232 réponses à ce sujet

[devSin]

You really just can't restrain yourself, can you? :-)

Telling people in advance doesn't excuse you from the rules.



NAUGHTY AND OBSCENE LANGUAGE BELOW!!!!!!!

... if I actually did it, I'd still get banned, even though I warned you in advance. "But it's your fault for reading it!" isn't going to cut it.

Modifié par devSin, 13 novembre 2011 - 06:59 .

[TEWR]

I admit, I can't.

But it's hard for me to partake in a serious discussion -- especially when devs are involved -- like this without giving examples to explain my position.

If I said "Yea I was unhappy with Best Served Cold because it's a serious example of how choices don't matter", it wouldn't really do much to explain what I feel.

Not that that excuses it. It might even make it worse.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 13 novembre 2011 - 07:05 .

[Chun Hei]

I forced myself to play through all of DA:O and its expansions two times. I loved many things about that game but no matter how memorable some of those good sections are I get to the Fade or the Deep Roads sections of the game and I... just... cannot... bear... to... do... it...

I have dozens of characters I have TRIED to take through the game but I cannot.

My characters I DID take through DA:O and DA:A were so damn powerful by the end that they sleep walked through the DLCs. The old SW:KotOR engine of "hit the button once and your character will attack the nearest opponent until one of them dies" made it even easier to fall asleep.

DA2 had HUGE flaws in level design (same mansion & same cave) but the parts I cannot stand about DA2 are over so quickly that it is not long at all until I find a part I do enjoy very much (the character segments). And the short painful parts still had some wonderful party banter I still love very much.

I have a half dozen characters I have taken all the way through DA2.

[lobi]

I didn't like the game becaused of voiced pc, weakens char ownership and by extension immersion. That's immersed in the world not immersed in the story which is two different things. It is still better than a lot of other games on offer. 174 hours logged on steam and this is second install to play DLCs.

Modifié par lobi, 13 novembre 2011 - 09:56 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

Chun Hei wrote...

I forced myself to play through all of DA:O and its expansions two times. I loved many things about that game but no matter how memorable some of those good sections are I get to the Fade or the Deep Roads sections of the game and I... just... cannot... bear... to... do... it...

I have dozens of characters I have TRIED to take through the game but I cannot.

My characters I DID take through DA:O and DA:A were so damn powerful by the end that they sleep walked through the DLCs. The old SW:KotOR engine of "hit the button once and your character will attack the nearest opponent until one of them dies" made it even easier to fall asleep.

DA2 had HUGE flaws in level design (same mansion & same cave) but the parts I cannot stand about DA2 are over so quickly that it is not long at all until I find a part I do enjoy very much (the character segments). And the short painful parts still had some wonderful party banter I still love very much.

I have a half dozen characters I have taken all the way through DA2.

This moreso sounds like "I could bear replaying DA2" rather than "I enjoyed replaing DA2". Not exactly a testament to replayability.

Nevertheless i despise the Fade and Deep Roads in DAO aswell. Luckily i have a PC, and can edit those parts out . 

[Chun Hei]

If you have to use a mod to remove huge sections of DA:O in order to replay it you are admitting that you cannot replay it either.

[Sylvianus]

I edited my post, wrong topic lol. Here, it is not about roleplay, but replay value.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 13 novembre 2011 - 11:47 .

[AlexXIV]

Replay value does not equal options. It equals excitement, drama, challenge, etc., these things. Whatever makes people play a game and then again and again. For whatever reason. To see new things every new playthrough is just one of many things someone would replay a game, and not necessary at all.

The bigger problem of Bioware is that they don't know what they want to be. An RPG developer, or action titles developer, or maybe they want to make interactive movies. Obviously they are still looking for their place or 'niche'. Or maybe they are just looking to make most profit. However, I guess DA2 may just be a result of their evaluation of the market. A test. Funny thing, the test can be successful even if the result is negative. Because they still found out what they wanted to.

I guess Bioware learned that various things worked well and others didn't. So the next game is the next step, whether it works for us or not, it will probalby again result in Bioware getting more information. Obviously there was no need to make so many changes compared to DA:O if you just want to make a sequel 'for the fans'. It was an attempt to go somewhere new.

I just think a couple of things they have to realize, action games need a proper action component that is challenging and fun at the same time they will have to compete with other action titles and 'we have story' is not an excuse that any action type will accept for poor combat design . RPGs need to let the player write part of the story. At least as far as the main character is concerned. Interactive movies ... I don't think that will work.

[Zahe]

I think it has decent replay value. At first I didn't like it at all but after putting it away for a couple of months and picking it up again it grew on me. As of right now I'm enjoying it more then DA:O despite Origins being more polished. In my mind there is two reasons for that.

The first is combat. DA:O had good tactical combat, I'm not saying anything else. The upside of any tactical combat is how rewarding it feels to outmanoeuvre your opponents strategically and the downside is that it can feel pretty slow and clunky at times. DA:Os combat was simply too easy. Anything after Lothering is pretty much a walk in the park even on Nightmare unless you chose to intentionally and severely gimp yourself. Because of that the upside of tactical combat, from my point of view, disappeared.
Another thing that crippled DA:Os combat somewhat is the way they handled abilities. It was simply horrendous. In my first play-through, on a 2h Warrior, I was out of useful talents about halfway through the game. A big part of the fun in RPGs for me is character development, and not being able to get any more meaningful growth sucked. It is true Warriors were the worst class in that aspect, but still. DA2 has a much more fleshed out way of dealing with abilities, which is something I really enjoy.

The other part is that I don't really care how my character impacts the world, but rather how the world impacts my character. I don't care about what happens to Loghain or who is king for example. I'm a reactive roleplayer and thus have no problem with linear stories as long as I get to choose what my character does within the scope of the story and the choices has some form of meaning, either emotionally or from a gameplay perspective. DA2 provided that for me. While it is true the story will end pretty much the same way in DA2 with some light variations, that doesn't bother me since a heroes journey is far more interesting then the resolution.

My 2c about all of this.

[Agamo45]

There is no replay value at all. It doesn't matter if you side with the Templars or the mages, the ending is pretty much the same either way, Varric just says something slightly different in the last scene. For a Bioware game, that's pretty pathetic. None of the choices you make in the game have a discernable effect on the story.

[Ryzaki]

Chun Hei wrote...

If you have to use a mod to remove huge sections of DA:O in order to replay it you are admitting that you cannot replay it either.

Eh. The fade section of the mage's tower isn't a huge section. And most of the deep roads is combat. It's simply a skip combat button. 

That said I only skip the fade and use runscript kill all hostiles in Orzammar. I like Hespith's poem too much to skip that part. 

I find both games had replay value but DAO's was significantly higher than DA2' s to me. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 14 novembre 2011 - 12:06 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Zahe wrote...

The first is combat. DA:O had good tactical combat, I'm not saying anything else. The upside of any tactical combat is how rewarding it feels to outmanoeuvre your opponents strategically and the downside is that it can feel pretty slow and clunky at times. DA:Os combat was simply too easy. Anything after Lothering is pretty much a walk in the park even on Nightmare unless you chose to intentionally and severely gimp yourself. Because of that the upside of tactical combat, from my point of view, disappeared.

I maintain that on any difficulty level otehr than nightmare, DA2's combat was significantly easier than DAO's combat, simply because of the absence of friendly fire.

Lacking friendly fire, DA2's combat has no tactical depth at all, and is thus boring.

Another thing that crippled DA:Os combat somewhat is the way they handled abilities. It was simply horrendous. In my first play-through, on a 2h Warrior, I was out of useful talents about halfway through the game. A big part of the fun in RPGs for me is character development, and not being able to get any more meaningful growth sucked. It is true Warriors were the worst class in that aspect, but still. DA2 has a much more fleshed out way of dealing with abilities, which is something I really enjoy.

Versatility.  Something I think DAO did well was allow Warriors to choose talents from multiple trees without gimping themslves, thus allowing them to be versatile.  There's no reason in DAO for any warrior not to have significant archery abilities, for example.

[Zahe]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I maintain that on any difficulty level otehr than nightmare, DA2's combat was significantly easier than DAO's combat, simply because of the absence of friendly fire.

Lacking friendly fire, DA2's combat has no tactical depth at all, and is thus boring.

I agree, but it is completely irrelevant. If lack of difficulty is a concern any difficulty level but the highest is irrelevant really. DA2 on Nightmare can also be too easy at times but the fact that it has a faster pacing remedies that for me. I'm happy playing a hybrid between tactical RPG and action RPG. That is just my perspective and I understand some people aren't happy about that compromise, but DA:O wasn't really spot on either for those who really want a challenging tactical RPG considering you could faceroll the game on Nightmare with little effort.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Versatility.  Something I think DAO did well was allow Warriors to choose talents from multiple trees without gimping themslves, thus allowing them to be versatile.  There's no reason in DAO for any warrior not to have significant archery abilities, for example.

That is true to some extent, but the fact that the game forces you to be versatile removes versatility in a sense as well. Whichever way you prefer is a matter of taste really but personally I hated it. After I hit that point I played maybe three or four hours more on that save then abandoned it. Had zero motivation to continue. Which is why I loved the way DA2 handeled abilities. They even managed to keep some of the versatility in being able to switch weapons due to the fact that most abilities are weapon-neutral.

[seraphymon]

Zahe wrote...

That is true to some extent, but the fact that the game forces you to be versatile removes versatility in a sense as well. Whichever way you prefer is a matter of taste really but personally I hated it. After I hit that point I played maybe three or four hours more on that save then abandoned it. Had zero motivation to continue. Which is why I loved the way DA2 handeled abilities. They even managed to keep some of the versatility in being able to switch weapons due to the fact that most abilities are weapon-neutral.

There is no forcement in versatility if your talking about DAO. Not until your are at a lvl where you have points to spare on something. Even then it doesnt hurt anything.

Also what versatility are you talking about in DA2 in terms of switching weapons. Because really there is none, as in DA2 weapons are only different in terms of 2 hander > 1 hander > daul wield really. There is no more difference between swords or axes or maces. Even from DAO they  never had abilities that could only be used by certain weapons. Weapon-neutral is in most games and MMOS, that doesnt make it versatile.

[Zahe]

seraphymon wrote...

There is no forcement in versatility if your talking about DAO. Not until your are at a lvl where you have points to spare on something. Even then it doesnt hurt anything.

On a Warrior for example you are forced to be versatile because you run out of useful talents related to your weapon choice halfway through the game. And no it doesn't hurt, because you don't have anything else to put them on. Which is exactly my point. You obviously didn't have a problem with that but it made me quit that character.

seraphymon wrote...

Also what versatility are you talking about in DA2 in terms of switching weapons. Because really there is none, as in DA2 weapons are only different in terms of 2 hander > 1 hander > daul wield really. There is no more difference between swords or axes or maces. Even from DAO they  never had abilities that could only be used by certain weapons. Weapon-neutral is in most games and MMOS, that doesnt make it versatile.

I'm not taking about difference between maces or swords or whatever. I'm talking between weaponsets such as 2h and S&B. And yes, DA2's talents are in themselves more versatile then DA:O's was regarding interchangability between weapon sets considering the vast majority of the talents work no matter what weapon you are wielding.

For example Warriors in DA:O had 2x4 Warrior specific talents and 3x4 for each weapon set. That is eight Warrior specific ones and 48 tied to your weapon. That means roughly 86% of your non-specialization talents are tied to your weapon.
In DA2 11 out of 32 Warrior talents are tied to your weapons, not counting upgrades and specialization. That is roughly 34%.

[Teddie Sage]

I think playing one warrior, one rogue, one mage, all with different choices and love interests can change a bunch of things about how you see the story. The preset stories also add some variances in the whole plot, but they're not really that significant.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Zahe wrote...

That is true to some extent, but the fact that the game forces you to be versatile removes versatility in a sense as well.

That I will certainly grant.

I would have preferred DAO with the sort of upgrade system DA2 had, so that increased specialisation would have been rewarded, just as versatility would have.

DA2 didn't allow versatility, which is a significant strike against it, I think.

Whichever way you prefer is a matter of taste really but personally I hated it. After I hit that point I played maybe three or four hours more on that save then abandoned it. Had zero motivation to continue. Which is why I loved the way DA2 handeled abilities. They even managed to keep some of the versatility in being able to switch weapons due to the fact that most abilities are weapon-neutral.

Only Hawke was ever allowed to switch weapons.  That's a significant reduction in playable variety compared to DAO.

Also, I'm playing the game to roleplay my character.  I would only quit like you did if I found that the game stopped offering me meaningful RP choices.  Which is why I stopped playing DA2 shortly after I erached Act III.  DA2 didn't really offer any meaningful RP choices, even on the first playthrough.

[Realmzmaster]

The use of mods can be done to enhance a game by adding content or to remove parts of a game that you found to be boring or tedious. Many gamers use mods to extend the life of a game for them. Sometimes the mods save a game from Oblivion. Many gamers use the Fade and deep road mods for DAO because they do not wish to play those parts.

Maybe on the first playthrough it was interesting, but on subsequent playthroughs the novelty was gone. Or you struggled to get through those parts on the first playthrough in which case you would like to have a way to avoid those parts for the game to have replay value for you.

There is nothing wrong with that. The individual decides how he/she wishes to play.

[Nightwriter]

I thought DA2 was pretty decent in terms of replayability. I found myself replaying it more times than I replayed DA:O, in any case. The only thing that really made subsequent playthroughs tedious were those repeating environments. A person goes mad exploring the same exact cave twenty times.

[Pious_Augustus]

I had to force myself to replay it. And I never finished it. Hell I had to force myself to finish the game period. All I could feel was the hate and disgust. Things I loved about Bioware had change....they put all this preorder content in so as many people as possible could preorder and we get this....I am still till this day very disgusted.

The gaming mechanics in this game pissed everyone off. Okay you drew in the crowd that doesn't matter and your sales suffered but was it worth it? Fans like myself who preorder and buy all your content and games some times more then once. I have all your old games even if I don't have the systems for them as well as the PC Copies....

But after this I am going to be very careful in checking to see who is writing your games and directing. If I see names like Gaidor or Laidlow okay am I going to have a homosexual character sexually harassing me half the time? Will it be a button mashing game?

Will I be told we tried to make you feel uncomfortable and unwelcome on purpose? That if I cannot respect people like that maybe then a customer of years is not welcome?

I have Mass Effect 3 and The Old Republic Collectors Preordered and paid for. What I expect in a Bioware game I don't see here. They way you handled sexuality is different from every other Bioware game to where it's optional but this game it's throwing it in your face and if you don't like it come get some Red points.

For one year now all this forum has been about is disappointment, regret and outrage. Of course you have those who love the game. I know many females, bi and gay fans loved the femm content and the throwing it in your face content but seriously are they the majority of your customers? Look at your sales again when you could of had so much you decided to focus on a crowd that has political views and tried to pull the Call of Duty crowd which is all males hetro and then you think they'd be interested in femm content? 

All the Dragon Age 2 forum does is make me angry every time I come here. I don't see or think the lesson has been learned yet. As someone who had put so much money and time into Bioware please do a roll back on this series

Seriously if Dragon Age 2 becomes a minor back drop in the series and we move on I think it would be for the best

Chun Hei wrote...

I forced myself to play through all of
DA:O and its expansions two times. I loved many things about that game
but no matter how memorable some of those good sections are I get to the
Fade or the Deep Roads sections of the game and I... just... cannot...
bear... to... do... it...

I have dozens of characters I have TRIED to take through the game but I cannot.

My
characters I DID take through DA:O and DA:A were so damn powerful by
the end that they sleep walked through the DLCs. The old SW:KotOR engine
of "hit the button once and your character will attack the nearest
opponent until one of them dies" made it even easier to fall asleep.

DA2
had HUGE flaws in level design (same mansion & same cave) but the
parts I cannot stand about DA2 are over so quickly that it is not long
at all until I find a part I do enjoy very much (the character
segments). And the short painful parts still had some wonderful party
banter I still love very much.

I have a half dozen characters I have taken all the way through DA2.

The Fade is my least favorite part of the game as well. Maybe it's because I spend so much time in one place kind of like Kirkwall with no way out

Modifié par Pious_Augustus, 14 novembre 2011 - 07:17 .

[Morty Smith]

Jessica Merizan wrote...
So I guess for me it becomes a question of story vs plot and how much I want to put into changing the minor plot details that lead to the same eventual ending. Definitely worth at least one play in my opinion as it was still one of the best games that came out in the first half of this year. Replay value however, as we've seen, definitely depends on how you game.

We know, it was so good that you guys wrote your own review to tell people how good it was. 

[AlexXIV]

Kroitz wrote...

Jessica Merizan wrote...
So I guess for me it becomes a question of story vs plot and how much I want to put into changing the minor plot details that lead to the same eventual ending. Definitely worth at least one play in my opinion as it was still one of the best games that came out in the first half of this year. Replay value however, as we've seen, definitely depends on how you game.

We know, it was so good that you guys wrote your own review to tell people how good it was. 

One needs to wonder why they are going through the effort of making games anyway. They could just sell empty boxes and pay someone to rate it 9/10. Sorry but any review rating the game 9/10 was obviously less than creditable. Of course that doesn't keep Bioware from putting them 9/10's on their site to show off.

May be a big surprise for some, but if money becomes your highest value it will replace every other.

[LordPaul256]

Stanley Woo wrote...

I would say that if you played it twice, the replay value was there. Maybe not enough to replay it more than once, but enough that you did replay it.

That's a horroble misappropriation of what he is trying to say.

If I am trying a new restaurant and find the food lacking, I may give it another try based on the reputation of those involved.  If I find the second time lacking as well, I generally will not come back.

That's giving something a second chance, not return customers.  (Or replay value in this metaphor).

[Marvin_Arnold]

Honestly, why should a game company put effort into replayability?

When gamers are busy playing the same game over and over again, they won't buy any new game. DA:O kept me busy for almost two years, Neverwinter Nights (however due to excellent community modules) for four.

That's bad business for a game company! I probably skipped handfuls of games while playing those two over and over again!

...okay am I going to have a homosexual character sexually harassing me half the time?

That's interesting. Your game seems to be broken. In the DA2 I played there was a "harass me" dialogue option which you had to choose in order to get harassed by a character half of the time. It had a big heart as a symbol.

Never press buttons if you don't know what they do.

Modifié par Marvin_Arnold, 14 novembre 2011 - 12:22 .

[Fearsome1]

 This game has very little replay value......?
I can't imagine how far someone would actually have to jam their head up their own arse to arrive at this erroneous conclusion.  For all of the flack Dragon Age 2 has earned from select corners of the gaming world, I have to wonder what the fuss is all about? 

I've played through the game more times than I can remember. Each class twice, just for starters, so that I could play as both male & female Hawke in each classification. DA2 most certainly has "replay value" and that simple coin is tallied up as FUN.  I enjoy the world of Dragon Age and it's fun to vary each playthrough as I so choose, depending on my mood.

If you're not having fun with it , by all means, go away. But. Why also vent about it? Just go away.