The problem with that article for me is that some of my criticism of DA2 actually has little to do with gameplay at all. For me, the relationships with my 'companions' felt empty and lifeless by comparison to those in DAO, so I couldn't disagree with the article more on that front.
The largest part of my disconnection with the NPC's I attribute to the revised conversation system. IMO, the characters ceased to be 'people' once they left their little hidey holes, and instead became combat statistics-with-legs. In Origins, Bioware at least attempted to maintain the illusion of them being people by allowing the player to initiate dialog with them while on the road. So some conversations were initiated by the PC and some by the NPC. Kinda like the real world: sometimes you speak to your friend first, sometimes they speak to you. In DA2, the triggering of conversations was an entirely passive situation for the player. Either you went to their hidey hole, or you could not talk with them, unless 'they' triggered the conversation. And in many situations it just was infuriating. I know my wife also felt the same way. Not that DAO's system was perfect, but this aspect of the game went from a 9/10 to a 2/10 IMO.
I thought this conversation system change was the worst-equal of DA2's faults (the new art style being the other). As a result, I just don't give a damn about the NPC's or their stories: they're just glorified combat assets and the illusion of personality is stripped away every time you step out of their home base. Now I know that ML and DG are talking about loosening up slightly on this again for the future, and perhaps they can do it via a revision to the banter system or somesuch. I dunno. Currently I am leaning 'sceptical' on how succesful that might be at addressing my issues, but I am waiting to hear more details before I decide whether it's worth taking a risk on or not.
And my enjoyment of the companion relationships certainly wasn't helped by the character of the companions either. Most of them I actively disliked this time around. In fact, the only part of it that I enjoyed was (finally) having the option to kill some of them off. Unfortunately that option came far, far later in the game than I would have preferred.
Another non-gameplay issue with DA2 was the endlessly repetitive theme of templars vs mages. I got so utterly tired of the topic by the end of the game I was about ready to throw the mouse at the monitor every time it was mentioned. Which made the Orsino transformation even more... infuriating....doesn't quite do it justice. And I was enjoying the Lily murderer quest because I had been thinking it was finally a non-blood mage quest only to find out...%^#$%&^#&!!!!! Really? REALLY? Nooooooooo....
The article points out that Hawke was essentially a helpless bystander, and passive 'survivor', and lauds that as a change from the normal in games. Ok, fair point: it was indeed a change. But that rather misses the point that for many, that change rather ruined the experience of playing a 'hero' in a fantasy world. I don't object to Bioware trying to do something different, but games are supposed to be fun aren't they? Who really feels that being made to feel largely irrelevant is 'fun'? I know I surely don't. (We already have politics for that). Thankfully, Bioware have already begun talking about consequence being one of their new watch-words so that's a good sign.
The other issue is that, as a sequel to an existing franchise, customer expectations have already been set by the original. If the product is good then sell that product for what it is on its own merits, not by deliberately conflating it with something quite different and then demanding that customers stop complaining that it wasn't what they expected or wanted.If the market really wants a DAO-2, and Bioware instead wants to make
something completely different (DA2) and it turns out to result in half
the sales, then that rather suggests that Bioware might have erred in
their vision: not that the customers are wrong and need their
perspective adjusted.
The upshot is that negative reaction to DA2 boiled down to a number of major design-vision changes (both gameplay and non-gameplay) that left a large fraction of the eventual customers dissapointed. Paired with an aggressive effort to obtain pre-orders (signature edition) this has the feel of a bait and switch. I recall one of the devs (I think it was Mike Laidlaw) saying in response to the pre-release unrest on the forums something along the lines of (paraphrase) 'I think our track record in pretty good and we think you'll like the changes once you get to be hands-on with the game. I think we've earned some trust.' I felt he had a point and I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, so I did not cancel my preorder. For me, that WAS the 'second chance' for DA2.
I have no interest in giving DA2 another look. The author of the article might have convinced himself that DA2 is now a silk purse, but for me it's very definitely still a sow's ear. That's why I can't bring myself to buy and try the DLC: the idea of replaying the base game is a significant deterrent for me.
Now, I am paying close attention to what the devs are saying wrt future DA-direction. But I already know that I will definitely not be pre-ordering DA3, no matter what. My new position with Bioware is 'trust, but verify'. Some of the revisions being mentioned by ML sound like improvements over DA2. And some of the ideas I've read about from DLC's sound intriguing too. Based on that, DA3 will almost certainly be better executed than DA2. But the question I have is whether they can bring it back up anywhere near to the level set by DAO while still laboring under the design vision that mandated the wholesale changes in the first place?
Make no bones about it: for me DA2 <<<<<< DAO. If I decide that DA3 is closer to the DA2 end of that spectrum then I will likely be passing on it. (And the whole Origin requirement thing will also be a deal breaker if it turns out that way and the EULA/spyware issues are not fixed).
I purchased 2 copies of DAO, 2 copies of DAA, and 2 copies of DA2 because my wife and I each wished to play those games as soon as they were available. We were too excited by the prospect of playing them to want to wait for the other to finish their playthrough, so 2 copies were bought each time. The letdown of our DA2 experience means that we will only be purchasing one copy of DA3 if we do decide to buy it at all. Neither of us is particularly excited by the idea of the game right now, and neither of us is so antsy to play that we can't wait for the other to finish first. Disillusionment leads directly to apathy, and apathy is the sloth demon's greatest weapon and the marketer's nemesis. No: I am not saying that DA2 is a terrible game. It is a mediocre one IMO. But I really don't consider mediocre games to be worth spending AAA money on.
So basically, I am happy the article author feels better about DA2, but nothing he wrote convinces me that DA2 is worth another look. Sorry. If that makes me a hater then ...fine. Sticks and stones, and all that jazz.
Modifié par craigdolphin, 08 novembre 2011 - 10:01 .
Guest_EternalAmbiguity_*
Retour en haut
