249 réponses à ce sujet

[SunnKingg]

I enjoyed DA2 just as much as I enjoyed DA:O. There is no convincing needed for me.

[Night Prowler76]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Now that the "It's not the same!" (read: WAAAAAAH!) is over with, I think a lot of people are seeing that DA2 is the better game.

Not really, it didnt sell well, and its not selling at all now, its a bargain title at all the local game places around here, a crappy game is a crappy game, no matter how many times you playthrough it and try to justify your purchase to yourself.

The game resembled something college students would have done for a project, it was a hideous mess from start to finish, the design was poor, the lack of choice was pathetic, and it was not well written etc.

[dreadpiratesnugglecakes]

Night Prowler76 wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Now that the "It's not the same!" (read: WAAAAAAH!) is over with, I think a lot of people are seeing that DA2 is the better game.

Not really, it didnt sell well, and its not selling at all now, its a bargain title at all the local game places around here, a crappy game is a crappy game, no matter how many times you playthrough it and try to justify your purchase to yourself.

The game resembled something college students would have done for a project, it was a hideous mess from start to finish, the design was poor, the lack of choice was pathetic, and it was not well written etc.

Exactly.  It didn't feel like a Bioware game; felt like a different outfit entirely doing the writing.  My problems with it aren't affected by thinking happy thoughts on possible different interactions; i thought the artistic direction was stupid; the combat was dated and juvenile and the quest system was embarrassing.  The characters were boring or unlikeable and the story bored me.  Having to play it again would be punishment. 

As far as it being the better game, dream on.  You can 'power of positive think' and put on your Tony Robbins underoos and whip yourself into a frenzy but this game doesn't approach the overall quality of DAO.  It was rushed, subpar for Bioware and it shows.  Is it fun?  I guess.  That's subjective.  Doesn't mean it's better than DAO.  The reuse of maps alone is humiliating.  There is just no excuse for that; that is just so low budget and pathetic.  And that's the least of my problems with it; if I actually liked the game it would bother me more.  Since I'll never play it again, I really don't care but it's such a sad example of how poorly this was thrown together. 

If I wasn't swamped at work, I would go to one of the OWS protests  and demand my money back for this game.  

[Terraforming]

Night Prowler76 wrote...

The game resembled something college students would have done for a project, it was a hideous mess from start to finish, the design was poor, the lack of choice was pathetic, and it was not well written etc.

I agree the game had its faults, but did you really think the writing was that bad? I thought the writing was the biggest saving grace of the game, except in Act 3 where too many things felt too rushed to provide a truly satisfying conclusion.

Edit: Sorry if this sounds combative, that's not my intent. I just thought your comment was interesting.

Modifié par Terraforming, 04 novembre 2011 - 04:22 .

[TEWR]

Interesting read, but I'm not convinced. I replay DAII but it always leaves a bad taste in my mouth from start to finish because of how disjointed the stories are. Yes Act II was the highlight of the game, but it had many faults imo. Like how it didn't connect with the Mage-Templar conflict more by using the Qunari mages, Meredith and Orsino, and Hawke either becoming the leader of the Mage Underground or crushing it.

I'm sorry but most people don't play games to be powerless. For some, it reminds them too much of real life. Hell, Hawke didn't have to be this person who actually changed the world. The world would've changed without him there, but he just needed to be a better protagonist.

Bah.... I'm having trouble wording my thoughts.

[lv12medic]

The article is interesting I suppose, though I think in terms of my opinions about game design, it defines clearly my largest complaint about DA2. I think of the struggle of game design between creative vision (story, art direction etc.) and technical merit (game play mechanics, encounter design etc.) as the same struggle that goes on between Architects (the artistic side) and Structural Engineers (the technical side). You run into problems if one side is drastically favored over the other. Either you have a pretty building that falls down or a squat ugly box. The two sides have to be in harmony. Picking one side or the other just falls short.

[Anarya]

I found the article he links to (“A fate that we deserve: Choice, Triumph, and All That Remains”) really interesting because it basically sums up what I thought was the core appeal of DA2 to me. I can't say the writing didn't also have its flaws, but I'll be very deeply disappointed if DA2's reception causes the writing team to shy away from more difficult stories in the future.

[staindgrey]

Anarya wrote...

I found the article he links to (“A fate that we deserve: Choice, Triumph, and All That Remains”) really interesting because it basically sums up what I thought was the core appeal of DA2 to me. I can't say the writing didn't also have its flaws, but I'll be very deeply disappointed if DA2's reception causes the writing team to shy away from more difficult stories in the future.

Exactly.

I enjoyed DAII for what it was. That being said, I'm not oblivious to its flaws and the fact that there was SO much wasted potential with it. I hate that it didn't have another year to be perfected, but I'm not going to convince myself it was a great game either.

What I hope is that the Bioware team takes a careful look at criticism and alters what needs to be altered. I don't want a kneejerk reaction and a DAIII that's flawed in all new ways while not even keeping what made me appreciate DAII.

[Dubya75]

Night Prowler76 wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Now that the "It's not the same!" (read: WAAAAAAH!) is over with, I think a lot of people are seeing that DA2 is the better game.

Not really, it didnt sell well, and its not selling at all now, its a bargain title at all the local game places around here, a crappy game is a crappy game, no matter how many times you playthrough it and try to justify your purchase to yourself.

The game resembled something college students would have done for a project, it was a hideous mess from start to finish, the design was poor, the lack of choice was pathetic, and it was not well written etc.

I don't think anyone who has enjoyed the game would need to try and justify their purchase by replaying it.
They would replay it simply because they enjoy it - unless you're one of those who plays games you don't enjoy. 

From the tone of your post it sounds like what you want is for everyone to throw up their hands and confess that DA2 is a crappy game. The reality is that it is only a crappy game if YOU experience it as such. Many people experience it as being a great game. 

Modifié par Dubya75, 04 novembre 2011 - 08:47 .

[snfonseka]

 1. The article says "Good writing is rare to come across in gaming."

But good writing is not rare in BW games (actually it is BWs' trademark), where I consider DA2 as the worst writing among BW games; I am not comparing DA2 stroty with other games (because there is no point of doing so because except few games the story is not a strong point in most of the games.)

2. The article says "Some players saw Hawke as ineffectual, unable to control many of the game’s events. Raymond’s analysis instead suggests that the game is forcing the player to experience something that they don’t feel often in games: powerlessness. It uses the player’s predisposition to having control against them. Instead of being like other games and looking to empower players by giving them the illusion of freedom and choice,Dragon Age II[/i] tells the player that they are not a superhero. "

This is what all other games besides RPGs are doing. Can the player change the storyline in other non-RPG games? Last time I check DA2 is a RPG, if we want to have a stroy that won't change based on players' action there are plenty to select from.

3. The article says "I didn’t realize that seeing the sheer skill that went in
to building their characterization occurs only over multiple playthroughs. How the player handles these relationships, what kind of personality Hawke has, the stance they take in the Templars vs. Mage conflict, all change the nuances of the character’s attitudes and personalities."

I wonder whether this is the first BW game the author has played. Because this is NOT specific to DA2. BW games have strong characters, do I need to take examples from ME, or someting older like NWN, JE or KOTOR? 

Overall the author is trying to say the game is worth playing because of meaningful interaction with relationships with other characters. I personally don't believe that we should give a second chance for that reason. Because the items auther have mentioned are generalize traits that belongs to any BW game. With the flaws of DA2, these traits don't make DA2 special comparing to other BW games.

Also don't forget that regarding character interactions, DA2 has taken a step back from DA:O. In DA:O there were lengthy personal conversations with other characters ;such as taking about shoes with Leliana. In DA2 most of the dialogs are directly or indirectly connected to a quest.

Modifié par snfonseka, 04 novembre 2011 - 09:18 .

[snfonseka]

Dubya75 wrote...

Night Prowler76 wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Now that the "It's not the same!" (read: WAAAAAAH!) is over with, I think a lot of people are seeing that DA2 is the better game.

Not really, it didnt sell well, and its not selling at all now, its a bargain title at all the local game places around here, a crappy game is a crappy game, no matter how many times you playthrough it and try to justify your purchase to yourself.

The game resembled something college students would have done for a project, it was a hideous mess from start to finish, the design was poor, the lack of choice was pathetic, and it was not well written etc.

I don't think anyone who has enjoyed the game would need to try and justify their purchase by replaying it.
They would replay it simply because they enjoy it - unless you're one of those who plays games you don't enjoy. 

From the tone of your post it sounds like what you want is for everyone to throw up their hands and confess that DA2 is a crappy game. The reality is that it is only a crappy game if YOU experience it as such. Many people experience it as being a great game. 

It is funny the way people use the words "Many people" to say it is a good game or a bad game. According to oxford many means "the majority of something". Are you sure the majority experienced it as a great game? (this goes to the people who are saying "Many people hate the game", as well); because only statistical figure I have seen is the comparison between DA:O and DA2 sales.

Modifié par snfonseka, 04 novembre 2011 - 09:33 .

[Dubya75]

snfonseka wrote...

Dubya75 wrote...

Night Prowler76 wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Now that the "It's not the same!" (read: WAAAAAAH!) is over with, I think a lot of people are seeing that DA2 is the better game.

Not really, it didnt sell well, and its not selling at all now, its a bargain title at all the local game places around here, a crappy game is a crappy game, no matter how many times you playthrough it and try to justify your purchase to yourself.

The game resembled something college students would have done for a project, it was a hideous mess from start to finish, the design was poor, the lack of choice was pathetic, and it was not well written etc.

I don't think anyone who has enjoyed the game would need to try and justify their purchase by replaying it.
They would replay it simply because they enjoy it - unless you're one of those who plays games you don't enjoy. 

From the tone of your post it sounds like what you want is for everyone to throw up their hands and confess that DA2 is a crappy game. The reality is that it is only a crappy game if YOU experience it as such. Many people experience it as being a great game. 

It is funny the way people use the words "Many people" to say it is a good game or a bad game. According to oxford many means "the majority of something". Are you sure the majority experienced it as a great game? (this goes to the people who are saying "Many people hate the game", as well); because only statistical figure I have seen is the comparison between DA:O and DA2 sales.

Many people like the game and many people hate the game.
Happy now?

[Dormiglione]

The article www.popmatters.com/pm/post/150730-/ is an interesting read. The writer makes some good and some bad points.

The article tries to tell me that i didnt recognize the hidden beauty of DA2. Well, sorry, why should i dig into a game when it has flaws such: repeated environments, no meaningful choices and many other points that were described into detail by many other people.

Short example

The game’s characters are unconventional in having lives and pursuits of their own, acting upon the story world as they want to, and not asking the player for permission to do so.

So if this characters are "acting upon the story" why didnt they change their behaviour through all my playthroughs? They do always the same.

Some players saw Hawke as ineffectual, unable to control many of the game’s events. Raymond’s analysis instead suggests that the game is forcing the player to experience something that they don’t feel often in games: powerlessness.

Ok this is one view of the medal, my view is that "I was railroaded through every event, could never change the outcome". For me its not enough that i can change the tone of the conversation while the outcome of the event remains the same. For me, that isnt roleplaying.

Sometime its just better to let the things how they. There is saying: "Time heals wounds", so why must there be such articles that try to tell me that i was too superficial, articles that try to justify why my own perception is wrong. I played so many different games of different genres that i can judge by myself when a game stands on his own merrits.

Dragon Age 2 remains what it is. A game that polarized and that splitted up a fanbase.

[MarauderESP]

sorry but i tried to play 2 more times and i cant past end of act 1.........the characters dont call me, its to tedius to do it more than once, also tried the first dlc but didnt fill me up, so nothing on that article put me on the mood to try it another time, now im expecting nothing from dragon age IP anymore, just wait a see what comes from it

[Wozearly]

Dubya75 wrote...

Many people like the game and many people hate the game.
Happy now?

Which suggests that DA2 either;

a) Did a lot of things right and a lot of things wrong, and depending how much importance you attribute to each depends whether you liked the game or not, or

Was sufficiently different to previous games that it strongly attracted new players and appealed to a certain subset of previous Bioware gamers, whilst strongly alienating the rest.

Given that Bioware does not normally produce polarising games, I think there's a lot of truth in and that a) is part of the reason behind it.

Does it matter? Well, yes. Because making DA3 appeal equally strongly to both sides is going to be difficult, and may even be impossible. Which players recognise, I think, because there are a lot of strongly held views on both sides that DA2 should go back to being like DA:O, or should definitely not go back to being like DA:O.

This goes beyond players reacting poorly to a sense of powerlessness, IMO.

[Dubya75]

Wozearly wrote...

Dubya75 wrote...

Many people like the game and many people hate the game.
Happy now?

Which suggests that DA2 either;

a) Did a lot of things right and a lot of things wrong, and depending how much importance you attribute to each depends whether you liked the game or not, or

Was sufficiently different to previous games that it strongly attracted new players and appealed to a certain subset of previous Bioware gamers, whilst strongly alienating the rest.

Given that Bioware does not normally produce polarising games, I think there's a lot of truth in and that a) is part of the reason behind it.

Does it matter? Well, yes. Because making DA3 appeal equally strongly to both sides is going to be difficult, and may even be impossible. Which players recognise, I think, because there are a lot of strongly held views on both sides that DA2 should go back to being like DA:O, or should definitely not go back to being like DA:O.

This goes beyond players reacting poorly to a sense of powerlessness, IMO.

Isn't this the challenge new games are faced with in general?

[xSerendipityx]

Hey there you all, I'm the author of that article and I'm not a he Thanks for all your thoughts though! I've written a lot on BioWare games if you look me up

Modifié par xSerendipityx, 04 novembre 2011 - 05:32 .

[nikolokolus]

As a customer of Bioware since the first Baldur's Gate game it pains me to say this, but best of luck to everyone that can and does enjoy replaying this game (de gustibus non est disputandum) I just can't bring myself to do it. The incessantly repititive environments, the lackluster story and the overwhelming sense that playing it is "work," make it unlikely that I'll ever re-install it and try to play it again.

This wasn't a horrible game compared to many of the other generic fantasy RPG-like games that are out on the market, but it was so mediocre to bad at the things that Bioware is usually so good at, that I just can't bring myself back to it.

Bottom line: I'll probably never pre-order a game from Bioware again as long as they are subsidiary of EA and I'll simply wait for reviewers I trust to grade their next offerings before I jump in (I'm looking at you ME3 development team).

[Wozearly]

Dubya75 wrote...

Isn't this the challenge new games are faced with in general?

Not necessarily. It depends on the marketing strategy of the company involved. If you want to intentionally attempt to appeal to a wider audience than your core group of fans, then changes to the mix of what you do with your products are likely to be necessary - but those changes have a habit of alienating your core customer base who may well have been drawn to you because you offer something different to the mainstream alternatives.

Predicting this in advance is virtually impossible. On paper, New Coke should have been an amazing success, not one of the worst marketing disasters of all time. 

In terms of duffing things up with a particular product in a franchise that annoys a large chunk of customers, that's going to happen sooner or later due to laws of chance. How a company reacts to that will dictate a lot of the reaction following - for example, CCP (the creators of Eve online) introduced divisive changes that sparked a lot of player criticism around both the changes and the communications. The response was a very rapid move to placation, inviting player representatives to the studio to discuss things and indicate what was and wasn't on the cards for future plans (subject to NDA).

So for the record, I have no problem with Bioware deciding on a change of direction and although I think their communications before DA2 were woeful, its clear that the DA team have learned lessons from this and Mike Laidlaw has treated the fan base in a very mature fashion post-launch. Very few major game company developers are as willing to engage directly with the fan base as Bioware does, and long may their PR team turn a blind eye to this.

My problem isn't that the changes were made, but that I personally dislike them and feel that the new direction for the DA series indicated by DA2 is a mistake. Which is a shame, as I felt that DA:O was a truly brilliant RPG. But I'm still very much a fan of what the Bioware team are capable of, and will continue to be very interested in what they're working on in the future.

Would I have preferred DA2 to have been more like DA:O? Oh hell yes. Would that have made it a better, more popular game? I have absolutely no way to know...

[Curlain]

Dubya75 wrote...

Night Prowler76 wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Now that the "It's not the same!" (read: WAAAAAAH!) is over with, I think a lot of people are seeing that DA2 is the better game.

Not really, it didnt sell well, and its not selling at all now, its a bargain title at all the local game places around here, a crappy game is a crappy game, no matter how many times you playthrough it and try to justify your purchase to yourself.

The game resembled something college students would have done for a project, it was a hideous mess from start to finish, the design was poor, the lack of choice was pathetic, and it was not well written etc.

I don't think anyone who has enjoyed the game would need to try and justify their purchase by replaying it.
They would replay it simply because they enjoy it - unless you're one of those who plays games you don't enjoy. 

From the tone of your post it sounds like what you want is for everyone to throw up their hands and confess that DA2 is a crappy game. The reality is that it is only a crappy game if YOU experience it as such. Many people experience it as being a great game. 

But the point of you're thread is to attempt to persuade those of us who didn't like it to try it again, which means people are just going to respond it with the reasons often that they will be unlikely to do it based on their experience.

Indeed, your response to this post (which for me was to harsh a judgement but that was NightProwler's experience) is exactly the response your thread is going to get.  Someone else's opinion will not change our experience of the game and cause us to replay it, anymore then Night Prowler's is going to change yours.  This thread is attempting to tell people their own experiences are 'wrong', when experience is a completely subjective.  It is in a way rather insulting, telling anyone who didn't like the game effectively 'you just played it wrong'.

So basically, your response to Night Prowler would sum up most people who didn't like DA2 response to the ariticle in essense, that while for that person (and you) might have found a great experience in the game (and I'm glad you did) but that isn't going to change the negative experience of the game that others of us had.  Experience is as ever purely subjective, and saying to someone 'their's is wrong, or you weren't doing it right' is just kinda insulting.

Modifié par Curlain, 04 novembre 2011 - 07:59 .

[staindgrey]

Dubya75 wrote...

Night Prowler76 wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Now that the "It's not the same!" (read: WAAAAAAH!) is over with, I think a lot of people are seeing that DA2 is the better game.

Not really, it didnt sell well, and its not selling at all now, its a bargain title at all the local game places around here, a crappy game is a crappy game, no matter how many times you playthrough it and try to justify your purchase to yourself.

The game resembled something college students would have done for a project, it was a hideous mess from start to finish, the design was poor, the lack of choice was pathetic, and it was not well written etc.

I don't think anyone who has enjoyed the game would need to try and justify their purchase by replaying it.
They would replay it simply because they enjoy it - unless you're one of those who plays games you don't enjoy. 

From the tone of your post it sounds like what you want is for everyone to throw up their hands and confess that DA2 is a crappy game. The reality is that it is only a crappy game if YOU experience it as such. Many people experience it as being a great game. 

Well, his point has merit.

I originally purchased DA:O brand new... And hated it. Sold it back. Later decided to try it again because my work had a used copy... Got rid of it again. It wasn't until this past summer that I finally played through to further parts of the game and found out what a gem it was story-wise.

I still hate the combat and unnecessary length of parts of the game (Orzammar...) but on the third try, I completed and loved DA:O. I'm glad I did. I still don't enjoy the actual gameplay enough to play it a second time, though. Which is a shame because I'd really like to take some alternate routes and see where the story goes.

[Morroian]

Dormiglione wrote...

The article www.popmatters.com/pm/post/150730-/ is an interesting read. The writer makes some good and some bad points.

The article tries to tell me that i didnt recognize the hidden beauty of DA2. Well, sorry, why should i dig into a game when it has flaws such: repeated environments, no meaningful choices and many other points that were described into detail by many other people.

Because the good can outway the bad. Most people who like DA2 acknowlege its flaws but they get immersed anyway and the flaws recede in significance. Similar to Kotor 2. 

[Jaulen]

liesandpropaganda wrote...

I can't exactly say i agree with the author - half the points he "changed his mind on" deserved all the criticism they got. Of course it's better that the hysterical reaction a la "Bioware insulted me and i demand they all be put in jail"

Also, "Characters get deeper only after you played the game twice" isn't exactly a positive point.

Why wouldn't characters that get deeper on multiple playthrough not be a strength?

If you build a relationship with a character in a RP in one way, you're going to learn something different about them than if you had built the relationship in another way, or totally ignored any relationship with that character at all. And by relationship I just don't mean romances.

I had a similar expereince to the author of the article, I have Hawke's that view Fenris as a justified skeptic, a jerky bigot, ortotally 100% correct about mages.....as I also have Hawkes that view Aveline as a solid friend or an opinionated prude....Anders can be crazy nutcase, justified in his actions, or one can understand what he did while not agreeing with it....

It all depends on how you rolepaly your Hawke and how Hawke interacts with those characters. To me at least, a RP game is about my character both interacting and changing the world around them, and also interacting and changing (or being changed by) the characters they interact with.

Really, if I didn't want a game that had character depth added by doing multiple playthroughs...I'd play Mario Party, COD, or Marvel Superheros...

And I think I have at least 10 playthroughs under my belt for DA2 so far. And I didn't have a problem with the whole "but my actions don't really have any effect!!!" since I understood that we're playing history that has already happened, not making history.

[King Cousland]

Here's my position: I believe that DAII is an unworthy addition to the franchise, and a vastly inferior sequel. However, that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it and had multiple playhroughs. I was...angry, really, the first time I completed it, but gave it a second try and thought it was a little better. I didn't see any kind of "hidden beauty", and still don't, but just because I believe a game has been poorly crafted, that doesn't personally stop me from enjoying it.

[blaidfiste]

Remember this guy? He's supposed to be the most important person in the DA world! That's why he's a fully voiced, human only protagonist I'm supposed to accept him as powerless? The NPCs walk all over him and sometimes he's given dialogue options designed to make him look like a fool no matter what I select.

I do enjoy DA2s combat, party comments, Hawke red and purple personalities. I have 6 Hawkes. I still believe Bioware can do much better than DA2.