360 réponses à ce sujet

[FedericoV]

simfamSP wrote...

Do you really expect that from a Bioware game again?

No. But that's not the point: a man can dream, but it probably ain't going to happen. Stanley Woo has allready explained why and I don't wont to return on the subject. But you said a very different thing: you said that people (even BG fans like me) would hate such a game. And I do not understand why you hold such a position. I'm pretty sure a lot of player would love it and that it would sell better than DA2.

Having said that, I'm sure that there is money to be made from that kind of market. Sooner or later, someone will see the light . Since Bioware will probably insist on the cinematic/me2eques route, a new developer will fill the niche, just like Bioware have the luck to fill the niche of D&D gaming with the BG series.

[Vanderbilt_Grad]

Stanley Woo wrote...

4. Game developers have to keep trying new things in order to succeed, keep attracting new players, and keeping up with new technologies and trends. As much as people will scream for experiences like BG or DAO even today, making games that are carbon copies of previous games isn't seen as very creative. Look at the negative perception that EA Sports games have. Even in this community, those games are seen as "cheap cash grabs," games that can't or won't innovate because they come out annually. the implication here is that people want something new, not just something rehashed from last year. So why, then, do RPG players seem to want the exact same thing that came out not last year, but ten years ago?

While I totally agree that game developers have to keep trying new things … and this is from the perspective of letting creative folks be creative and in terms of delivering better products to customers … but I am also of the opinion that change just for the sake of change can be a very bad thing.

When it comes to games people don’t want carbon copies when they ask for a game like BG II, they just want similar experiences to what they had in the past. The people who love BG or DA:O aren’t saying "those games were perfect and future games should be just like them with no changes." Not at all. Instead what is being said is "I really enjoyed playing BG II and I would love to play a game that made me feel that way again."

[philippe willaume]

[quote]R0vena wrote...

[quote]freche wrote...

What I <sinp for space sake>
[/quote]

While I agree on BG related musings, I doubt many DA:O fans recognize the portraying of lack of connection to the Warden. And that "Hawke was the step in right direction" seems even more alien. If I wasn't so sure both of you actually did play DA:O, I would otherwise call out on that. Because you get a much more thorough planting in the would-be Warden early in Origins, than you ever get in Hawke, even when you have finished that game.
[/quote]

I meant that the Warden gets in the position of power very quickly. As soom as (s)he becomes the Warden everybody is giving her/him a lot of respect. Hawke had to work a bit longer for that.

[/quote]

Hello
I would even argue that Hawke never reaches that level of respect.  The only one that seems to pay him any sort of respect, remotely care about what hawke achieves and pay attention to what hakes says is the Arishok. In fact it is the only one that gives you the impression that what hawkes do does actually matters.
 
That being said wardens are pan-national apolitical institution that carries lots of weight. So it is believable that there is some respect and that the order can be looked upon for mediation. Surely the hero of kirkwall have some sort of clout.
 
I agree that it was nice to have to climb through the social ladder, one chapter to get rich and one chapter to get influent. But it is kind of the more influent you are the less actual influence you have.
The conversation you want to have with the mother superior is “ok I know the Arishok, he will take that badly. What about handing Patrice over, granny?”
Or
“Well you know what Patrice was right, I need a sword rack, let’s get some horns”.
But no I would almost expect Hawke to accept that he need to contact the complaint service of the chantry that just happened to have been delocalised in Ferelden.
 
You know it looks as if Hawkes is not really interested. So no wonder he/she does not get any respect. He/she do not fight for what she believes.
Surely Hawke has a view on the Quun vs Chantry, mage vs templar or how the city is being torn apart by one lunatic on Lyruim drip and guy who we know has been pushed for 7 years non stop.
 
Now we have a problem with our little mine. Doe we send the guard to investigate. No we make it our problem and sort it out. (Give or take a few reload)
 
We have a carp storm brewing between mage and templar; it is so obvious from act I that even Sandhal would say “Disenchantment”
 
So being the woman/man of action Hawke is, he/she takes action. Well the total of hawke actions for what he/she believes is eventually sums up to stern words and wagging a finger if she/he is very upset.

Modifié par philippe willaume, 11 novembre 2011 - 05:46 .

[philippe willaume]

sorry doubly posty

Modifié par philippe willaume, 11 novembre 2011 - 06:18 .

[philippe willaume]

I am not saying that hawke ought to have changed the course of event.
Sometimes it is nice to have no control of the output. But I would have expected the hero of Kurkwall (ie like warden or like in BG) to do something about it.

May be modified the sequence of event (i.e. the chantry blow despite stopping a certain mage) or turning into a combined harvested after we defeated miss M if you sided with the mage.
As well possible some minor satisfaction reward, saving some mage/templar getting someone less aggravated in power. Does not change the world effect but created a third way and maybe being hunted by the templar or the circle according to who you sided with.

Phil

[Wozearly]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Yes!

DAO is a terrific game.  It's not a perfect game, but it's still a wonderful RPG experience.

Man, it's so weird to see you praising a BioWare game unreservedly and without further commentary!

I think its safe to say that Sylvius is one of a few forumite regulars who sets the bar for expectations unashamedly high and then comments from that perspective.

With hindsight, I think a number of fans of DA:O were probably too quiet and not effusive enough in praising the game. I'm certainly one of them. Loved the series to bits, loved the DLC even though I'm not normally a huge DLC fan, felt it was a fantastic game with fantastic atmosphere and it was dripping with potential as an IP.

That it received such widespread accolades in the gaming world was icing on the cake.

When people were struggling with installation problems, I was one of the community members who helped find and document workarounds before there was an official solution, creating step-by-step processes and updating it even after I'd overcome the issues myself. We soon got about an 80% success rate for people, but I was making time on MSN, e-mail and the messages here to help people who were struggling. That 100% of people who contacted me personally got the game installed and running within 3 days was an achievement I was proud of.

I don't usually commit time in that way to support game communities, but for DA:O I gave it willingly. I raved about the game to RL friends, guild members in the MMO of the time - and I'm not normally known for promoting hype.

The only people I didn't rave about it to were the guys at Bioware. I think I made one post at the time along the lines of "Wow, this is great". I should have made a ton of them, rather than just zeroing in on the relatively minor gripes and grumbles and suggestions for improvement.

DA2 missed the mark for me. So that's a lesson learned. For what its worth, I'm going to be darn sure in future that I praise the good just as often and effusively as I rubbish the bad. Never again will I expect you to be psychic.

Modifié par Wozearly, 11 novembre 2011 - 06:43 .

[FaeQueenCory]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Cool, people are clarifying and getting more specific on the kinds of things they want to see in a BioWare game. It seems I had misinterpreted what people were asking for.

So... people aren't asking us to recreate Baldur's Gate. They want us to create a game that will give them a similar experience of epic-ness, immersion, and sense of value as the BG series? Kind of like what we did with DAO? Is that correct?

This is it EXACTLY.
I didn't want DA2 to be Origins, but with different people. I wanted it to be LIKE Origins, in the same spirit of it (and thusly BG), but with a few changes and definitely with improvements. It should be a different game, after all, but since it's a sequel, it shouldn't have been a different feeling game.

[Kyda]

I actually felt DA:O was close to the BG series. It was the first game after a long time that gave me that feeling of immersing history and great companions. I never felt that way with NWN. Truth be told I stopped playing Bioware games after NWN 1 because NWN felt a little empty interaction and companion wise. Then my husband told me about the promising DA:O and we had our hopes up and it turned out a pleasant surprise. DA:O was the reason I went back to Bioware titles, I started playing old ones like KOTOR and Jade Empire, I tried out Mass Effect and loved it. For me ME 2 and DA2 were good games and enjoyable but for a reason they didn’t quite feel like their predecessors, for me they were lacking that feeling of having choices that matter or a possibility to really connect with your teammates (unless you romanced them). But that doesn’t mean they didn’t have their great things, like ME2 last mission (that was a nice change from the choose only 2 people to go with), or the rivalry system in DA2 (that needs adjustments but still was something interesting). One of the most annoying things that I found was the fact that there was one way to do something and it was in neon lights, like in the "prison" (ME2) after the escape there was only one way to go and marked in green. For me that was a little too streamed. The mission would have been a lot more captivating if you had to actually find your way out.
So I guess that even being a fan of BG (that I still play from time to time) I can understand that games evolve but that doesn´t mean you can´t retain certain characteristics that make them unique, like really choosing and living with your choices, or being able to get to a point from different places o being able to have conversations that develop not only to romance but also to friendship (I think DA2 was way better that ME2 in achieving this which is logical assuming that it came afterwards and that they had the players opinions about it)

[csfteeeer]

FaeQueenCory wrote...

I didn't want DA2 to be Origins, but with different people. I wanted it to be LIKE Origins, in the same spirit of it (and thusly BG), but with a few changes and definitely with improvements. It should be a different game, after all, but since it's a sequel, it shouldn't have been a different feeling game.

****ing Bingo, there it is, Feel.

That's a Sequel should have, a similar FEEL to the Prequel.

Theres a Big difference between actually being, and Feeling, and Sequels should BE Different to the Prequels, but should FEEL similar.

Series such Elder Scrolls prove this.

[xCirdanx]

FedericoV wrote...
No. But that's not the point: a man can dream, but it probably ain't going to happen. Stanley Woo has allready explained why and I don't wont to return on the subject.

While i agree with him on some points (and disagree on others), it was his opinion, don´t assume he speaks for everyone at Bioware, he is not the voice of Bioware and i wish people would finaly realise this, and also don´t reflect his (or other Bioware workers in the forum) as the universal opinion of the whole company. 

Just saying

Vanderbilt_Grad wrote...
While I totally agree that game developers have to keep trying new things … and this is from the perspective of letting creative folks be creative and in terms of delivering better products to customers … but I am also of the opinion that change just for the sake of change can be a very bad thing.

I totally agree with you, especialy because "new" usually is just a marketing twist. I can probably use one hand to count the times when something was really new in a game in the last years. Usually it´s just a slightly different feature of something that has allready been done before anyways. Of course you can get new customers with that sometimes, but at the same time you are fooling your existing once. Too bad there are enough people falling for this...

philippe willaume wrote...

The only one that seems to pay him any sort of respect, remotely care about what hawke achieves and pay attention to what hakes says is the Arishok. In fact it is the only one that gives you the impression that what hawkes do does actually matters.

I honestly had the same feeling. The city/world/npc´s even your party members just don´t react the way that YOU did something important. I was often asking myself WHY do these NPC´s give me even the quest? I never felt even close to being important in DA2. And i think it was not the fact that you are just an "ordinary" person, it was the way it was presented to the player. That was the problem in my opinion, and with that i mean everything from the lack of player initiated interaction with your party members, which in return would have allowed the writes to give the characters more depth, to a non changing environment, up to the point that no matter what you do, the end is pretty much the same.

philippe willaume wrote...

I am not saying that hawke ought to have changed the course of event.
Sometimes it is nice to have no control of the output. But I would have expected the hero of Kurkwall (ie like warden or like in BG) to do something about it.

May be modified the sequence of event (i.e. the chantry blow despite stopping a certain mage) or turning into a combined harvested after we defeated miss M if you sided with the mage.
As well possible some minor satisfaction reward, saving some mage/templar getting someone less aggravated in power. Does not change the world effect but created a third way and maybe being hunted by the templar or the circle according to who you sided with.

Phil

A very good point also, and you wrote before that the mages/chantry(templer) thing is a world wide, or in this context could be, event. Yet, the game hardly does a good job, in my opinion, to let you, as Hawke know this. In the end, it doesn´t matter for DA2, you still will fight the same guys, no matter what you did before. Choice here does even matter more than in, lets say BG2, because in DA2 it´s all about the end and how that works out, while in BG2 it was about the journey. That was the feeling i got.

Kyda wrote...

I actually felt DA:O was close to the BG series. It was the first game after a long time that gave me that feeling of immersing history and great companions. I never felt that way with NWN. Truth be told I stopped playing Bioware games after NWN 1 because NWN felt a little empty interaction and companion wise.

I did the same for some time, though i liked NWN, it was a bit more about combat, that isn´t always bad, i also enjoyed the Icewind Dale series very much.

Kyda wrote...
So I guess that even being a fan of BG (that I still play from time to time) I can understand that games evolve but that doesn´t mean you can´t retain certain characteristics that make them unique, like really choosing and living with your choices, or being able to get to a point from different places o being able to have conversations that develop not only to romance but also to friendship (I think DA2 was way better that ME2 in achieving this which is logical assuming that it came afterwards and that they had the players opinions about it)

That´s hard, i think ME2 and DA2 lack a bit there. But i absolutly agree on your first point. You said that very well!.

csfteeeer wrote...

****ing Bingo, there it is, Feel.

That's a Sequel should have, a similar FEEL to the Prequel.

Theres a Big difference between actually being, and Feeling, and Sequels should BE Different to the Prequels, but should FEEL similar.

Series such Elder Scrolls prove this.

I agree with the sequel part, and after many other opinions i have read, a lot of people (including me) had a problem with the fact that DA2 didn´t seem to be sequel at all. However i disagree when it comes to the Elder Scrolls series, i love most of them, but they did f*ck up too And oh, god, how i dislike Oblivion >.>

[R0vena]

philippe willaume wrote...

I would even argue that Hawke never reaches that level of respect.  The only one that seems to pay him any sort of respect, remotely care about what hawke achieves and pay attention to what hakes says is the Arishok. In fact it is the only one that gives you the impression that what hawkes do does actually matters.
 

I wouldn't say so. Hawke has enough respect and influence closer to  the end - so much that the leader of a certain country wants to talk with him(her) personally about matters of state and certain nobles in Kirkwall go out of their way to make a good impression when Hawke visits them. It is quite a difference in compare to the refugee from Act 1.

Modifié par R0vena, 11 novembre 2011 - 09:23 .

[csfteeeer]

xCirdanx wrote...

csfteeeer wrote...

****ing Bingo, there it is, Feel.

That's a Sequel should have, a similar FEEL to the Prequel.

Theres a Big difference between actually being, and Feeling, and Sequels should BE Different to the Prequels, but should FEEL similar.

Series such Elder Scrolls prove this.

I agree with the sequel part, and after many other opinions i have read, a lot of people (including me) had a problem with the fact that DA2 didn´t seem to be sequel at all. However i disagree when it comes to the Elder Scrolls series, i love most of them, but they did f*ck up too And oh, god, how i dislike Oblivion >.>

Jesus, are you my long lost brother or something?
almost seems like we think the same lol.

Yes, i also HATED Oblivion(which is sad since i have loved every other TES, especially Morrowind), HOWEVER, one thing i will give it though, is that it still felt like TES, i just didn't like What was in it, but every single ES game always has a feel to it that makes you think(or at least me) "Yep, I'm Playing ES", whether you like the content AROUND it, and thus most of it.... that's a different thing (cause i still thought Oblivion was Repetitive, Bland, With a Shallow Storyline, a world that feels WAY too empty, etc...).

Skyrim is an even better proof of my original point, cause ya see, there are some elements that they Pulled Straight out of FO3 and NV into Skyrim, BUT, Beth did it RIGHT, they took the minor stuff(like the Lockpicking Mini game), and put it there, but it never over shadows anything nor does it feel like it was just there to make it more like Fallout, i still Perfectly feel that Skyrim is an Elder Scroll game, unlike DA2, where things pulled from ME are resounding throughout the Hole game(like that stupid Dialogue Wheel that i hate)

But my point, no matter how changed the Overall content surrounding the Essence is of the game series is, if the essence is not messed with, it will always feel like a Sequel, and Skyrim proves this.

[xCirdanx]

R0vena wrote...
I wouldn't say so. Hawke has enough respect and influence closer to  the end - so much that the leader of a certain country wants to talk with him(her) personally about matters of state and certain nobles in Kirkwall go out of their way to make a good impression when Hawke visits them. It is quite a difference in compare to the refugee from Act 1.

Still how does the game shows you this?

If you have that much influence why does NO one listen to you? I had a serious problem with that cameo of that "specific leader", it felt totaly out of character to me. Also the Le... and what she said was pissing me off >.< Maybe i´m to harsh, sorry about that, but it really buged me, since i have a lot of love for DA:O and the characters in there. WHICH in return doesn´t mean i dislike the party members in DA2, i like them, but thanks to the whole cinematic approach, which directly leads to no talking to them when you want, well that totally left the writers with not much choice, which in return pissed me off, because i´m a big fan of Biowares writing team, and i mean all of them. But when you are limited to scripted events to write for, you have only so much choice to give everything that is needed, meaning introducing the character, backstory, motivations, possible friendship/romance etc. In fact i belive the writers did their best considering the limitations that come with that cinematic stlye of the game. But unfortunaly that also meant less depth for characters in the game. Which, in my opinion, is always bad in a RPG...

[xCirdanx]

csfteeeer wrote...

Jesus, are you my long lost brother or something?
almost seems like we think the same lol.

Yes, i also HATED Oblivion(which is sad since i have loved every other TES, especially Morrowind), HOWEVER, one thing i will give it though, is that it still felt like TES, i just didn't like What was in it, but every single ES game always has a feel to it that makes you think(or at least me) "Yep, I'm Playing ES", whether you like the content AROUND it, and thus most of it.... that's a different thing (cause i still thought Oblivion was Repetitive, Bland, With a Shallow Storyline, a world that feels WAY too empty, etc...).

Skyrim is an even better proof of my original point, cause ya see, there are some elements that they Pulled Straight out of FO3 and NV into Skyrim, BUT, Beth did it RIGHT, they took the minor stuff(like the Lockpicking Mini game), and put it there, but it never over shadows anything nor does it feel like it was just there to make it more like Fallout, i still Perfectly feel that Skyrim is an Elder Scroll game, unlike DA2, where things pulled from ME are resounding throughout the Hole game(like that stupid Dialogue Wheel that i hate)

But my point, no matter how changed the Overall content surrounding the Essence is of the game series is, if the essence is not messed with, it will always feel like a Sequel, and Skyrim proves this.

Well, maybe we are who knows *lol* It´s nice thought that someone agrees with you without bashing

You also pretty much nailed the problems i had with Oblivion, whith the biggest for me being the shallow storyline, i honestly couldn´t bring myself back to go for the mainplot for a long time after i started exploring. That would have been also a problem for me in DA2 if you would have the choice to simply wander off.

Unfortunaly, i can´t say anything about Skyrim yet, i had no chance to play it and because of Oblivion, i´m still waiting a bit. I don´t want to spend much money on a game that i may not like. I still want to get it though. It´s also not about the money, but before i spend 50$ on a game that i may end up hating, i better put that money into the animal shelter near me...just a matter of principles.

Anyway. Ah, the dialogue wheel, yes a very good example, i have never, not once seen on person saying that they like this thing. Yeah there is this thread here, where some people think "reading it first makes it less funny when you hear it". What? If it´s funny, i will laugh when i read it and MAY even laugh again when i hear it. How is that bad? What kind of logic is that in an RPG? Because with the dialogue wheel you may end up like i did, very often, and ask yourself why the hell did he say that? That was NOT what i wanted nor what i was aiming for. I had a lot of this moments in DA2 AND ME2.

Again, "cinematic style" limits your options, and so does voice over. I can see the appeal of it, but it takes more away then it gives.

[R0vena]

xCirdanx wrote...

R0vena wrote...
I wouldn't say so. Hawke has enough respect and influence closer to  the end - so much that the leader of a certain country wants to talk with him(her) personally about matters of state and certain nobles in Kirkwall go out of their way to make a good impression when Hawke visits them. It is quite a difference in compare to the refugee from Act 1.

Still how does the game shows you this?

I think you misunderstand what I am trying to say. I am not going to argue about Hawke being or not being in control of events, it is not the point.
What I mean is in DAO (and I love DAO, played it more than 12 times) there is hardly any progression of main character in the sense: you are nobody (Aeducan and Cousland are exeptions, but being Aeducan is still nothing once you go to the surface, so practically only Cousland is a true exeption), then after 2 hours - hurray - you are GW, everybody respects you on first sight and... that's it. You stay in that status right till the end. Hawke's rise to respect and influence was more slow and - at least for me - more enjoyable because of it. (But still could be better.)

Modifié par R0vena, 11 novembre 2011 - 10:32 .

[bEVEsthda]

R0vena wrote...

xCirdanx wrote...

R0vena wrote...
I wouldn't say so. Hawke has enough respect and influence closer to  the end - so much that the leader of a certain country wants to talk with him(her) personally about matters of state and certain nobles in Kirkwall go out of their way to make a good impression when Hawke visits them. It is quite a difference in compare to the refugee from Act 1.

Still how does the game shows you this?

I think you misunderstand what I am trying to say. I am not going to argue about Hawke being or not being in control of events, it is not the point.
What I mean is in DAO (and I love DAO, played it more than 12 times) there is hardly any progression of main character in the sense: you are nobody (Aeducan and Cousland are exeptions, but being Aeducan is still nothing once you go to the surface, so practically only Cousland is a true exeption), then after 2 hours - hurray - you are GW, everybody respects you on first sight and... that's it. You stay in that status right till the end. Hawke's rise to respect and influence was more slow and - at least for me - more enjoyable because of it. (But still could be better.)

I agree with what you're saying (meaning I'm not arguing). But the way I interpreted it, I kinda never felt respected as Hawke. Dunno why not. Thinking back I think there are reasons. You knew Aveline from the start, and while she eventually is one in power who listens to you, well, she always kinda did. Same with Varric, he wanted you from early on for the Deep Roads expedition. And no one else seem to really take an interest in you. On the contrary, they seem to often attack you with woefully inadequate forces, indicating their lack of respect.

As for the GW, you only become someone after Ostagar, when you as one of the only two surviving GWs have to step up to the responsibility (since the other one obviously won't), and shoulder Duncan's mantle, despite not being big enough for it.. And that kinda also sits well with me. I totally accepted that situation in RP. I didn't feel the GW actually was someone, yet, but was taking up the role, using the appearances, reputations and faking and winging it, for the cause. Eventually becoming someone by gathering the experience from the need to perform, and success in doing so.

The GW obviously is a talent from the start, or wouldn't be recruited. But so is Hawke. And more so. A ready, outstanding fighter. Actually, the very first thing we know about Hawke is being "awesome" at killing darkspawn on the road.

BG is much different, (and so is Morrowind, for another example) there we really start at the bottom.

[R0vena]

bEVEsthda,
well, I guess it is the matter of individual perception. I thought Hawke's "rise to power" was actually more in BG style, even if still a bit rush, and I thought this rise was rather well executed.
I understand that the situation with Warden was different, but it is again a matter of personal taste. I really like "nothing to god" scenarios, but the hero should have a very long road before he hits the "god" status. I didn't have that feeling of long road with Warden.

Modifié par R0vena, 11 novembre 2011 - 11:10 .

[bEVEsthda]

R0vena wrote...

bEVEsthda,
well, I guess it is the matter of individual perception. I thought Hawke's "rise to power" was actually more in BG style, even if still a bit rush, and I thought this rise was rather well executed.
I understand that the situation with Warden was different, but it is again a matter of personal taste. I really like "nothing to god" scenarios, but the hero should have a very long road before he hits the "god" status. I didn't have that feeling of long road with Warden.

I still agree. I like starting from the bottom too. But no recent game has done that well. BG and MW did well, because when you were 'small', weak you had to thread carefully and avoid dangers that were above your head.
 
But most of these new games just balance the opposition towards you all the time, so that you basically play the same game all the time. Sure, your character grows, but so do the enemies on your railroad track through the game, so the fighting stays the same. This is a common syndrom that I quite sneer at, even if I can enjoy such games for other reasons and qualities. But my ideal cRPG is one where you can and will get in over your head if you're arrogant. I don't think we'll see much such games again though. Bethesda probably comes closest.

[R0vena]

bEVEsthda wrote...

I still agree. I like starting from the bottom too. But no recent game has done that well. BG and MW did well, because when you were 'small', weak you had to thread carefully and avoid dangers that were above your head.
 
But most of these new games just balance the opposition towards you all the time, so that you basically play the same game all the time. Sure, your character grows, but so do the enemies on your railroad track through the game, so the fighting stays the same. This is a common syndrom that I quite sneer at, even if I can enjoy such games for other reasons and qualities. But my ideal cRPG is one where you can and will get in over your head if you're arrogant. I don't think we'll see much such games again though. Bethesda probably comes closest.

Very true. I am not a big fan of enemy-scaling either. Fortunately, for me combat is quite entertaining, but not the most important part. Story, great companions and dynamic relationship between them and hero (and each other) is what I crave the most - so I also can overlook some minor negatives...

Modifié par R0vena, 12 novembre 2011 - 01:39 .

[xCirdanx]

R0vena wrote..."I think you misunderstand what I am trying to say. I am not going to argue about Hawke being or not being in control of events, it is not the point."

As i wrote before, in DA:O it´s the journey that matters not so much the end, while DA2 is all about the end because there is no journey. Which is important for an RPG. (in my opinion)

R0vena wrote...
"What I mean is in DAO (and I love DAO, played it more than 12 times) there is hardly any progression of main character in the sense: you are nobody (Aeducan and Cousland are exeptions, but being Aeducan is still nothing once you go to the surface, so practically only Cousland is a true exeption), then after 2 hours - hurray - you are GW, everybody respects you on first sight and... that's it. You stay in that status right till the end."

That is true, you do, but i do have to say that i think, that they did a great job of explaining this. Now, that might not be "orginial", yet your have your Origin and in the context of the GW recruiting "powerful" warriors for their crusade makes sense. You are still a "newbe" to the whole thing and learn a lot while playing, especialy WHITH TALKING to Alistair.

What you described is called "pacing". And while you are stuck with being a Grey Wardon (as much as being a Bhaalspawn, you can´t undo that) you can still make "meaningful" choices which get reflected to you in form of your party members. (except one, but we won´t go the big plotwhole that is morigan´s baby...)

R0vena wrote...
Hawke's rise to respect and influence was more slow and - at least for me - more enjoyable because of it. (But still could be better.)

I don´t even get why he is respected in the last chapter, and that at the end of the game, you still get your standart crap from the people, how is he even a hero? What has he done? Oh he killed the Arishok? He sure got a fancy statue for this, no wait that isn´t even him...and that should be "me"..no thank you. Not once in this game i felt special as Hawke, not to mention i would give up crap voice over and a pre-genereated character to..well you know..roleplay mine myself..

As a side note: I don´t want to repeat myself, but this cameos, they seemed nothing more like fanservice to me. Which is nice, but why have an import save feature if nothing you do matters?

Modifié par xCirdanx, 12 novembre 2011 - 02:10 .

[R0vena]

xCirdanx wrote...


As i wrote before, in DA:O it´s the journey that matters not so much the end, while DA2 is all about the end because there is no journey. Which is important for an RPG. (in my opinion)

Well, I am not about to argue DAO vs. DA 2 points. Actually, I love them both equally. And personal journey of Hawke (in my opinion) is just as important as saving the world (which I have nothing against, believe me - I love my heroes saving the world, but I don't mind if for once they'll do something else). Doesn't matter that the certain events still happen - I can still see my Hawke grow and change through the story, it is enough for me. I am also OK if it is not enough for somebody else or if somebody doesn't see it at all. Tastes differ.

[xCirdanx]

R0vena wrote...
Well, I am not about to argue DAO vs. DA 2 points. Actually, I love them both equally. And personal journey of Hawke (in my opinion) is just as important as saving the world (which I have nothing against, believe me - I love my heroes saving the world, but I don't mind if for once they'll do something else). Doesn't matter that the certain events still happen - I can still see my Hawke grow and change through the story, it is enough for me. I am also OK if it is not enough for somebody else or if somebody doesn't see it at all. Tastes differ.

I´m fine with that really I´m not trying to pick on you. If you enjoyed the game, and i certainly did for a few hours, thats fine. I just want a damn reason why people think this or that is better, and one backed up with a fact that makes a feature better then it was before. Again this has nothing to do with you. But i have not seen one.

Let me ask you this, would or would you not have prefered more freedom (and with that a really different ending) in Da2? Would you have not loved to talk to your party members when YOU want? Would you have not liked a meaningful romance for your character? For your Hawke? Hell would you not have given him a different name/race? 

Modifié par xCirdanx, 12 novembre 2011 - 02:53 .

[philippe willaume]

Hello,
@ Rovena
I have to said that I met the "would have been king if i did no throw a tantrum in DA:0" in the hanged man. So I missed on the empowerment you described.

but really, I would even say that Hawke has a certain clout after act I has he has direct access to the leader of kirkwall and the possibility to be in the good grace of either the mage or the templar but we never get to use it.
The only time that has an effect on the game is when the Arishok declares you worthy and says that he will duel you (it will happen even if Fenris is not in the party).

Yes we have a social progression and we start from refugee to magnate to saviour of the city and I agree with you there is satisfaction with that. And I am not sure that anyone disagrees with that.
I think act II is the high point of DA2, I wish I could have spared the Arishok but that was not to be with the parameters of the play-path I choose.

But for me that satisfaction of social climb is kind of spoiled by the lack of effect, in terms of game, That is.
A little bit like if I taught you to joust and then fly you in a country where there is no-horse.

Again the game result don’t need to change. But hawke is the hero of Kirkwall, we are the dude or the dudesse that kill dragons, get in terrible situation to help our mates or ease the suffering of otheres, has been involved in the turmoil of the city for 10 years and the best we can do in act III is “bugger, I did not see that one coming.”
For one a brick top moment with Meredith would not have gone amiss.

Speaking of which Could we have SNATCH DLC so that we could say
“You are not much use to me alive Anders, punish him for me Fenris.”

Modifié par philippe willaume, 12 novembre 2011 - 03:33 .

[Arivle]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Man, it's so weird to see you praising a BioWare game unreservedly and without further commentary!

Autch! That hurts, even though not directed at me! I write often here what I'd like better/different in BW games because simply that's what I want to be changed or added. What I like, I rarely comment. Maybe it's mean but it's only natural. So once for all - from me - to all BW developers:

I got to BW products late. Though I play games heavilly since 8-bit era, somehow I missed them. My first BW game was DA:O and I was literally smashed by it. It was the game I was seeking for decades and failed to find over and over in any RPG I tried, including all so called top titles. The game where I can be what I want and I have trully interesting choices and branches of the totally soul-consuming story - with everything from romance to intrigue, politics and betrayal. And I shape the world like a true hero should. Plus - on top of all that - it's also a very good, modern, enjoyable game to play.

I declared DA:O to be THE BEST GAME I EVER PLAYED before I even finished it. But it didn't last long. Based on the experience I bought ME1, even though I like fantasy lot more than sci-fi. And I was smashed again as it was EVEN BETTER! Then I played DA1 expansion, ME2, DA2, I even bought NWN and all BGs! And they were all excellent games though I found them worse than ME1/DA:O what is the utter pinnacle for me.

So once for all. BW is by far THE BEST GAME DEVELOPER I know.  Yet also most criticised because I care about their games. Other are simply not worth my attention, yet alone some "comment".

I write it here because I think I'm not the only person who feels that way and not only on this forum.

However the truth is I liked ME1 more than ME2 and DA1 more than DA2. And I believe if the technical difference wouldn't be so huge I'd like BG+NWN more than DA2. And this is the trend which I - among others here - dislike. DA2 is one of the best games I played. But except for nicer graphics and a speaking main protagonist - what are technical improvements - DA1 was better in EVERYTHING. Deeper story, more complex combat system, lot more interesting characters, much greater non-linearity. Same for ME1 vs. ME2. Where ME1 offered a truly epic, long and mysterious story, ME2 came with mediocre short episodes per companion.

Modifié par Arivle, 12 novembre 2011 - 05:42 .

[Firky]

simfamSP wrote...

Firky wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

Well, I'd be very happy with another BG. (But I was also happy with DAO and DAII.)

No you wouldn't... at all, trust me on that one I'd bet fans would be so dissapointed they'd cry themselves to sleep every night.

That was in response to me. I don't understand what you mean.

I'm crap at quoting... anyway what I mean is that if Bioware would do Baldur's gate again they'd be expecting Baldur's gate again. You know what I mean? There would be so 'expectations' that at the end the delivery will not meet them, thus... dissapointment.

I still don't really get it.

If they literally made a BG3 with the Infinity engine, set in the same world etc, I'd be ecstatic. DA:O was a step away from that and I was pretty happy. DAII was something else entirely but I enjoyed it immensely.

Maybe the problem is that I just like a lot of games. BG will always be right up there for me, but new stuff is cool too. I do understand the "gamer expectation" phenomenon fairly well, I think. But I'd rather just take a game for what it is and enjoy it if I enjoy it.