many short comings.
I dont care.
I had fun.

[Heimdall]

Honeyydew wrote...

Who cares if a game is not perfect. Dont compare it. Dont even judge it. If it is fun, its fun. If you had fun, you did. Who cares if it was a good or bad game.
I enjoyed it. I realize it has many short comings.
I dont care.
I had fun.

But if we do not judge it, how will Bioware know how to make the next game better?

[Steppenwolf]

I think I agree with everything except for the aimlessness being a plus. I like to have a goal to accomplish. Just being a guy doing random stuff to get a nice house isn't more interesting just because it's in a fantastical setting. And there weren't nearly enough connections between chapters to make it feel like one cohesive story. It just felt like 3 separate stories that weren't interesting enough to carry their own game.
And I just have to say, Bioware doesn't get enough heat for making it so easy to lose companions with no way of changing it unless you go back and replay the majority of the game. That's bullpoop. Just because I didn't max out Isabela's friendship/rivalry or romance her doesn't mean I should have no way of keeping her around for the duration of the game.

[Morroian]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

Especially agree on the unresponsiveness of the combat. I just find that aspect especially confusing considering the devs kept hyping how reactive and snappier the combat in DA2 is compared to Origins.When, in actuality it almost plays out like a turn based game since your characters are locked in the attack animations for so long after you initiate the attack and can't be broken out of it.

I preferred DA2's mechanic in the sense that I found its unresponsiveness was much more predictable than DAOs.

Exactly and its hardly more unresponsive than DAO, it happens far less and you quickly learn which abilities will lock the character for longer and can adjust tactics accordingly.

[adneate]

A good review, it's a lot of writing to really pick a RPG apart since they contain so much writing. The only thing I really don't agree with is the story and the framed narrative, I would call it an unmitigated failure that really torpedos the story. The plot has no driving or central issue that is clear and makes sense, stop the big bad might be an overdone plot but it at least provides a solid back bone and allows the story to expand. DA2's plot is virtually nonexistent and the "story" is just a series of random events with almost nothing connecting them to anything. The framed narrative adds nothing to the story except allowing the writers to jump time in random ill defined and meaningless ways with no discernible impact on anything. They could just write in ANY amount of time and it would be about the same . . . actually months would probably make more sense.

If I wasn't talking to someone for 3 years I wouldn't consider myself in a relationship with that person . . . I don't know if I'd even associate with that person after that amount of time . . . I don't get it.

[Malanek]

Morroian wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

Especially agree on the unresponsiveness of the combat. I just find that aspect especially confusing considering the devs kept hyping how reactive and snappier the combat in DA2 is compared to Origins.When, in actuality it almost plays out like a turn based game since your characters are locked in the attack animations for so long after you initiate the attack and can't be broken out of it.

I preferred DA2's mechanic in the sense that I found its unresponsiveness was much more predictable than DAOs.

Exactly and its hardly more unresponsive than DAO, it happens far less and you quickly learn which abilities will lock the character for longer and can adjust tactics accordingly.

It's more responsive in the fact you can "dodge" attacks through movement the way you can in an ARPG like Diablo. In Origins Ser Cauthrien, amongst other enemies, could hit you from the other side of the room. IMO DA2 was much more responsive than Origins.

[Malanek]

IMO this was a very good review even though I disagree with StM over how important or desirable various aspects are. What he says is explained clearly and logically reasoned.

[MerinTB]

An excellent review, Sylvius.

I don't agree with all of it - particularly the beginning part about the story (authored narrative) being very strong. I can see your points in why you like it, and will agree in principle on how nice it is to not have a big bad (especially a big bad you know you will be confronting from minute one of the game!) but at the end I felt the story had NOTHING, and I agree with Yahtzee that is could be sub-titlted "Dragon Age: Intermission."

Otherwise, well thought out and you explain yourself well.

I plan on finally doing my own MGR of DA2 over on In Genre once I finish my 3rd (and almost certainly final) run through the game. It'll likely be long.

But I think you'd find more to agree with than disagree with when I'm done.

[Zjarcal]

Joy Divison wrote...

Archery is also problematic in this regard.  You have to wait for some time after the attack animation to move.

Hmm, maybe it's because I had the "Speed" talent on almost at all times, but I didn't really feel the archer animations were too long, I still felt my archer was responsive enough.

As I said, it was only during that particular mage animation that I really felt unresponsiveness was a big problem, and I mean BIG problem. I can't even begin to count the amount of times I missed the chance to exploit stagger with chain lighting due to that.

Nevertheless, if there was a petition to ask that in DA3 all basic attack animations are immediately interrupted by a talent or spell, I'd definitely support it.

[yuncas]

Your points on exploration, polish, level and encounter design, they're all givens for me. The point on dialogue I especially agree with. The many shades of meaning that were possible with the origins system are lost with the goody-goodness for the sake of goodness, dickish smart ass, and angry tough guy responses.

I also find myself agreeing with both your points on the authored narrative, and though I enjoy intricacies of the plot the lack of effect the players choices have on the world diminishes the worth of not having a a big bad to deal with.

Modifié par yuncas, 25 octobre 2011 - 04:19 .

[Dormiglione]

@OP
Your main post was a long and very interesting read. You wrote a fantastic review and i agree with you.

[Joy Divison]

Zjarcal wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

Archery is also problematic in this regard.  You have to wait for some time after the attack animation to move.

Hmm, maybe it's because I had the "Speed" talent on almost at all times, but I didn't really feel the archer animations were too long, I still felt my archer was responsive enough.

As I said, it was only during that particular mage animation that I really felt unresponsiveness was a big problem, and I mean BIG problem. I can't even begin to count the amount of times I missed the chance to exploit stagger with chain lighting due to that.

Nevertheless, if there was a petition to ask that in DA3 all basic attack animations are immediately interrupted by a talent or spell, I'd definitely support it.

RE: Archery.  It's noticable in two instances:

1. when you want to move out of the way of a charging ogre and need that split second
2. when you change weapons and are not moving.  It's bad enough they got rid of the weapon slots, but the undocumented "feature" that unless a rogue is on the move when switching wepaons the rogue might stand around doing nothing for a second or two is annoying.

I think you are right in that for probably 90%, maybe more, of the game, players can do what they want when they want.  I don't play warriors much but I don't recall there ever being an issue with them.  And most of the time the 10% is either a really short delay or merely annoying rather than game altering.  It's those times when you miss a key CCC or get one-shotted by a genlock alpha charge...  I think the OP is saying even if those 10% aren't significant they are unnecessary.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 25 octobre 2011 - 04:26 .

[Urazz]

Morroian wrote...

Just a couple of things your dialogue section is really about the dialogue system not the dialogue itself. Secondly you are wrong about the encounter design being no better in Legacy, the encounters are more varied, the enemy placement is better, the battlegrounds offer more opportunities for tactics, the waves are reduced and when they are used they are used logically with enemies coming from places you would expect.

I agree.  The dialogue itself was completely fine.  The dialogue system itself was pretty good in theory in itself but was poor in execution.

A better solution would be to pick your dominant personality in the beginning of the game for those scenes where you don't get to choose what to say or do.  If there are time skips like in DA2 then let another choice for the dominant personality happen again in case the player wants to change it again.  That way you can be a jerk 90% of the time in the dialogue choices but since you picked the diplomatic persona, you behave that way in scenes where you don't control your character.  This way it maximizes what you have your character do but still have a unique characterization for your PC.

The combat was improved in Legacy and Mark of the Assassin with smarter wave spawning locations and how it was used.  Combat was also a bit harder as well so it's not like you could sleep through those DLCs when you play through them.

[tmp7704]

Urazz wrote...

I agree.  The dialogue itself was completely fine.

I'd say there was some issues with quality of the dialogue, too -- too often the conversation would feel not like an actual conversation, but as if a pair of people were throwing what's supposed to be witty one-liners at each other, with very little coherence and flow between these one-liners, and sometimes lacking even sense. I'd call it "CSI style" dialogue, because it's very prominent in these shows -- it's as if the goal for people involved is to just one-up the other guy and get the last word in, with the subject being secondary. And it's... annoying.

[Heather Cline]

C9316 wrote...

I pretty much agree with your points except for the authored narrative. I just felt confined whenever I played, mostly due to the time skips. They made the game seem broken if you will, like a jig-saw puzzle no one bothered to put together. Oh and to me it kinda ruins the dlc. "Oh that's right I forgot something about Hawke, lemme tell ya some more stuff he/she did that otherwise has no real impact!"

The time skips did break the game up and not in a nice way. I've played the game Fable 2 and they did a 10 year time skip in that game. But during the ten year time skip you actually got to play exerpts of the time skip itself. A similar thing could have been done for the time skips in DA2. Instead of just skipping ahead three years and the character Hawke and companions did not grow or change or gain any strength during that time, they could have implemented a system where you got to play as Hawke during some exerpts of the time skip. Would have at least made more sense.

I also agree about how it makes the DLC have no impact on the main game. It was like "Oh here is a side story for you. Go play it, but ultimately it has no bearing on the character or story." Mass Effect 2's DLC all had a bearing on the main story. They were implemented a lot better.

[Gibb_Shepard]

I cannot agree with your conclusions on the writing. At all.

But everything else i agree with.

[Cyberarmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The Combat Mechanics

DA:Origins
established asymmetrical combat mechanics for the franchise, but that
doesn't make their use any more acceptable in AD2 than they were in the
first game. Particulary since the implementation got so much worse.
That Hawke and his companions do orders of magnitude more damage than
every other creature in the world is a crime against verisimilitude. A
huge boss enemy could absorb blow after blow doing hundreds or even
thousands of damage at a time, while his attack damage typically didn't
exceed several dozen.

That is a well written review covers nearly all of DA2's "not liked" parts
And while i can live with small changes for all other matters you listed but the combat.

That kind of combat "I can hit for 1200 but have 250 HP, NPCs can hit for 120 but 2.500.000 HP" must go or even must die...

Cannot they just balance the combat with same stats for everybody. like DA:O or D&D style again?
MMO style combat in single player RPGs just givin me headaches...

[FedericoV]

Good job, interesting review.

I do not agree about the authored narrative as you call the story. Finally Bioware have done something different. Unfortunately they have not done it well. But if novelty and a little bit of originality have saved the convoluted mess of a story that it's DA2, more power to you.

I do not agree about the combat but we have allready discussed it in detail in another post. I mean, the combat is more responsive than DA:O. But you seem to play differently then me. And I think that there is nothing wrong in asymmetrical combat design. Quite the opposite: I think that it's the right thing to do for any storytelling RPG.

Finally, I do not want to dismiss your point of view. Your review and your criticisms are really interesting and I understand where they come from. But I do not know if it can be very usefull to Bioware. You seem to want a kind of game that currently Bioware is not interested in to the slightest.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Regarding the first point about not knowing what the resolution is, I agree that was a good thing going for DAII. However I strongly feel that Bioware did not do a good job with it because it inevitably turns out to be the same thing every time.

The PC doesn't know that, though, so the uncertainty can influence his decision-making on every playthrough.

Regarding the Foozle point, I disagree. Despite what anyone wants to think, Meredith was and always will be the villain of the game because they used a "big bad evil" to drive their plot forward when what Hawke found in the Deep Roads could've actually helped to make the situation grey.

Since someone immediately disagreed with you, I doubt Meredith's status as villain is as clear as that.  However...

Dave of Canada wrote...

 [SPOILERS]

...I don't actually know what happens at the "end" of the game, because I never reached the the conclusion of the authored narrative.  Since the game didn't force me to pursue a specific "Main Quest" (and that's a good feature of DA2), and doing so would have been out of character for my Hawke, I ran out of game content somewhat earlier than I suspect the writers intended.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 25 octobre 2011 - 08:27 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

adneate wrote...

The plot has no driving or central issue that is clear and makes sense.

I think that's a good thing.  The plot, as you describe it, is the authored narrative, which I think is far less important than the emergent narrative.  It is that which you create yourself.  Hawke is your character.  You get to decide what he wants to do.

You didn't like DA2's story because it didn't tell you what Hawke should do or why Hawke was doing it.  But I don't think that's the game's job.  That's your job.  You are supposed to populate Hawke's mind with beliefs, values, and goals.  If you don't do that, then he doesn't have any, and of course he appears directionless.

[Sylvius the Mad]

FedericoV wrote...

And I think that there is nothing wrong in asymmetrical combat design. Quite the opposite: I think that it's the right thing to do for any storytelling RPG.

How do you resolve the obvious incrongruities asymmetrical combat mechanics create within the emergent narrative?  Hawke and his companions strike blows with vastly more power than any other being in the world.  Surely they've noticed this.  Surely others have, as well.  And yet this knowledge doesn't seem to affect anyone's non-combat behaviour.

[Ramante]

Great review Sylvius.

I absolutely agree with the irritating +100 cold resistance items, I never knew what to make of those numbers. I agree with practically everyting in your post, but this is one point that hasn't been adressed in other reviews (afaik).

One question, have you played MotA? If not, are you thinking about trying it?

Edit: another question, what exactly is your main problem with Legacy?

Modifié par Ramante, 25 octobre 2011 - 08:40 .

[seraphymon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

adneate wrote...

The plot has no driving or central issue that is clear and makes sense.

I think that's a good thing.  The plot, as you describe it, is the authored narrative, which I think is far less important than the emergent narrative.  It is that which you create yourself.  Hawke is your character.  You get to decide what he wants to do.

You didn't like DA2's story because it didn't tell you what Hawke should do or why Hawke was doing it.  But I don't think that's the game's job.  That's your job.  You are supposed to populate Hawke's mind with beliefs, values, and goals.  If you don't do that, then he doesn't have any, and of course he appears directionless.

I honestly dont know how you can say that, when its the complete opposite. Hawke is not my character, and i hardly ever got to decide what to do, none of the decisions mattered. Only thing was in what order to do them, and many of them have no reason other to just help a person you dont know, some of which you still do even when you refuse.