283 réponses à ce sujet

[LinksOcarina]

Deadmac wrote...

craigdolphin wrote...
Ye gods. What an appalling thought

Don't get me wrong. I am a capitalist.

Even though I am in full support of finding ways to make revenue and profit, I am also someone who thinks that money can sometimes overshadows 'having fun'.

When it comes to creating a franchise, innovation and consistancy need to be balanced. Once theme consistancy is lost, due to innovation, you lose the feeling in which you originally conceived. "Dragon Age II" doesn't feel like "Dragon Age: Origins"; thus, BioWare focused too much time on innovation.

How to put this nicely...

It's not supposed to be like Origins. They even said that in previews regarding to the changes to the system, art style, voice overs, and game mechanics.

[Aaleel]

Dragon Age II cut most of this out, focusing on a painfully limited set of recycled dungeons and explorable areas, forcing me to talk to the same people so many times that many interactions felt as mundane as waiting in line for a morning cup of coffee. By the game's end all sense of wonder and discovery was completely wrecked by Dragon Age II's limited scope, which felt like an origin story from the first game puffed up into a 40 hour experience.

Bravo sir, spot on, Bravo . He could have used static and stagnant to describe the game in general as well, but mundane will suffice.

I agree with pretty much everything he said,

Modifié par Aaleel, 16 décembre 2011 - 12:28 .

[craigdolphin]

LinksOcarina wrote...
How to put this nicely...

It's not supposed to be like Origins. They even said that in previews regarding to the changes to the system, art style, voice overs, and game mechanics.

True. The design vision for DA2 was different. We actually do understand that. But to be fair: they also claimed on several occasions on this form that DA2 still felt like DAO despite those changes.

I disagree with that though. DA2 feels almost nothing like DAO to me; given the excessively-actiony cartoonism and the anachronistic minimalism that supplanted the gravitas and baroque aesthetic of Origins.

The question to me is really whether the new vision was the right one, or whether a design vision for the sequel being more in-keeping with origins would have fared better. 

Based on the substantially reduced sales volumes for DA2, I suggest the latter was the right one and the former was not. Of course, I have the advantage of hindsight and Bioware did not at the time they made that change.

But I should imagine and hope that the public reaction and enthusiasm for more traditional rpgs (TW2, Skyrim) released this year reminds Bioware that there's still a very good market for their more traditional SPRPG, as DAO demonstrated.

[slikster]

I'll just leave this here.

[Plaintiff]

slikster wrote...

I'll just leave this here.

He equates Tolkien to "gritty and realistic"?

Bull****.

[eroeru]

There is no such equation here. It states the feel of it more than the art-style (though it could have been thus separated more from the talk about art and looks).

"It’s (Origins is) grounded, and doesn’t look like a cartoonish Final Fantasy game or an anime movie. It’s Tolkien, as opposed to World of Warcraft. Dragon Age 2 is the opposite: it’s characters are blindingly colorful, with absurdly disproportionate features, twirling fancifully-oversized and apparently weightless weapons that detonate their cartoonish enemies into fountains of gore. I find it embarrassing to play a game that looks so child-ish."

Modifié par eroeru, 16 décembre 2011 - 02:20 .

[Plaintiff]

eroeru wrote...

There is no such equation here. It states the feel of it more than the art-style (though it could have been thus separated more from the talk about art and looks).

"It’s (Origins is) grounded, and doesn’t look like a cartoonish Final Fantasy game or an anime movie. It’s Tolkien, as opposed to World of Warcraft. Dragon Age 2 is the opposite: it’s characters are blindingly colorful, with absurdly disproportionate features, twirling fancifully-oversized and apparently weightless weapons that detonate their cartoonish enemies into fountains of gore. I find it embarrassing to play a game that looks so child-ish."

Tolkien is hardly 'grounded'.

Putting aside the fact that DA2's art style is markedly different from anything produced in the East, all that passage proves is that he's unable to move beyond the appearance of the game to the actual content that matters. Final Fantasy games and anime frequently deal with complex, mature themes, and so do many western cartoons. Cartoons are not just for children anymore, if they ever were, and to decry Dragon Age 2 as immature based on it's appearance is just shallow, prejudiced and beyond pretentious.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 16 décembre 2011 - 02:32 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

Plaintiff wrote...

eroeru wrote...

There is no such equation here. It states the feel of it more than the art-style (though it could have been thus separated more from the talk about art and looks).

"It’s (Origins is) grounded, and doesn’t look like a cartoonish Final Fantasy game or an anime movie. It’s Tolkien, as opposed to World of Warcraft. Dragon Age 2 is the opposite: it’s characters are blindingly colorful, with absurdly disproportionate features, twirling fancifully-oversized and apparently weightless weapons that detonate their cartoonish enemies into fountains of gore. I find it embarrassing to play a game that looks so child-ish."

Tolkien is hardly 'grounded'.

Putting aside the fact that DA2's art style is markedly different from anything produced in the East, all that passage proves is that he's unable to move beyond the appearance of the game to the actual content that matters. Final Fantasy games and anime frequently deal with complex, mature themes, and so do many western cartoons. Cartoons are not just for children anymore, if they ever were, and to decry Dragon Age 2 as immature based on it's appearance is just shallow, prejudiced and beyond pretentious.

Appearence matters. If you don't think so, thats nice, but to most people out there, the look of the game is a very important element.

[Fast Jimmy]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

eroeru wrote...

There is no such equation here. It states the feel of it more than the art-style (though it could have been thus separated more from the talk about art and looks).

"It’s (Origins is) grounded, and doesn’t look like a cartoonish Final Fantasy game or an anime movie. It’s Tolkien, as opposed to World of Warcraft. Dragon Age 2 is the opposite: it’s characters are blindingly colorful, with absurdly disproportionate features, twirling fancifully-oversized and apparently weightless weapons that detonate their cartoonish enemies into fountains of gore. I find it embarrassing to play a game that looks so child-ish."

Tolkien is hardly 'grounded'.

Putting aside the fact that DA2's art style is markedly different from anything produced in the East, all that passage proves is that he's unable to move beyond the appearance of the game to the actual content that matters. Final Fantasy games and anime frequently deal with complex, mature themes, and so do many western cartoons. Cartoons are not just for children anymore, if they ever were, and to decry Dragon Age 2 as immature based on it's appearance is just shallow, prejudiced and beyond pretentious.

Appearence matters. If you don't think so, thats nice, but to most people out there, the look of the game is a very important element.

Agreed. Saying cartoons deal with serious topics does not immediately invalidate anyone from using the phrase "cartoon-ish" in a derisive manner. The implication is understood that things are approached from an over-exagerrated, immature viewpoint, in graphic and/or emotional content. To act like someone is pretentious when using a word that is clearly established beause you have examples and experiences contrary to the idea being set forth is a little pretentious.

Dealing with violent, disturbing and controversial topics does NOT make something mature. That mistake can be seen from watching any number of B-rated horror films... people being tortured, people dying, people cussing, people having sex... these don't make for mature topics automatically. Certianly not kid friendly, but not-kid does not equal mature.

Mature is emotionally deep, well thought out and draws a reaction out of someone that is less base than fear, disgust or anger.

I'm not saying that DA2 didn't do ANYTHING right. Or even that they did a LOT wrong. But the things they did do wrong show a lack of long-term thought, a lack of emotional depth and a lack of foresight that what maybe looked cool in some artist mock-ups but had no place in the tone already set by a well established lore created in previous games, books and other mediums.

THAT'S why people call DA2 immature. It shows vast amounts of consideration for its own actions.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 16 décembre 2011 - 03:04 .

[Deadmac]

LinksOcarina wrote...
How to put this nicely...

It's not supposed to be like Origins. They even said that in previews regarding to the changes to the system, art style, voice overs, and game mechanics.

Look under my avatar. What is missing? Lol...

[Fast Jimmy]

Deadmac wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...
How to put this nicely...

It's not supposed to be like Origins. They even said that in previews regarding to the changes to the system, art style, voice overs, and game mechanics.

Look under my avatar. What is missing? Lol...

A wallet that says "Bad Arse Mo' Fo?"

[Heimdall]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I'm not saying that DA2 didn't do ANYTHING right. Or even that they did a LOT wrong. But the things they did do wrong show a lack of long-term thought, a lack of emotional depth and a lack of foresight that what maybe looked cool in some artist mock-ups but had no place in the tone already set by a well established lore created in previous games, books and other mediums.

Hmmm...  Can't say I agree with you there.  Certainly there was less depth in some areas than it's predecesor, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a lack.  I actuallyfound it to have emotional depth in spades.

[Killjoy Cutter]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Deadmac wrote...

craigdolphin wrote...

Ye gods. What an appalling thought

Don't get me wrong. I am a capitalist.

Even though I am in full support of finding ways to make revenue and profit, I am also someone who thinks that money can sometimes overshadows 'having fun'.

When it comes to creating a franchise, innovation and consistancy need to be balanced. Once theme consistancy is lost, due to innovation, you lose the feeling in which you originally conceived. "Dragon Age II" doesn't feel like "Dragon Age: Origins"; thus, BioWare focused too much time on innovation.

How to put this nicely...

It's not supposed to be like Origins. They even said that in previews regarding to the changes to the system, art style, voice overs, and game mechanics.

So they admit their mistake openly -- if they wanted a game that wasn't like Dragon Age, they shouldn't have bothered calling it Dragon Age 2.  Of course, many of us who expected a sequel to Dragon Age when they called it Dragon Age 2 wouldn't have bought it if not for the vague connection to the original work we liked, so it's obvious why they went with the misleading name.

[Morroian]

eroeru wrote...

There is no such equation here. It states the feel of it more than the art-style (though it could have been thus separated more from the talk about art and looks).

"It’s (Origins is) grounded, and doesn’t look like a cartoonish Final Fantasy game or an anime movie. It’s Tolkien, as opposed to World of Warcraft. Dragon Age 2 is the opposite: it’s characters are blindingly colorful, with absurdly disproportionate features, twirling fancifully-oversized and apparently weightless weapons that detonate their cartoonish enemies into fountains of gore. I find it embarrassing to play a game that looks so child-ish."

Meh, more hyperbole.

And DAO is not grounded it looks just as much a cartoon as DA2, it is not gritty and realistic

Modifié par Morroian, 16 décembre 2011 - 06:07 .

[Realmzmaster]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Deadmac wrote...

craigdolphin wrote...

Ye gods. What an appalling thought

Don't get me wrong. I am a capitalist.

Even though I am in full support of finding ways to make revenue and profit, I am also someone who thinks that money can sometimes overshadows 'having fun'.

When it comes to creating a franchise, innovation and consistancy need to be balanced. Once theme consistancy is lost, due to innovation, you lose the feeling in which you originally conceived. "Dragon Age II" doesn't feel like "Dragon Age: Origins"; thus, BioWare focused too much time on innovation.

How to put this nicely...

It's not supposed to be like Origins. They even said that in previews regarding to the changes to the system, art style, voice overs, and game mechanics.

So they admit their mistake openly -- if they wanted a game that wasn't like Dragon Age, they shouldn't have bothered calling it Dragon Age 2.  Of course, many of us who expected a sequel to Dragon Age when they called it Dragon Age 2 wouldn't have bought it if not for the vague connection to the original work we liked, so it's obvious why they went with the misleading name.

DA2 was not suppose to be Origins Bioware did not say that DA2 would not deal with the world of Thedas. What Bioware did say is that the style would not be the same. Just like DAO is not like Baldur's Gate even though it was promoted as the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate.

Bioware did not say that DA2 was going to be Origins 2 that is what LinksOcarina is saying. Bioware also did not admit to making a mistake. Bioware produced the game it wanted to produce (which include the good ideas and the warts). The fact is that some gamers did not like that game, but others did. I read what Bioware said the game was going to be like and knew it was not going to be a rehash of DAO.

The fact is that Bioware did not produce the game that some gamers wanted. The game in my opinion is Dragon Age set in the world of Thedas. It is not DAO for which I am thankful . I like DAO, but I want to see Bioware take chances and fail rather than giving me more of the same. Because if they were going to give more of the same DAO would never have happen and I would probably be talking about Baldur's Gate III and IV.

[TEWR]

I never expected Origins 2.0.

I just expected a great game.

Instead I got a bad game. A game with great concepts and horrible, horrible implementation of those concepts.

but hey, that's just me.

[Monica83]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I never expected Origins 2.0.

I just expected a great game.

Instead I got a bad game. A game with great concepts and horrible, horrible implementation of those concepts.

but hey, that's just me.

This nothing more to add...

I played different kind of rpg in those years.. And i think Dragon age 2 can barely be an RPG because since is dumbed down that reminds me an action adventure game...

When in a rpg you streamlize and kill roleplay elements you always make mistake..

In the end dragon age 2 is a low mediocre game in almost all...

1)Graphic: Life in plastic
2)Art direction: Like a teenager cartoon
3)Story: A cliffhanger whit a really bad implemented and inconsistent story
4)Rpg elements: Nearly absent and is almost impossible to roleplay a character and you have only to chose to be sarcastic aggressive or diplomatic..

[Lux]

culletron1 wrote...

(...) I think that DA2 is an abberation and thankfully not a representation of the future direction of RPGs...

Yes.

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

I think the role-playing genre will survive. I'm just not so sure about Bioware. They seem to have completely lost touch with what RPG players want.

[Plaintiff]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

I think the role-playing genre will survive. I'm just not so sure about Bioware. They seem to have completely lost touch with what RPG players want.

Way to go using your own blog to support an unfounded argument. I especially love how you take developer statements out of context and have the arrogance to presume that you speak for everyone who enjoys RPGs, while simultaneously making offensive generalizations about anyone who enjoys other genres, with no consideration for the fact that those demographics can and frequently do crossover.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 16 décembre 2011 - 11:03 .

[TMZuk]

Plaintiff wrote...
*Snip*

Putting aside the fact that DA2's art style is markedly different from anything produced in the East, all that passage proves is that he's unable to move beyond the appearance of the game to the actual content that matters. Final Fantasy games and anime frequently deal with complex, mature themes, and so do many western cartoons. Cartoons are not just for children anymore, if they ever were, and to decry Dragon Age 2 as immature based on it's appearance is just shallow, prejudiced and beyond pretentious.

To me, appearance matters. It has all to do about immersion. And because DA2's appearance is so, IMO, childish, immature and downright silly, it prevents me from being immersed in the game, in spite of excellent voice-acting. When an enemy explodes in to a fountain of blood, and the apparantly weightless sword passes through a dock-worker standing right next to said enemy, and the dockworker doesn't even look up, then immersion goes out the window and all I can think is: This Is Stupid!

That's a weighty  reason, if not the only one,  why I never bought the game, and, after trying it out on my mate's rig, gave up on even finishing it.

Modifié par TMZuk, 16 décembre 2011 - 12:37 .

[HanabPacal]

What’s sad about this situation is that we have seen it many times before – way too many times.  An article, a blog, a blurb or whatever is written and subsequently embraced by many of the people who dislike DA2 as a sort of justification for how they feel about the game.  The article is then grasped and used as a weapon against those sitting on the other side of the argument, almost as an “I told you so”. 
 
In response, many of those who like DA2, and ‘protect’ it well beyond the bounds of sensibility, answer with bitterness, defensiveness, sarcasm and escalated extremism.  The usual method of argumentation against any such piece is to craft a response that attempts to discredit the article, the author or both by focusing on one idea, one sentence or even one word.  The focus on this one idea (one sentence, one word) is almost always blown way out of proportion to the context in which it was written and is taken to an extreme.  This one idea, even if it were merely a casual sentence of lamentation over a lack of fun in comparison to “X”, is attributed with a quality of all importance so that everything else, all of the salient points, fall to the wayside as they are completely ignored.
 
Even sadder than the situation described above is the fact that if the nature of the article, the blog, the blurb were reversed, people on the opposite sides of the argument would reverse roles accordingly.  If this article had been written with a positive outlook toward DA2 after an initial negative one was put forth, you can rest assured that many of those who like the game would be defending the article with every ounce of energy that they could muster.  At the same time many of those who dislike the game would be attempting to undermine it with an equal amount of fervor.
 
Isn’t it time to let go of the bitterness and the extremism?  We’re talking about a game here, not something with even an ounce of significance.  I can understand having a good debate, even a heated debate as the entanglement of verbal sparring can be very exhilarating.  But the situation as it now exists is one of nearly absolute ridiculousness.  The two sides are mirror images of each other, and have been for quite some time, regardless of the fact that blame for how bad things are on the BSN is always laid at the feet of those who dislike DA2.  The only real difference lies in the fact that many (way too many) people on the pro-DA2 side make bold statements claiming the moral high ground as they engage in scenarios like we have here.  Thus there is an almost constant undertone of hypocrisy walking hand in hand with that anger, bitterness, extremism and sarcasm.
 
Most likely this will be completely ignored, or possibly met with some brand new venom.  I don’t actually expect people to suddenly become good members of the debating society, but I hope that at least some of the extremism can be reined in for the sake of everybody involved.  At the very least, consider how things would have played out if the nature of the article were reversed.  I could be wrong about this, but I suspect that at this point in time the extremist arguing is more about ‘putting the other side in their place’ than it is about anything truly related to DA2.    

[eroeru]

Plaintiff wrote...

Tolkien is hardly 'grounded'.

Putting aside the fact that DA2's art style is markedly different from anything produced in the East, all that passage proves is that he's unable to move beyond the appearance of the game to the actual content that matters. Final Fantasy games and anime frequently deal with complex, mature themes, and so do many western cartoons. Cartoons are not just for children anymore, if they ever were, and to decry Dragon Age 2 as immature based on it's appearance is just shallow, prejudiced and beyond pretentious.

You would have a valid point if the intention of this article were to analyse DA2 in full depth and clarity. It wasn't. The article is mainly about an impression. But many don't seem to get tired of talking about their impressions.

I'm glad for Bioware to have made a game that appealed to so many in such depth as was Origins. But with great achievements come great responsibilities and huge expectations from the fan-base...

[Lithuasil]

Savber100 wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

Anyone who can talk about the Witcher2 without immediately demanding the heads of the developers on spikes, clearly shouldn't judge Rpgs. Not to mention his complaints basically boil down to "it sucks cuz plot wasnt HUEG ÄPIC", only slightly more elaborately phrased. Slightly.

Wait what? 

To address your second point, I think you're generalizing his argument. He wasn't saying that the game's flaw was that DA2 wasn't "EPIC" but more the idea that it has been diluted and streamlined to the point that the franchise has lost its charm. It held your hand to the point that the game felt linear and dreary. Where was the freedom of choice? DA:O (while definitely not perfect) at least hinted the consequences of your actions etc and seem to give the promise of a good franchise with better improved RPGs continuing along the line of classic RPG games like Baldur's Gate 2.  Instead what we got was something entirely different. 

Witcher2 was quite simply the worst thing to happen to TripleA - WRPGS period. There were hints of potential, but on the whole, the game could easily be an "How not to do it" guide, and it still stands tall, as the single most hatefully misogynistic piece of media I ever had the misfortune of experiencing.

As for the freedom of choice thing - I *used* to defend DA2 (pre MotA, the dlc where they proved all their critics right) based on a rather simple fact;

In DA2, you'd fight through a dungeon, and be presented with a more or less difficult situation. You could then determine how your character would act - with no guarantee of sucess or the response you estimated. That is what we call "Roleplaying".

In DA:0, you would fight through a dungeon (with zero alternative ways), and then in the end get to pick one out of two bossfights, determining which of two opposed sides got to live happily ever after. That's not roleplaying, that's called "wishfulfillment".
And I for one am happy to leave that behind, along with ancient evils plagueing the land, only to be defeated by the chosen one.

[Il Divo]

Plaintiff wrote...

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

I think the role-playing genre will survive. I'm just not so sure about Bioware. They seem to have completely lost touch with what RPG players want.

Way to go using your own blog to support an unfounded argument. I especially love how you take developer statements out of context and have the arrogance to presume that you speak for everyone who enjoys RPGs, while simultaneously making offensive generalizations about anyone who enjoys other genres, with no consideration for the fact that those demographics can and frequently do crossover.

Apparently he has managed to confuse himself with the "RPG players", judging by the tone of that article.

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 décembre 2011 - 01:24 .