249 réponses à ce sujet

[KilrB]

Dubya75 wrote...

KilrB wrote...

They've got a long way to go for "over-the-top awesome" and I seriously doubt that they, other than Gaider, are capable of it.

Have a little faith!

I do ... VERY little by this point.

C'mon BW, surprise me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

There are many story and writing-based improvements DA2 made over its predecessor. Unfortunately, the core game system - the roleplaying - was effectively removed, thus ruining the game.

I strongly disagree with the reviewer's initial premise. The gameplay that matters is the roleplaying, and that's something DA2 simply doesn't permit. The game is brilliantly written, but it doesn't matter if the player cannot realise his character design within the game.

Hawke's relationships with the companion characters should be based on the player's choices regarding Hawke's interactions with those companions, and it's wonderful that the companions can react differently (in previous games, that diversity was largely left up to the player, which I think remains an adequate design), but that expression to which the companions react is far more limited in DA2 than in anything else (aside from the ME games) BioWare has ever done. Voicing the PC and hiding his lines behind those obfuscatory paraphrases was an unmitigated disaster for roleplayers.

The dialogue system alone makes DA2 an irredeemable failure, which is a shame, because a lot of DA2's features are really quite good.

[alex90c]

LilyasAvalon wrote...

First impressions always count. Even with additions of Legacy and MotA, DA2, no matter how many times you play it or how much extra money you spend to dress it up to look half way decent, is still DA2.

I have continued to play this game, will continue to play this game, but the more times I play it, the more things I find wrong with it, the more growing disgust and disrespect I have for the team that put it together (Alas, even for David Gaider, who has become a somewhat idol of mine since I joined the Bioware fandom) and the more it sullies both the Bioware and Dragon Age name for me.

There were ELEMENTS of a great game in here, there was potential, but whatever there was, it rotted the moment it hit the store markets. There's been proof that the team has responded to our feedback, but all the DLC's in the world will not fix DA2, and if anything, brings it down further by the simple fact that we have to pay to 'fix' the game.

Put it up against all the other games that have come out and are coming out, e.g. Witcher 2, Portal 2, Assassin's Creed Revelations, Dues Ex, etc. and Dragon Age 2 only falls farther.

Give up on making it look half way decent, it's a lost cause, focus your efforts on making DA3 over the top awesome.

Yes, and when Bioware tried to do that with DA2, it pissed people off, and I'm speaking both in regards to the over-the top "awesome" wankfest that's meant to be combat and the over-the-top insanity of practically everyone in Kirkwall.

[accessd]

Well...interesting article but I'll never play DA2 again. The disappointment that hit me in the face when I realized that I'd been screwed still hurts.
I have however started a new play through of the fantastic Origins.

After The Old Republic fails we might see some good RPGs from BioWare again.

[LilyasAvalon]

alex90c wrote...

LilyasAvalon wrote...

First impressions always count. Even with additions of Legacy and MotA, DA2, no matter how many times you play it or how much extra money you spend to dress it up to look half way decent, is still DA2.

I have continued to play this game, will continue to play this game, but the more times I play it, the more things I find wrong with it, the more growing disgust and disrespect I have for the team that put it together (Alas, even for David Gaider, who has become a somewhat idol of mine since I joined the Bioware fandom) and the more it sullies both the Bioware and Dragon Age name for me.

There were ELEMENTS of a great game in here, there was potential, but whatever there was, it rotted the moment it hit the store markets. There's been proof that the team has responded to our feedback, but all the DLC's in the world will not fix DA2, and if anything, brings it down further by the simple fact that we have to pay to 'fix' the game.

Put it up against all the other games that have come out and are coming out, e.g. Witcher 2, Portal 2, Assassin's Creed Revelations, Dues Ex, etc. and Dragon Age 2 only falls farther.

Give up on making it look half way decent, it's a lost cause, focus your efforts on making DA3 over the top awesome.

Yes, and when Bioware tried to do that with DA2, it pissed people off, and I'm speaking both in regards to the over-the top "awesome" wankfest that's meant to be combat and the over-the-top insanity of practically everyone in Kirkwall.

*Sigh* My kind of 'awesome' and DA2's kind of 'awesome' are two entirely different things. I thought this was obvious. I meant in the awesome sense of how Origins was an awesome game with captivating and near holeless stories, characters, codex, etc.

I want DA3 to return to this. Or at least have a goddamn consistant storyline with a real goal.

DA2 'awesome' was quite obviously targetted towards the newer or as they refer to themselves 'hardcore and real' gaming community. Literally the 'press A for Awesome' crowd, the ones who could care less about story, characters, you know, things you actually need in any entertainment media.

[KilrB]

LilyasAvalon wrote...

alex90c wrote...

LilyasAvalon wrote...

First impressions always count. Even with additions of Legacy and MotA, DA2, no matter how many times you play it or how much extra money you spend to dress it up to look half way decent, is still DA2.

I have continued to play this game, will continue to play this game, but the more times I play it, the more things I find wrong with it, the more growing disgust and disrespect I have for the team that put it together (Alas, even for David Gaider, who has become a somewhat idol of mine since I joined the Bioware fandom) and the more it sullies both the Bioware and Dragon Age name for me.

There were ELEMENTS of a great game in here, there was potential, but whatever there was, it rotted the moment it hit the store markets. There's been proof that the team has responded to our feedback, but all the DLC's in the world will not fix DA2, and if anything, brings it down further by the simple fact that we have to pay to 'fix' the game.

Put it up against all the other games that have come out and are coming out, e.g. Witcher 2, Portal 2, Assassin's Creed Revelations, Dues Ex, etc. and Dragon Age 2 only falls farther.

Give up on making it look half way decent, it's a lost cause, focus your efforts on making DA3 over the top awesome.

Yes, and when Bioware tried to do that with DA2, it pissed people off, and I'm speaking both in regards to the over-the top "awesome" wankfest that's meant to be combat and the over-the-top insanity of practically everyone in Kirkwall.

*Sigh* My kind of 'awesome' and DA2's kind of 'awesome' are two entirely different things. I thought this was obvious. I meant in the awesome sense of how Origins was an awesome game with captivating and near holeless stories, characters, codex, etc.

I want DA3 to return to this. Or at least have a goddamn consistant storyline with a real goal.

DA2 'awesome' was quite obviously targetted towards the newer or as they refer to themselves 'hardcore and real' gaming community. Literally the 'press A for Awesome' crowd, the ones who could care less about story, characters, you know, things you actually need in any entertainment media.

You mean the ones who were going to push DA2's sales past 4.5 million?

 ... whatever happened to them?

[Wozearly]

accessd wrote...

Well...interesting article but I'll never play DA2 again. The disappointment that hit me in the face when I realized that I'd been screwed still hurts.
I have however started a new play through of the fantastic Origins.

After The Old Republic fails we might see some good RPGs from BioWare again.

If TOR fails then Bioware is going to be hurting. MMOs take up a lot of time and investment and are designed for a lifespan of several years - TOR going south can't be a good thing for Bioware however you cut the cake. Arguably the worst thing that could happen for RPG fans would be for TOR to become a runaway success and start pressuring Bioware to focus more on MMO-style games.

And if that happens, top of the list for consideration is going to be Mythic, who I'm sure would be happy to push forward to create a new MMO (if they aren't working on one already).

In reality, what happens to TOR is not going to be hugely relevant to the teams working on the likes of Mass Effect and Dragon Age. They're completely different teams in, if I understand correctly, a completely different location to the TOR team. And its unlikely Bioware is going to throw away its proven strengths in single player RPGs, which have turned a decent profit over the years.

DA2 did have some really great ideas, a couple of which it executed well, many of which it executed badly. And I disagreed with the change in direction, style and feel of the game. The article was right to point to use of character interactions and development as a key DA2 strength.

[Curlain]

I haven't really been on these boards for a while, and I don't really post here allot cause well, I gave my opinions on DA2 back when the game came out (and whatever BioWare will or will not take from those opinions they already have done), so I don't see any need to rehash them. So for me these boards should mostly be for those who enjoy DA2 and I don't really wish to be someone who comes on spoiling their enjoyment on these boards. For myself though I have little interest in DA IP anymore, I can see it's not a game series now that really includes me in it's audience.

As for trying it again, well I looked at this article, but someone else opinion isn't going to change my experience of the game. I just played it through once, tried to be positive about it and attempted a 2nd game and even using mods to improve it I just couldn't do it. I've uninstalled it and I'm afraid someone else opinion isn't going to change the fact I already know from experience that I'm not going to enjoy playing it again. So no, no 2nd chances for me, it's just not a game I wish to play again.

[Gabey5]

Yeah... that is not happening

[ZeshinX]

Powerlessness in a medium designed to allow control and interactivity....to be the hero (or villain) and not just a witness to events happening around us? (and being witness to events around us is pretty much our everyday lives). Based on the article's suggestion, we play one of those butt-ugly NPCs milling about Kirkwall.

<sarcasm>
Fun.
</sarcasm>

I played through DA2 twice. This article, while a very interesting take, will not convince me to play it again (or ever again). It was a colossal disappointment on every level for me, from visuals to characterizations to pacing to plot. A sense of powerlessness is NOT why I enjoy/play video games. Quite the friggin' opposite in fact.

[Gemini1179]

I posted an article in the ME forum on how I felt that the story was not really mattering to me any more in the ME universe for various reasons. I finally said that despite that, it is the characters, combat and GAMEPLAY that keep me hooked on the series.

The characters in DA2 don`t help the fact that you have to check the same 20 corners everytime you enter a reused location because you can`t remember if the one resource or chest you remember finding is in this room... or that room.

For the writer to say that DA2 went from being one of the big disappointments in a game to one of the best games he`s ever played, basically he loses all credibility in my eyes. Replays can give you more understanding, but they can`t make the game better. Fenris is still brooding and self-absorbed, Isabela is still the best wing-man you`ll ever meet, Varric is still Varric, Anders is still one straw from breaking, Merrill is still the prettiest, sweetest, cutest, most naive elf ever, etc, etc, etc.

Modifié par Gemini1179, 03 novembre 2011 - 06:09 .

[Mike3207]

I played through once for the DA3 import, I won't play DA2 again. I didn't like the developers making the Warden disappear at the end of DA2, and I haven't like hearing Gaider say there will be no royal heir. I really don't see a reason to hold out much hope for DA3, and Skyrim seems like it will be a better game anyway.

[Flashing Steel]

I could not disagree with this article more...

You cannot simply say 'if you ignore the gameplay flaws, it's actually a good game'. Like others have said gameplay makes up the majority of any game, it's an immutable variable throughout the game which will inevitably influence whether I enjoy my gaming experience or not. I am of the belief that story and narrative are secondary to gameplay. What use is a compelling story if I do not enjoy the methods employed to progress through the game and explore said story?

The point made about powerlessness is jocular at best. If I wanted to have no agency and be nothing more than a passive bystander, I would watch a film. I find it fantastical that in the same article the author would state 'DA2 tells the player that they are not a superhero' but merely 'a survivor and witness to catastrophic events'. Yet when I assume the role of Hawke the almighty onlooker I discern the opposite to be true. Surely, only the the most adept knights and talented soldiers have the capacity to slay such a vast amounts of enemies. Surely, even fewer could exhibit enough combat prowess to command the demise of the Arishok, amongst a plethora of other enemies, who are too powerful for someone not considered a superhero. Alas, I find myself confronted with the palpable realization that, rather than instigating a sense of true powerlessness in the game, Bioware stripped the player of agency in a paltry attempt to simulate this feeling. Whilst equipping the player with a character who seemingly has both the power and opportunity to control the course of events, yet cannot because of the fatuous implementation of helplessness. Assuredly this was the agent of many a disgruntlement.

Modifié par Flashing Steel, 03 novembre 2011 - 10:04 .

[LeVaughnX]

You know I read the comments here and I hear all the bashers basically going ""WE EXPECTED"" -- and right there I stopped and wondered. So people dislike a game because they EXPECTED a game sequel to have the following....

- An UnOriginal Concept that followed directly from the first game.
- The same graphics and gameplay from the first game.
- The same general characters with a few additions but not many (from the first game).

Basically people are pissing and whining that DA2 isn't an exact clone from DAO? Honestly I have some gripes about DA2 but nothing that makes the game terrible or unplayable!

- I felt that the Tactics system didn't work well in DA2 - but apparently they patched it and now for me the Tactics work perfectly.

- There are a lot more enemies; so you need more AOE spamming - but if you try that against a boss your ass is grass (I've tested this theory).

- The characters were alright; Varric was awesome, Merrill was a ditz just like in the first game, Isabella was un-used as she was a skank with the Scale Itch, and Anders was a chode chomper.

- The conversations were Mass Effect style which is much better than the DAO style of picking four to five options to a question like ""HOW ARE YOU?!"". You could say ""I'M GOOD!"" or ""I'M GOOD."" or ""GOOD.."" or ""NOT GOOD..."" or ""OKAY...."" or ""KINDA BAD..."" you get the point. There weren't many real differences in terms of options; so DA2 just improved it. And I like knowing I can pull of a sarcastic response sometimes; makes me laugh.

- I liked the "constricting" atmosphere as it felt more realistic than going across a country. I mean the game focus's on a person / families rise to power in a friggen city; not how they went across the countryside righting wrongs or raiding villages. It had a structure to follow - if you didn't like it, don't blame the game.

Overall Dragon Age 2 was great; but the players have a habit of blaming the game for failing to meet their expectations (like in ME2). Just because you disagree with the game or dislike it for whatever reason doesn't mean its bad; it means you didn't like it. So next time you make a rude comment about DA2 remember - though its an opinion you shouldn't treat it like its a solid fact. If you're going to be bias about something without a good enough reason that can't be easily refuted (sp) then please don't try to ****** people off in the first place.

Thanks!

Modifié par LeVaughnX, 03 novembre 2011 - 06:57 .

[Dubya75]

LeVaughnX wrote...

You know I read the comments here and I hear all the bashers basically going ""WE EXPECTED"" -- and right there I stopped and wondered. So people dislike a game because they EXPECTED a game sequel to have the following....

- An UnOriginal Concept that followed directly from the first game.
- The same graphics and gameplay from the first game.
- The same general characters with a few additions but not many (from the first game).

Basically people are pissing and whining that DA2 isn't an exact clone from DAO? Honestly I have some gripes about DA2 but nothing that makes the game terrible or unplayable!

- I felt that the Tactics system didn't work well in DA2 - but apparently they patched it and now for me the Tactics work perfectly.

- There are a lot more enemies; so you need more AOE spamming - but if you try that against a boss your ass is grass (I've tested this theory).

- The characters were alright; Varric was awesome, Merrill was a ditz just like in the first game, Isabella was un-used as she was a skank with the Scale Itch, and Anders was a chode chomper.

- The conversations were Mass Effect style which is much better than the DAO style of picking four to five options to a question like ""HOW ARE YOU?!"". You could say ""I'M GOOD!"" or ""I'M GOOD."" or ""GOOD.."" or ""NOT GOOD..."" or ""OKAY...."" or ""KINDA BAD..."" you get the point. There weren't many real differences in terms of options; so DA2 just improved it. And I like knowing I can pull of a sarcastic response sometimes; makes me laugh.

- I liked the "constricting" atmosphere as it felt more realistic than going across a country. I mean the game focus's on a person / families rise to power in a friggen city; not how they went across the countryside righting wrongs or raiding villages. It had a structure to follow - if you didn't like it, don't blame the game.

Overall Dragon Age 2 was great; but the players have a habit of blaming the game for failing to meet their expectations (like in ME2). Just because you disagree with the game or dislike it for whatever reason doesn't mean its bad; it means you didn't like it. So next time you make a rude comment about DA2 remember - though its an opinion you shouldn't treat it like its a solid fact. If you're going to be bias about something without a good enough reason that can't be easily refuted (sp) then please don't try to ****** people off in the first place.

Thanks!

Amen brother! 

[LeVaughnX]

Why thank you Dubya - I've been tired of hearing the drones from ME2 and DA2 constantly whining and complaining about stupid sh*t. If you want to complain at least make a good point - kind of like two minor complaints I have/had.

1.) Since you can't summon anything but a dog - why not give him some skills like Dog from DAO? I mean, not like hes any use anyway hah.

2.) Anders - why so pushy to be ****** with male Hawke? Spooks me out.

[Salaya]

LeVaughnX wrote...

...

Overall Dragon Age 2 was great; but the players have a habit of blaming the game for failing to meet their expectations (like in ME2). Just because you disagree with the game or dislike it for whatever reason doesn't mean its bad; it means you didn't like it. So next time you make a rude comment about DA2 remember - though its an opinion you shouldn't treat it like its a solid fact. If you're going to be bias about something without a good enough reason that can't be easily refuted (sp) then please don't try to ****** people off in the first place.

Thanks!

Following your own words - why do you treat as fact your opinion about DA2 being great?

Don't be so quick to blame other opinions; the difference between "not liking", "liking" and "quality" is perfectly evident to almost everyone. The fact is, if you dislike something, you have a very good and reasonable justification to treat that thing as "bad". The same for the contrary. 

To respect other opinion means to respect their viewpoint -in this case, respect the fact that some people has perfectly good reasons to dislike the game and label it as "bad". And the same for those who cry out loud about people liking DA2; it's a game, with a variety of elements that will displease and please lots of different people. Games, like any other kind of product, art, or culture object, depends of people's viewpoints to be "good" or "bad" as much as their own elements.

[Dragoonlordz]

Why would someone else, some random person I do not know's opinion change my view on how I experienced the game and why would it possibly change my mind. Unless he or she turns out to be hypnotoad they pretty much **** out of luck I am sorry to say.

Either way I sold my copy, no plans to buy another and will check out what they do with DA3 but no intention of pre-ordering as have zero reason too because may turn out to be along the lines of game I just personally won't be interested in playing. The same principle with regards to TOR and ME3, though TOR slightly annoys me already with regards to their silly pricing of a mere [client software] which requires subscription fees to play in first place so client itself should not be higher price than most PC new games of which it actually is by about £10 here.

So while ME3 I am willing to try but no pre-order, DA2 no interest whatsoever after forcing myself to complete it prior just to reach end. DA3 I will check out what they actually do when time comes around but again no pre-order as it could go different direction to what I enjoy. TOR on the other hand is a no go until that price of client drops VASTLY given I would be expected to pay subscription on top I have no interest in being ripped off for the mere client which is useless with out online subscription.

Note that people clearly are free to enjoy what I do not. May have different opinions but my opinion is mine and no-one can change that just by going on and on how "I must have missed something that a clearly superior being managed to notice" of which is fallacy. I noticed/understood everything I could possibly need to about the game I played and my opinion is not influenced by lack of understanding or magical pixie dust. If I do not enjoy it then I do not enjoy it ~and is not because I missed or don't understand something. I just did not enjoy it for many reasons end of the story.

If someone does not like the colour pink you are not going to change their mind simply by saying is created via a mix of colours. Likewise if someone does not like eggs you aren't going to change their mind by telling them it comes from a chickens arse. People like different things and those who love DA2 should stop trying to convince those who do not that they are wrong to dislike it and yes this also applies vice versa.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 03 novembre 2011 - 07:55 .

[Addai]

LeVaughnX wrote...

You know I read the comments here and I hear all the bashers basically going ""WE EXPECTED"" -- and right there I stopped and wondered. So people dislike a game because they EXPECTED a game sequel to have the following....

- An UnOriginal Concept that followed directly from the first game.
- The same graphics and gameplay from the first game.
- The same general characters with a few additions but not many (from the first game).

Basically people are pissing and whining that DA2 isn't an exact clone from DAO?

Wrong.  You're not trying very hard.

[alex90c]

LeVaughnX wrote...

Overall Dragon Age 2 was great; but the players have a habit of blaming the game for failing to meet their expectations (like in ME2). Just because you disagree with the game or dislike it for whatever reason doesn't mean its bad; it means you didn't like it. So next time you make a rude comment about DA2 remember - though its an opinion you shouldn't treat it like its a solid fact. If you're going to be bias about something without a good enough reason that can't be easily refuted (sp) then please don't try to ****** people off in the first place.

Thanks!

Firstly, every single view expressed here is opinion, so let's just get the "durrr its subjective" crap out the way because, for the 236902376236th time it's blatantly obvious everyone's opinions are subjective. 

Secondly, saying "just because you disagree with the game or dislike it .... doesn't mean it's bad" can be flipped the other way too; just because you liked the game doesn't actually make it good in any way. And people aren't being bias "without a good enough reason", people are being "biased" because they thought the game was poor and can elaborate on that by stating how they disliked features X, Y and Z (along with features A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J and K). 

[deatharmonic]

Flashing Steel wrote...

I could not disagree with this article more...

You cannot simply say 'if you ignore the gameplay flaws, it's actually a good game'. Like others have said gameplay makes up the majority of any game, it's an immutable variable throughout the game which will inevitably influence whether I enjoy my gaming experience or not. I am of the belief that story and narrative are secondary to gameplay. What use is a compelling story if I do not enjoy the methods employed to progress through the game and explore said story?

The point made about powerlessness is jocular at best. If I wanted to have no agency and be nothing more than a passive bystander, I would watch a film. I find it fantastical that in the same article the author would state 'DA2 tells the player that they are not a superhero' but merely 'a survivor and witness to catastrophic events'. Yet when I assume the role of Hawke the almighty onlooker I discern the opposite to be true. Surely, only the the most adept knights and talented soldiers have the capacity to slay such a vast amounts of enemies. Surely, even fewer could exhibit enough combat prowess to command the demise of the Arishok, amongst a plethora of other enemies who are too powerful for someone not considered a superhero. Alas, I find myself confronted with the palpable realization that, rather than instigating a sense of true powerlessness in the game Bioware stripped the player of agency in a paltry attempt to simulate this feeling. Whilst equipping the player with a character who seemingly has both the power and opportunity to control the course of events, yet cannot because of the fatuous implementation of helplessness. Assuredly this was the agent of many a disgruntlement.

100% agree with you there, well fudging put! 

[philippe willaume]

deatharmonic wrote...

Flashing Steel wrote...

I could not disagree with this article more...

You cannot simply say 'if you ignore the gameplay flaws, it's actually a good game'. Like others have said gameplay makes up the majority of any game, it's an immutable variable throughout the game which will inevitably influence whether I enjoy my gaming experience or not. I am of the belief that story and narrative are secondary to gameplay. What use is a compelling story if I do not enjoy the methods employed to progress through the game and explore said story?

The point made about powerlessness is jocular at best. If I wanted to have no agency and be nothing more than a passive bystander, I would watch a film. I find it fantastical that in the same article the author would state 'DA2 tells the player that they are not a superhero' but merely 'a survivor and witness to catastrophic events'. Yet when I assume the role of Hawke the almighty onlooker I discern the opposite to be true. Surely, only the the most adept knights and talented soldiers have the capacity to slay such a vast amounts of enemies. Surely, even fewer could exhibit enough combat prowess to command the demise of the Arishok, amongst a plethora of other enemies who are too powerful for someone not considered a superhero. Alas, I find myself confronted with the palpable realization that, rather than instigating a sense of true powerlessness in the game Bioware stripped the player of agency in a paltry attempt to simulate this feeling. Whilst equipping the player with a character who seemingly has both the power and opportunity to control the course of events, yet cannot because of the fatuous implementation of helplessness. Assuredly this was the agent of many a disgruntlement.

100% agree with you there, well fudging put! 

thirded

[Brad79]

I started playing again after initial disappointment (and some technical issues), and I'm enjoying myself quite a bit. Gameplay wise, it's not as good as Dragon Age: Origins and feels more like some sort of side story they would release while waiting for a true sequel. I do think in trying to go mainstream combined with a shortened development cycle they lost some really good things from DA:O. Exploration of a large world and party customization are big parts of fantasy rpgs.

BTW, I think the Star Wars mmo is going to be a huge hit. Now, that's different than saying the classic rpg fans and DA:O fans will like it, but that's a pretty niche audience.

[Bigdoser]

milena87 wrote...

Did DA2 exceeded my (very high) expectations? Apart from the companions, no unfortunately.
Did I enjoyed it? Yes, it's maybe the game I enjoyed the most this year.
Was it the best game this year? I've played Portal 2, The Witcher 2, Deus Ex and Batman and they're all objectively better games. Still, if you ask me which game I'd like to play again I'd say DA2 without hesitation.

I don't expect every game I buy to be the best game ever and I don't even care that much about the problems a game might have as long as it's fun to play.

Of course there might be something wrong with me: I prefer KotOR2 to KotOR, I enjoyed Alpha Protocol more than Red Dead last year and I was kinda disappointed with The Witcher 2 (I liked the first one more)...

Yup same here