314 réponses à ce sujet

[Melca36]

There were things I enjoyed about DA:2 and things I loathed.

I like having companions that are not romancable. Bring that back.

I liked the dialogue with the companions.

They need to bring back finishing moves and not make every end fight scene a freaking cut scene.
The finishing moves in Skyrim are extremely POPULAR and I hope the developers take that to heart.

Improve the dialogue wheel if its going to be kept. Some of the agressive choices should have been sarcastic and vice versa.

Let us customize more.........

No over the top ninja combat. I did a test. Combat in Skyrim is slower than DA:2 but not as slow Origins. It should be that speed!

And no ridiculous fetch and deliver quests. Make the side quests with some depth.

[Zjarcal]

RagingCyclone wrote...

rak72 wrote...

Why do people keep talking about cross class combos like they didn't exist in DAO? If your mage does a cone of cold, & a warrior shield bashes or mighty blows them, they will shatter too.

Rak, I'd hazard a guess people don't remember/realize it was always there because DAO did not have an achievment for it like DA2 does. Just a guess.

Yes of course, that's it. <_<

No, it's that the cross class combos from Origins were very few, and some of them quite useless (Grease fire + Blizzard... fire is off... wow), whereas the number of talents you could combine in DA2 were much higher (even if the effects themselves were only extra damage). In my case, when engaging in combat in DAO, other than the shattering combo I was never really keen on exploting the others as their use was minimal (or none at all), while in DA2 proper exploitation of the three states (stagger, disorient, and petrify) was usually the difference between life and death.

The combinations just felt much more useful in DA2 and more integral to the combat, that's why people mention them as a relevant feature.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 10 décembre 2011 - 07:10 .

[Ciryx]

Filament wrote...

What part of Ciryx's post implied no mistakes were made?

I am wondering the same.

[alex90c]

Zjarcal wrote...

alex90c wrote...

Eh. I'd say the amount of banter was good (and Mass Effect should take pointers from that) but I found most of the characters just one-dimensional and always, always had some kind of extreme trait which defined their entire personality and was just over-the-top. Merrill? ******. Repeat ad nauseam for seven years. Anders? Mage freedom. Hates templars. Sounds like a broken record, doesn't stop going on about it for the entire game. Fenris? Hates mages? Sure, understandable, but the moaning and groaning gets wearisome (inb4 HURRRDURRR DATS WHUT I FEEL ABOUT DUR DA2 H8ERS HURRRDURRR). Carver? Whine, whine whine. Bethany? Well .... there isn't really much character there anyway. Isabela? Yes, thank you for brining up sex for the 50th time, we didn't quite catch it the first 49 times.

And though not a companion, God, Leandra was just a tool. Gamlen had to work his ass off when they were younger because their parents didn't give a toss about him, he loses the estate Leandra didn't give a crap about when she moved to Ferelden, and only when she moves back she goes off on a huge rant to him and acts like a ****** to him. She couldn't die soon enough.

Alex90c... "I HATE THE DA2 CAST AND I WILL REPEAT IT AD NAUSEUM FOR EVER AND EVER!"

You're pretty one dimensional too. 

Just kidding... kind of.

Well somebody has to do it, this forum would be boring if everyone agreed with each other 

[deatharmonic]

Ciryx wrote...

Gunderic wrote...

The game is bad, and it's not a matter of why and how. Every problem the franchise now faces can be traced back at its current lead designer, Mike Laidlaw.

a) Considering the time they had to develop DA 2 he did an amazing job.
The things that got improved really are better then in DA 1, they just dont get the recognition they deserve due to the overall quatlity. (multipe stages in boss fights, talent systems, no redundant spells etc etc.)
c) If you think Mike Laidlaw can afford to run a one-man-show ala George Lucas on Episode 1 you clearly have no clue about game production. At all.

Not trying to sell DA2 to anyone here AS the better gameexperience compared to DA1. Just saying that people should try to be objective.

Other than point C nothing you've said there is objective so don't suggest others should be. You think they did a good job for the time they had, doesn't mean they did. Doesn't mean they could have done better, which i believe what Melca meant when the devs said mistakes were made - as they believe some things could have been done better too, even in the time-frame given. Same goes for the things which were 'improved', you think they were improved, personally i didn't like the boss fights, thats not to say i like them in DAO but i dont think they were improved at all.

Modifié par deatharmonic, 10 décembre 2011 - 07:10 .

[RagingCyclone]

Zjarcal wrote...

RagingCyclone wrote...

rak72 wrote...

Why do people keep talking about cross class combos like they didn't exist in DAO? If your mage does a cone of cold, & a warrior shield bashes or mighty blows them, they will shatter too.

Rak, I'd hazard a guess people don't remember/realize it was always there because DAO did not have an achievment for it like DA2 does. Just a guess.

Yes of course, that's it. <_<

No, it's that the cross class combos from Origins were very few, and some of them quite useless (Grease fire + Blizzard... fire is off... wow), whereas the number of talents you could combine in DA2 were much higher. In my case, when engaging in combat in DAO, other than the shattering combo I was never really keen on exploting the others as there use was minimal (or none at all), while in DA2 proper exploitation of the three states (stagger, disorient, and petrified) was usually the different between life and death.

The combinations just felt much more useful in DA2, that's why people mention them as a relevant feature.

That could be, but I didn't use them much in DA2 either. And those that you mention (stagger/disorient/petrify) were also present in DAO. My fave was to have Morrigan use nightmare and then my DW use two hand sweep with whirlwind to wipe out the whole bunch. Not really that much different than what is in DA2...it's just more...how to say it...exposed in the game. But these were not necessary in either game to win battles. So I still have to go with it's nothing new in DA2...just advertised more. It could also count more in DA2 because the companions were more specialized than in Origins.

[Zjarcal]

RagingCyclone wrote...

That could be, but I didn't use them much in DA2 either. And those that you mention (stagger/disorient/petrify) were also present in DAO. My fave was to have Morrigan use nightmare and then my DW use two hand sweep with whirlwind to wipe out the whole bunch. Not really that much different than what is in DA2...it's just more...how to say it...exposed in the game. But these were not necessary in either game to win battles. So I still have to go with it's nothing new in DA2...just advertised more. It could also count more in DA2 because the companions were more specialized than in Origins.

I will agree that it is more exposed and easier for people to figure out what can be combined with what, since the talent description itself says "combine with Y for X% more damage", while in DAO the only way to find out what the combinations were was by actually discovering them yourself. I still view the DA2 implementation as much better, both in terms of exposition and usefulness.

[Ciryx]

deatharmonic wrote...

Other than point C nothing you've said there is objective so don't suggest others should be. You think they did a good job for the time they had, doesn't mean they did. Doesn't mean they could have done better, which i believe what Melca meant when the devs said mistakes were made - as they believe some things could have been done better too. Same goes for the things which were 'improved', you think they were improved, personally i didn't like the boss fights, thats not to say i like them in DAO but i dont think they were improved at all.

point a) Look at other games with a familar developmenttime/budget and compare it. Its quite objective. I am not praising them for what they did though either. 
point I said the bossfights were improved, if you like these improvements is a totally differnt thing. Thats up to each one personally. They were definitly improved though which you can base on a list of facts: like multiple stages, movementrequiremnts to avoid certain bossmechanics etc. no more  healthpointionswalloning and brainafking away...
Could these things have been better? Maybe. Where some of them even bad? Maybe. Did they try to make Fights more engaging? Yes. Are there less redundent spells? Yes. 
These are facts, not things I made up. Stay objective.

Modifié par Ciryx, 10 décembre 2011 - 07:20 .

[bleetman]

Zjarcal wrote...

The combinations just felt much more useful in DA2 and more integral to the combat, that's why people mention them as a relevant feature.

I'd agree with that. I'd also assume it's because rogues and warriors can both set them up and exploit them in Dragon Age 2, whereas in Origins it was, for the most part, just a mage thing.

Modifié par bleetman, 10 décembre 2011 - 07:25 .

[RagingCyclone]

Zjarcal wrote...

RagingCyclone wrote...

That could be, but I didn't use them much in DA2 either. And those that you mention (stagger/disorient/petrify) were also present in DAO. My fave was to have Morrigan use nightmare and then my DW use two hand sweep with whirlwind to wipe out the whole bunch. Not really that much different than what is in DA2...it's just more...how to say it...exposed in the game. But these were not necessary in either game to win battles. So I still have to go with it's nothing new in DA2...just advertised more. It could also count more in DA2 because the companions were more specialized than in Origins.

I will agree that it is more exposed and easier for people to figure out what can be combined with what, since the talent description itself says "combine with Y for X% more damage", while in DAO the only way to find out what the combinations were was by actually discovering them yourself. I still view the DA2 implementation as much better, both in terms of exposition and usefulness.

True due I think more to the nature of the companions, not the combat itself. In Origins Zevran could be made a DW or archer, Alistair a sword and board, dw, archer, or 2H...but in DA2 Izzy is a DW and that's it, Varrice strictly uses Bianca, Sebastian is only an archer...I think the difference in the games comes not from combat mechanics but more from the limitations placed on the companions. Whereas Origins you had more customization to mix/match your party in DA2 with the emphasis on the cross class combos you were kind of steered (not forced) into certain party dynamics because they were so specialized. As I said before cross class combos were not necessary (and as a result some battles were more difficult without the "right" party combination) it was indeed more encouraged in their usage. 

Modifié par RagingCyclone, 10 décembre 2011 - 07:26 .

[jlb524]

Melca36 wrote...
I like having companions that are not romancable. Bring that back.

Well, not all DA:O companions were romanceable either...I'm guessing you mean bring back failed attempted romances like Aveline, right?

Melca36 wrote...
They need to bring back finishing moves and not make every end fight scene a freaking cut scene.
The finishing moves in Skyrim are extremely POPULAR and I hope the developers take that to heart.

I think I prefer cutscene finishing moves (like DA2 and DA:A I guess).  Or a combination of both would be good.

bleetman wrote...
I'd agree with that. I'd also assume it's because rogues and warriors can both set them up and exploit them in Dragon Age 2, whereas in Origins it was, for the most part, just a mage thing.

Pretty much.  It seemed more like a team effort.

Modifié par jlb524, 10 décembre 2011 - 07:29 .

[xkg]

Ciryx wrote...
point a) Look at other games with a familar developmenttime/budget and compare it. Its quite objective. I am not praising them for what they did though either. 
point I said the bossfights were improved, if you like these improvements is a totally differnt thing. Thats up to each one personally. They were definitly improved though which you can base on a list of facts: like multiple stages, movementrequiremnts to avoid certain bossmechanics etc. no more  healthpointionswalloning and brainafking away...
Could these things have been better? Maybe. Where some of them even bad? Maybe. Did they try to make Fights more engaging? Yes. Are there less redundent spells? Yes. 
These are facts, not things I made up. Stay objective.

Lol NO ! Following your logic I can say that the boss fights were ruined in DA2 - whehter you like them or not is different thing.

And they were ruined IMO. I hate multi stage WOWish boss battles, and i don't like the idea of MANUALLY dodging attacks in games like DAO/DA2.

Boss fights are completely ruined now - and it is a fact ... no wait it isn't. It is just my opinion just as "were improved" is yours.

[RagingCyclone]

jlb524 wrote...

Melca36 wrote...
They need to bring back finishing moves and not make every end fight scene a freaking cut scene.
The finishing moves in Skyrim are extremely POPULAR and I hope the developers take that to heart.

I think I prefer cutscene finishing moves (like DA2 and DA:A I guess).  Or a combination of both would be good.

I think what she is talking about here is that all of those scenes in DA2 were Hawke making the move even if s/he was lying unconscious on the ground. Whereas DAO & DAA the finishing move was shown with the person who did the actual finishing move and not always the protagonist.

Modifié par RagingCyclone, 10 décembre 2011 - 07:32 .

[Ciryx]

Melca36 wrote...

There were things I enjoyed about DA:2 and things I loathed.

I like having companions that are not romancable. Bring that back.

I liked the dialogue with the companions.

They need to bring back finishing moves and not make every end fight scene a freaking cut scene.
The finishing moves in Skyrim are extremely POPULAR and I hope the developers take that to heart.

Improve the dialogue wheel if its going to be kept. Some of the agressive choices should have been sarcastic and vice versa.

Let us customize more.........

No over the top ninja combat. I did a test. Combat in Skyrim is slower than DA:2 but not as slow Origins. It should be that speed!

And no ridiculous fetch and deliver quests. Make the side quests with some depth.

Pretty much. I enjoyed the same things as you did, especially the dialogue.
I also agree on the dialogue wheel. I didnt like that very much. Up right was good, middle was sarcastic and downside was "evil". That just felt a bit bland and boring. I would like to have dialogue where the tone of the answer has more to do with the subject at hand. Sometimes (often) I wanted to say what "evil" Hawke was saying, just in nicer words.

About the finishing moves in Skyrim: I think they are so popular cause the normal fighting system is the most boring thing ever. xD I should add though that the only thing i actually like about Skyrim is the world, not the Story, Combat, Dialoge or anything else. So maybe I am biased.

Also agreed on the sidequests. I loved BG2 for that matter. Storming Castles, defeating Shadowdragons and traveling the Planes in a magical sphere etc... many games nowadays would make their own game about the sidequests from back then.

[deatharmonic]

Ciryx wrote...

deatharmonic wrote...

Other than point C nothing you've said there is objective so don't suggest others should be. You think they did a good job for the time they had, doesn't mean they did. Doesn't mean they could have done better, which i believe what Melca meant when the devs said mistakes were made - as they believe some things could have been done better too. Same goes for the things which were 'improved', you think they were improved, personally i didn't like the boss fights, thats not to say i like them in DAO but i dont think they were improved at all.

point a) Look at other games with a familar developmenttime/budget and compare it. Its quite objective. I am not praising them for what they did though either. 
point I said the bossfights were improved, if you like these improvements is a totally differnt thing. Thats up to each one personally. They were definitly improved though which you can base on a list of facts: like multiple stages, movementrequiremnts to avoid certain bossmechanics etc. no more  healthpointionswalloning and brainafking away...
Could these things have been better? Maybe. Where some of them even bad? Maybe. Did they try to make Fights more engaging? Yes. Are there less redundent spells? Yes. 
These are facts, not things I made up. Stay objective.

compare it to other companies with a similar budget/dev time? thats not a proper measure at all, the companies are different and the games in development are different

what about those who liked the boss fights in DAO more than DA2? Why are multiple stages to boss fights better? to some people they are not, i didn't like the multiple stages, i didn't like the mechanics, i didn't like that they stop me from glugging potions so i wouldn't call them improvements and you certainly do not get to set the standard for what is objective. 

yes they TRIED to make the fights more engaging, my experience of this was evidently different to yours.... but i would agree with the redundent spells.

[Ciryx]

xkg wrote...

Ciryx wrote...
point a) Look at other games with a familar developmenttime/budget and compare it. Its quite objective. I am not praising them for what they did though either. 
point I said the bossfights were improved, if you like these improvements is a totally differnt thing. Thats up to each one personally. They were definitly improved though which you can base on a list of facts: like multiple stages, movementrequiremnts to avoid certain bossmechanics etc. no more  healthpointionswalloning and brainafking away...
Could these things have been better? Maybe. Where some of them even bad? Maybe. Did they try to make Fights more engaging? Yes. Are there less redundent spells? Yes. 
These are facts, not things I made up. Stay objective.

Lol NO ! Following your logic I can say that the boss fights were ruined in DA2 - whehter you like them or not is different thing.

And they were ruined IMO. I hate multi stage WOWish boss battles, and i don't like the idea of MANUALLY dodging attacks in games like DAO/DA2.

Boss fights are completely ruined now - and it is a fact ... no wait it isn't. It is just my opinion just as "were improved" is yours.

With which things would you try to improve bossfights then? Just give bossmonster even more hp? 
I think you missunderstood me here. With improve i didnt ment: They are better in every way. With improved i ment: things were added to try to make them better. Like: they are more dynamic. They need a bit more thought from the playerside etc. Mayhap i should have explained that earlier, sorry, I am no nativ speaker.

So please tell me: How to make bossfights more interesting?

[RagingCyclone]

deatharmonic--most of the boss fights in DAO were also multi-stage battles, they were just not as obvious about the stages. The broodmother, the archdemon, the high dragon, and even Branka all were multi-stage fights. Yes DAO did a better job of concealing those stages, but to say they were not there is false...just not as noticeable as DA2's.

[Ciryx]

deatharmonic wrote...

compare it to other companies with a similar budget/dev time? thats not a proper measure at all, the companies are different and the games in development are different

what about those who liked the boss fights in DAO more than DA2? Why are multiple stages to boss fights better? to some people they are not, i didn't like the multiple stages, i didn't like the mechanics, i didn't like that they stop me from glugging potions so i wouldn't call them improvements and you certainly do not get to set the standard for what is objective. 

yes they TRIED to make the fights more engaging, my experience of this was evidently different to yours.... but i would agree with the redundent spells.

How do you judge time/quality if you dont compare it to other products with familiar budget/time?

Might I ask if it really was the bossmechanics that you disliked so much? And not the setting, the sourroundings and various other things about the bossfight? Heck, even the backstory that lead up to the fight. I know i loved the broodmother of DA1 for that one. (even though the fight itself wasnt that cool)
To be honest I have a hard time understanding that clicking the healthpotionbutton on cooldown was REALLY more exiting then the stonewraith, were you had to kill adds and hide behind pillars etc.

[Flashing Steel]

RagingCyclone wrote...

deatharmonic--most of the boss fights in DAO were also multi-stage battles, they were just not as obvious about the stages. The broodmother, the archdemon, the high dragon, and even Branka all were multi-stage fights. Yes DAO did a better job of concealing those stages, but to say they were not there is false...just not as noticeable as DA2's.

You may want to re-read what he/she wrote, they never stated multiple stages were not there.

[Melca36]

RagingCyclone wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

Melca36 wrote...
They need to bring back finishing moves and not make every end fight scene a freaking cut scene.
The finishing moves in Skyrim are extremely POPULAR and I hope the developers take that to heart.

I think I prefer cutscene finishing moves (like DA2 and DA:A I guess).  Or a combination of both would be good.

I think what she is talking about here is that all of those scenes in DA2 were Hawke making the move even if s/he was lying unconscious on the ground. Whereas DAO & DAA the finishing move was shown with the person who did the actual finishing move and not always the protagonist.

Exactly Rage!  Thats what I meant. Why did Hawke always have to get the finishing moves?  The cut scenes got to be boring and repetitive.  There is no sense of accomplishment with a cutscene. It would have been nice to see Aveline, Fenris, or one of the other companions get the kill.

[xkg]

Ciryx wrote...
With which things would you try to improve bossfights then? Just give bossmonster even more hp? 
I think you missunderstood me here. With improve i didnt ment: They are better in every way. With improved i ment: things were added to try to make them better. Like: they are more dynamic. They need a bit more thought from the playerside etc. Mayhap i should have explained that earlier, sorry, I am no nativ speaker.

So please tell me: How to make bossfights more interesting?

TBH I never thought about that because I never had any problems with the DAO boss fights in the first place.
I know they have added a few things - but that doesn't make the fights automatically better. Not for me at least.

Modifié par xkg, 10 décembre 2011 - 07:58 .

[Mr.House]

RagingCyclone wrote...

deatharmonic--most of the boss fights in DAO were also multi-stage battles, they were just not as obvious about the stages. The broodmother, the archdemon, the high dragon, and even Branka all were multi-stage fights. Yes DAO did a better job of concealing those stages, but to say they were not there is false...just not as noticeable as DA2's.

:lol::lol::lol:

[Melca36]

jlb524 wrote...


Well, not all DA:O companions were romanceable either...I'm guessing you mean bring back failed attempted romances like Aveline, right?

I just want companions who are good friends, like Aveline and Varric.

jlb524 wrote...
I  think I prefer cutscene finishing moves (like DA2 and DA:A I guess).  Or a combination of both would be good.

There is no sense of accomplishment in the boss battles in DA:2. Hawke gets them all in the same reptitive cut scene. As much as I enjoy cut scenes I want an actual game and not just a cinematic interactive.