249 réponses à ce sujet

[Dragoonlordz]

Jaulen wrote...

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?

It's called Stockholm syndrome I think. Forcing self to suffer through it over and over until wears you down, you end up giving up hope and just the negative side becomes positive side in your mind... Though reality is it just wore you down until you caved in, they don't actually get deeper you just convince yourself they do through endless suffering replays.

Just messing with you, I don't actually care about DA2 tbh I already sold it ages ago so not big issue for me anymore.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 05 novembre 2011 - 02:36 .

[Foolsfolly]

From the OP's link:

In her article, Raymond readjusts some aspects of Dragon Age II perceived as faults into evidence of a great game. 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's only done well in Act 2 where things spiral out of control with all the characters involved acting in character and for clearly defined agendas. That was well done. Extremely well done. The lack of real motivation or antagonist in Act 1 isn't well done. Neither is the "Everyone's a monster and you have no choice" three quests of Act 3.

And outside of those quests, you're as powerful as any other main character in any other RPG. You slay dragons, ancient evils, and go deeper into the Deep Roads than anyone else ever has. I mean you're not playing some completely weak person unable to do anything. You're a god in battle as any character class.

Also two games I've recently played made me feel powerless... L.A. Noire and Arkham City (when Protocol 10 happened I felt a great sense of the scale and largeness of the threat. I paused and thought "Holy crap" and then calmed down because I'm Batman goddamnit. And I will save Gotham City!)

Also Halo: Reach... for those who've never played a Halo game think of it as Sci-fi Alamo or Thermopylae. You're literally fighting a battle you cannot ever win as everyone around you dies off one at a time.

This is when the light bulb went on for me. Like others, I had a mild affection for most of the characters in Dragon Age II but felt like there was little to them. I didn’t realize that seeing the sheer skill that went into 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.

Yeah. Yeah. The same thing can be said of the personalities in the game. Some bash those as limiting but they're far more freeing than anything else out there. And it's great to see your character's personality evolve as you play them. And multiple playthroughs are required to really enjoy that aspect of the game. It's something that many critics of the personality system don't seem to recognize... but so it goes when you release an unfinished, uneven game like this.

Look, the characters are a definite strength of this game. And I hope BioWare continues doing this with their characters in a DA3 and beyond. But the gameplay, the massive laundry list of bugs and glitches, the poor quality of the third act and the fact that madness and insanity does not make for compelling motivations in an ethical question like Mage/Templar.

The character work is fantastic. I need to keep saying this. But it can't fully redeem a game. The patches helped fix the game a lot. I mean on release there were no fewer than 2 game-ending bugs in the game. And there were countless import bugs and unfinishable questlines (or ones that wouldn't even start).

That said as deeply flawed as the game is there are good things about it. Should people take a second look at it? Yeah. Even if you disliked the gameplay a lot of the better things about the game come from multiple playthroughs. And there are some nice things about the game and its characters.

But it doesn't make it insanely replayable. Nor does it override any existing problems the game has. I also agree with those that say the DLC is on the right path. Just having varied environments and a better nuanced wave mechanic does wonders.

[OMTING52601]

I've said several places that I have learned to enjoy DA 2. That at first, I loathed it. But by changing my expectations, I can say I have fun button mashing my way through wave after spawing-from-the-sky wave of fodder for my blade(s) or wand.

Do I think it was worth the forty or fifty bucks I paid when it released? No. Unequivocally, without doubt or hesitation, no. Would it be worth the twenty bucks I've seen it for used? Heck yeah! It's way more fun, IMO, than a platform and the characters - some of them- are a blast. Seriously, I have spent hours just running around Kirkwall with Varric + just to hear the party banter. Varric, OMG, why did they remove the ability to romance him, lol? Just hilarious!

I don't like the limitations of the new dialog style, though, because I didn't feel like I got to know the companions well. There was no enjoyment in discovering their motivations because they are just told to us the second we meet them. And as any good storyteller should know, showing wins out over telling in a quality tale every time. Plus, after comparing the two games closely, truth is in 2 we don't get to know the characters as well as in Origins. Really, we have to read codex entries to get a lot of the info, and since companions aren't nearly as interactive, it limits the PC's perception of the characters. That said, each companions(some to a greater degree than others) were carefully created to be unique - that much is obvious and I appreciate it. And as was pointed out earlier, multiple play throughs can give the perception that the characters have more 'depth' than they really do, but it is only perception.

And that's just the start of my pros/cons list, lol. The DLC is 'better' in so much as I'm not looking at the exact same mansion/cave/tunnel system, but it still lacks the 'feel' of a 'real' RPG due to the absolute lack of choice, or the illusion thereof. What DA 2 fails at most, but Origins absolutely won at IMO, is the player agent aspect of role playing. Sure, each stage of Origins was an either/or alternative, but it didn't FEEL that way when I played AND the choices I did make had an impact, for good or ill. Sure, Harrowmont is a decent dwarf, but his kingship throws Orzammar into disarray and he's a total **** to those born branded.

In the end, as a buyer, I shouldn't need to downgrade my expectations to enjoy something I spent my hard earned money on. Period. But having spent the money, and after getting to the end, there was no way in hell I was letting captain crazy pants get away with that stunt. So I played again just to get revenge and found myself enjoying the game mostly by thinking of it as a hack and slash side quest in the greater DA story instead of as a proper 'next chapter' of the franchise itself.

If you bought the game and you can ignore its glaring flaws, from an RPG standpoint, then yes, you should absolutely play it again, at least once. You can't get all your money back, being irate only makes you feel bad. There's enough bad all around anymore, you know. Give it a try. Heck, killing a bunch of thugs is a great way to let off steam

ETA: Will I auto buy a DA 3, should there be one. It's highly unlikely, unless something happens between now and that hypothetical then to make me believe that EA/Bioware is still interested in making a quality, full developed and interactive, forward progession of the role playing game Dragon Age. Hack and slash can be fun, but I'm not spending forty plus bucks on another. 

Modifié par OMTING52601, 05 novembre 2011 - 07:32 .

[Dubya75]

OMTING52601 wrote...

I've said several places that I have learned to enjoy DA 2. That at first, I loathed it. But by changing my expectations, I can say I have fun button mashing my way through wave after spawing-from-the-sky wave of fodder for my blade(s) or wand.

Do I think it was worth the forty or fifty bucks I paid when it released? No. Unequivocally, without doubt or hesitation, no. Would it be worth the twenty bucks I've seen it for used? Heck yeah! It's way more fun, IMO, than a platform and the characters - some of them- are a blast. Seriously, I have spent hours just running around Kirkwall with Varric + just to hear the party banter. Varric, OMG, why did they remove the ability to romance him, lol? Just hilarious!

I don't like the limitations of the new dialog style, though, because I didn't feel like I got to know the companions well. There was no enjoyment in discovering their motivations because they are just told to us the second we meet them. And as any good storyteller should know, showing wins out over telling in a quality tale every time. Plus, after comparing the two games closely, truth is in 2 we don't get to know the characters as well as in Origins. Really, we have to read codex entries to get a lot of the info, and since companions aren't nearly as interactive, it limits the PC's perception of the characters. That said, each companions(some to a greater degree than others) were carefully created to be unique - that much is obvious and I appreciate it. And as was pointed out earlier, multiple play throughs can give the perception that the characters have more 'depth' than they really do, but it is only perception.

And that's just the start of my pros/cons list, lol. The DLC is 'better' in so much as I'm not looking at the exact same mansion/cave/tunnel system, but it still lacks the 'feel' of a 'real' RPG due to the absolute lack of choice, or the illusion thereof. What DA 2 fails at most, but Origins absolutely won at IMO, is the player agent aspect of role playing. Sure, each stage of Origins was an either/or alternative, but it didn't FEEL that way when I played AND the choices I did make had an impact, for good or ill. Sure, Harrowmont is a decent dwarf, but his kingship throws Orzammar into disarray and he's a total **** to those born branded.

In the end, as a buyer, I shouldn't need to downgrade my expectations to enjoy something I spent my hard earned money on. Period. But having spent the money, and after getting to the end, there was no way in hell I was letting captain crazy pants get away with that stunt. So I played again just to get revenge and found myself enjoying the game mostly by thinking of it as a hack and slash side quest in the greater DA story instead of as a proper 'next chapter' of the franchise itself.

If you bought the game and you can ignore its glaring flaws, from an RPG standpoint, then yes, you should absolutely play it again, at least once. You can't get all your money back, being irate only makes you feel bad. There's enough bad all around anymore, you know. Give it a try. Heck, killing a bunch of thugs is a great way to let off steam

ETA: Will I auto buy a DA 3, should there be one. It's highly unlikely, unless something happens between now and that hypothetical then to make me believe that EA/Bioware is still interested in making a quality, full developed and interactive, forward progession of the role playing game Dragon Age. Hack and slash can be fun, but I'm not spending forty plus bucks on another. 

You've made some good points. Glad to hear someone being able to enjoy DA2 for what it is, not what it should have been. 
The truth is, it should have been much more than it is. It is no surprise that once again, the issue of recycled areas are mentioned and it makes me feel more and more that perhaps Bioware should have spent time and effort early on (before releasing DLC) to "fix" the game.
Why they chose not to is a mystery and asking them to still consider it probably falls on deaf ears, but there you go!

Should there be a DA3? We already know that there will be one and we also know that Bioware has learnt a valuable lesson in making RPGames: that they can't cut corners and that if the franchise is to survive they'll have to make DA3 using the best aspects of both DA2 and Origins. The pressure is on, but they CAN pull it off!

Modifié par Dubya75, 05 novembre 2011 - 09:46 .

[Chernaya]

I like the article because it puts into words many of the things I've always wanted to say about the strengths of this game that some people seem to overlook. I think many people (or, gamers, in this case) just really do not like change. At first, I was a bit turned off by how different things in DA II were - but each time I played it, I grew to appreciate it more. I also appreciate Bioware's courage to go against what stubborn gamers traditionally want, which is Dragon Age: Origins Version 2. Of all the game series I'm a fan of, I generally end up enjoying games which make major changes from the older games of the series, while a lot of fans end up complaining that they want a game more similar to the original game/s. It's as simple as this - you can't change someone's opinion, you either like it or don't like it. But I've seen people freak out way too much over Dragon Age II and make ridiculous accusations about it - it isn't a masterpiece, but holy crap, it's not that bad. It has both a lot to improve upon as well as a lot to enjoy - and as I see it, some people get too distracted by the weaknesses of some things to appreciate the strengths. And if you're pessimistic like that, well that's okay - but as much as DA II sometimes pisses me off, I still enjoy it every time I play it. There are much, much, worse games out there.

Modifié par EionaCousland, 05 novembre 2011 - 12:57 .

[goofyomnivore]

I've finished three runthroughs now, my opinion has slightly changed in a positive way, but DA2 is still pretty average to me. I just don't feel very "connected?" to the game -- the protagonist, the plot, the companions(mainly romances), the world(err city), etc just don't appeal to me very much. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

[Saintthanksgiving]

I read the article but, to be honest, I don't think I understand it. Is he saying that the narrative and story of DA2 make it a great game? Or that the technical and logisitcal problems should be ignored because the story was good?

The story was the worst part for me... Im not saying it to start a war over it... I'm just confused how he went from hating a game to loving it because Hawk being useless suddenly made sense to him... anyone?

I don't get it.
Its a building that turns into a robot... who would want to play with that?

[Foolsfolly]

I think the writer of the article is saying the CHARACTER INTERACTION is so well done and varied that that alone makes it a good game. The story is a disjointed mess where 'main quests' in the first act are no different than side quests. (Why must helping a qunari mage be a main quest? Because it introduces us to someone in a main quest later?) And the third act... what can be said that hasn't been said before.

The gameplay was a mess upon arrival. It's far better now than it was when the game dropped... and I am of a mind that the gameplay is better than Origins....

I don't know. I think the point the writer was making was that you should play the game again to see the various changes in the companion characters as they react and act differently depending on your friendship/rivalry and to a lesser extent to your personality.

..although the writer also then goes on to say it's one of the best games... which is just hyperbole and should be ignored as such.

[Saintthanksgiving]

Simfam just read your last and I agree with that first paragraph completely. My problems with the writing in DA2 have everything to do with plot and narrative... the companions were verry well done. Well, the non family member companions were well done... I'll give them that.

If the point of the original poster is to say that DA2 could have overcome its technical problems and unwelcome gameplay changes with a fantastic story... well I agree completely... except it didn't.

Would I have liked the game as much as origins? Based on the gameplay changes, probably not.

Would I have vehemently berated the game on the forums for the the gameplay changes if the story was fantastic? No.

As it was, I disliked the story AND the gameplay... and I've never complained this hard in my life.

Would I have bought the DLC for a continuation of a great story? Absolutely.

A great story conceals all sins.

[Saintthanksgiving]

I get what you are saying about the relationships... but for me at least... the horrible story made it impossible for mee to appreciate what value might have been found in the companions.

The story wasn't so much boring as it was distracting. The weakness of the plot made the combat seem more annoying... and when you are running around doing a quest that you don't care about in a room that you have visited 5 times already.... I actually got angry.

Like I said I agree with the OP's view of story's importance in the game... but disagree completely with any suggestion that DA2 accomplished this.

[Shadowlit_Rogue]

I'm not sure I agree with the article. Some people are quick to say that the sense of "powerlessness" was an intended part of the game design, but I would argue that it was a byproduct of the game's rushed state. Of course when you tear out choice for major/minor events you're going to feel powerless! I didn't buy Dragon Age 2 with the intention of playing an RPG where I had the power to do absolutely nothing. I don't think anyone did. Multiple playthroughs didn't help things.

His other point on the characterization seems a little odd to me, as well. DA:O did much better by its characters and their backgrounds, whereas DA2 seemed much more shallow, relying on action and giving each character very outspoken goals/mottos/what-have-you to tell the player, "That's who they are. Let's move on."

I keep using Alistair as an example. The DA team went so far as to give him real psychological depth. We eventually learn his attachment to Duncan is directly tied to his father figure issues as a child, though the game doesn't point this out for the world to see. Isabela is... I don't know, a pirate who freed slaves once so she sleeps with everyone? Fenris hates magic, kills people over it, yet he'll abandon that key character component to sleep with mage Hawke?

There's also the matter of these points being moot when compared to the other bits of the game that were either removed wholesale (origins) or simplified to the point of not even being fun (character sheets). DA2 had some redeeming features, but these are not them and, to me, they're not worth looking for. To dive into hyperbole, that's like making an article to illustrate that the rings in Superman 64 were a deep representation of Superman's Arthurian journey toward becoming a hero, or something like that.

[OMTING52601]

Dubya75 wrote...
You've made some good points. Glad to hear someone being able to enjoy DA2 for what it is, not what it should have been. 
The truth is, it should have been much more than it is. It is no surprise that once again, the issue of recycled areas are mentioned and it makes me feel more and more that perhaps Bioware should have spent time and effort early on (before releasing DLC) to "fix" the game.
Why they chose not to is a mystery and asking them to still consider it probably falls on deaf ears, but there you go!

Should there be a DA3? We already know that there will be one and we also know that Bioware has learnt a valuable lesson in making RPGames: that they can't cut corners and that if the franchise is to survive they'll have to make DA3 using the best aspects of both DA2 and Origins. The pressure is on, but they CAN pull it off!

Look, I know there have been panels at cons this year and suggestions from people like Laidlaw, but we don't "know" there will be a DA 3. Much as I adore Origins and all it's accompaniment and have learned to enjoy number two, the sales of the latter are so staggeringly bad that we have to keep in mind EA may decide another go may not pass the risk assessment eval. 

And yes, I do enjoy the game for what it is. C'mon, as a hack and slash, interactive narrative it's a friggin' blast. That said, the aforementioned is not what I BOUGHT. I capitalize that because it is, seriously and without question, the crux of DA 2's bad sales and even worse user response. The product was marketed and sold as a Fantasy RPG/Action game. That is NOT what the game is at all. 

So, can they pull it off? While the DLC to date is much less visually boring and offers some interesting entries into the lore/codex, neither Legacy nor MotA have addresses the failures of the main game to fulfill it's labelling. Neither offer any RPG elements. No choices, no deep branches in dialogue, and no impact on the main game(which of course we can't really expect from in-game DLC to be fair). So, while showing they can make the environments more exciting and offer some interesting new enemies that don't spawn from the sky...

And to be clear, since tone can't ever be deciphered in text alone, I'm not being snide or mean or pis*sy. I'm flatly pointing out the facts of the situation. But if, and I admit some hesitancy on my part here, IF EA/Bioware are able to bring back the elements most players bought DA 2 for in the first place, then yes, I think there is at least a chance they will be able to make this IP profitable - in a way the company desires- again.

[Dubya75]

OMTING52601 wrote...

Dubya75 wrote...
You've made some good points. Glad to hear someone being able to enjoy DA2 for what it is, not what it should have been. 
The truth is, it should have been much more than it is. It is no surprise that once again, the issue of recycled areas are mentioned and it makes me feel more and more that perhaps Bioware should have spent time and effort early on (before releasing DLC) to "fix" the game.
Why they chose not to is a mystery and asking them to still consider it probably falls on deaf ears, but there you go!

Should there be a DA3? We already know that there will be one and we also know that Bioware has learnt a valuable lesson in making RPGames: that they can't cut corners and that if the franchise is to survive they'll have to make DA3 using the best aspects of both DA2 and Origins. The pressure is on, but they CAN pull it off!

Look, I know there have been panels at cons this year and suggestions from people like Laidlaw, but we don't "know" there will be a DA 3. Much as I adore Origins and all it's accompaniment and have learned to enjoy number two, the sales of the latter are so staggeringly bad that we have to keep in mind EA may decide another go may not pass the risk assessment eval. 

And yes, I do enjoy the game for what it is. C'mon, as a hack and slash, interactive narrative it's a friggin' blast. That said, the aforementioned is not what I BOUGHT. I capitalize that because it is, seriously and without question, the crux of DA 2's bad sales and even worse user response. The product was marketed and sold as a Fantasy RPG/Action game. That is NOT what the game is at all. 

So, can they pull it off? While the DLC to date is much less visually boring and offers some interesting entries into the lore/codex, neither Legacy nor MotA have addresses the failures of the main game to fulfill it's labelling. Neither offer any RPG elements. No choices, no deep branches in dialogue, and no impact on the main game(which of course we can't really expect from in-game DLC to be fair). So, while showing they can make the environments more exciting and offer some interesting new enemies that don't spawn from the sky...

And to be clear, since tone can't ever be deciphered in text alone, I'm not being snide or mean or pis*sy. I'm flatly pointing out the facts of the situation. But if, and I admit some hesitancy on my part here, IF EA/Bioware are able to bring back the elements most players bought DA 2 for in the first place, then yes, I think there is at least a chance they will be able to make this IP profitable - in a way the company desires- again.

No, you're pointing out your opinion. 
To say DA2 has no RPG elements is going a bit too far.

[OMTING52601]

Actually, it is a fact. Look at the buyer/user complaints anywhere. Read the critical reviews. Lack of player choice, which is the most basic concept of role-playing games, is prevalent and deeply imbedded in DA 2. This isn't an opinion. Role playing games are games where people pretend to be, act, and live as a fantasy character, be in PnP, PC, MMORPG, or console. I make choices, said choices determine what door I open, what path I'm on, what options I have. There isn't a single choice in DA 2 that changes the path Hawke follows or the options he has at the path's apex. I'm not talking about deciding what sword/staff to use or what clothes to wear or even whether you fight a group after taking out their leader. You don't get to choose NOT to take out the leader, regardless of whether you'd like to do so. Check my profile, I've played DA 2 many times, I've taken every option available. Nothing in the story changes.

There is no story affecting choice in DA 2. There isn't even the illusion of choice. It doesn't matter what kind of Hawke you play, diplomat, jerk, smart a**, every single chapter of the story ends exactly the same without diversion. Tiny dialogue changes between companions does not, I repeat, does not an RPG make.

That said, you're absolutely entitled to feel that DA 2 has RPG elements. There are a lot of RPG players who consider messing about with a billion different inventory items an absolute must-have for a game to be a 'real' RPG. I don't, but that doesn't make their opinion any less valid than mine. In short, I'm cool with you thinking DA 2 is an RPG. I don't have to agree.

Modifié par OMTING52601, 06 novembre 2011 - 01:58 .

[Lord Gremlin]

GreenSoda wrote...

So the author realizes that DA2 forces the PC in a kind of a powerless bystander position...and in coming to terms with that he thinks it's a good game ?

No.

Just no.

DA2 wasn't a traditional bad game and many negative comments go way over the mark, but it was a disappointment -simply because one expects more than a mediocre expierence from a game with a Bioware label on it's cover.

My thoughts exactly.
My own negative comments may have been a bit too rude, but the thing is - we were promised a Dragon Age game and got something so inferior to DAO that it was between insult and fraud... At least felt like it.

[jbrand2002uk]

Erm sorry to pee in your soup Lord Gremlin but you did get a Dragon Age Game that is a game set in Thedas during the Dragon Age because you and other dont agree with the implementation does not make it an insult or a fraud or anywhere inbetween

[Phaedros]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Erm sorry to pee in your soup Lord Gremlin but you did get a Dragon Age Game that is a game set in Thedas during the Dragon Age because you and other dont agree with the implementation does not make it an insult or a fraud or anywhere inbetween

You are capable of believing that .. we know better..

[jbrand2002uk]

nope your arrogant enough to think you know better

[seraphymon]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

nope your arrogant enough to think you know better

Pot > Kettle

[jbrand2002uk]

Phaedros= DAO through rose tinted specs=guilty

[Melca36]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Phaedros= DAO through rose tinted specs=guilty

I thought you said awhile back you were done attacking people. 

[Melca36]

The DLCS make DA:2 worth it.

The DLCs prove the developers are listening.

Its definitely worth a second chance because of them.

[jbrand2002uk]

I am done just had to get that one off my chest i think i have reverse tourettes

[Phaedros]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

 i think i have reverse tourettes

there has to be some explanation for the way you choose to see the world...