283 réponses à ce sujet

[jbrand2002uk]

Ringo12 wrote...

jbrand2002uk wrote...

If they play the same why the complaint about and i quote " flashy over the top combat"

It may be over the top but it still handles the same. It just looks stupid but the combat system is isn't very different maybe tweaked for more a faster more action packed experience but still not too different to classify it as a different kind of rpg.

My point being the emphasis is different DAO is like gone with the wind ( big grandeose story though very slow moving leaving you like to be bored to death by the end) DA2 is more like a fast & furious movie( acceptable story but emphasis on "in yer face" action) or in this case exploding Darkspawn 

[Realmzmaster]

I find it interesting in the article that the writer states that BG is his favorite RPG. Now if I compare BG to DAO I will immediately see some stark differences. Since BG is based on 2.0 D & D and DAO is a base on a new IP from Bioware the difference is complexity is striking. The difference between BG abd DAO is far more different than DAO and DA2. Dragon Age's system is simplified compared to D & D and that is not a bad thing especially if you are trying to broaden who plays your cRPG.

The same happen in the p & p world. That why there are different systems. Some were created to simply the process. Some these like (Tunnels and Trolls) allowed for solitary play and group play. It was a way of drawing others into the fold.

Now if I were to sit down and write an article comparing DAO to BG, DAO would fail on several levels for me. I include myself in that old school, hardcore cRPG gaming world. I eat permadeath for breakfast. But I like DAO and DA2 for what they are and not what I want them to be.

Because what I want in a cRPG may only be embraced by some others on this forum. (They know who they are). My main criteria is did I have fun. I did not have fun with TW2 or Skyrim (which is only slightly better than Oblivion and not nearly as good as Morrowind). Others think they are GOTY which is their right. The writer of the article has his opinion which I do not agree with.

So the article means nothing to me, just like the review from PC Gamer giving DA2 94% meant nothing. Now if someone is trying to use the article to justify their opinion by saying see others agree with me I really do not care. The only opinion that matters is my own especially when I am spending my money. The same for everyone else on the forum. The only opinion that matters is your own.

Now the collective opinion probably matters to the developers, but that is their headache.

[billy the squid]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

jbrand2002uk wrote...

my point Il Divo was that DAO and DA2 are 2 different types of RPG and therefore cannot be compared like for like as they are not alike I was simply phrasing it in a way simpletons can understand since as 5 year olds in my local primary school can understand that basic principle (seems to point that education in Great Britain is superior to the rest of the world)

And those of us from Britain are also worried that one has not yet grasped that basic concept of expectation and IP penetration based on previous IP instalments.

Oh i get them but they are ireelevant to quality and enjoyment which is subjective 

Which was not the point at issue, but whether the expectation that a sequal is similar in nature to its predecessor created an inherent bias in view or not was.

[jbrand2002uk]

Expectation is created by the individual therefore they have only themselves to blame if reality does not match up to their expectation, most people know to take hype and marketing for any product with a heavy dose of salt, if individuals decided to take the hype and marketing claims for granted then that is their own fault and responsibility not BW's

[billy the squid]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Expectation is created by the individual therefore they have only themselves to blame if reality does not match up to their expectation, most people know to take hype and marketing for any product with a heavy dose of salt, if individuals decided to take the hype and marketing claims for granted then that is their own fault and responsibility not BW's

We have been through this before. It does not pertain to hype and marketing, it is the design of the product to maximise the penetration already achieved by the predecessor or the inital opportunity cost and penetration is wasted if, as in this case, a sizable part of your mrkt segment simply walks away from it. The expectation was created by the inital market penetration and subsequent itinerations of the franchise carry with them the expectation that they will be similar in nature, but improve. Rebranding and heavy design shifts within an IP life cycle are possible, but very risky. The PR and adverts are smoke, the underlying economic and market theory behind product development is not.

[WhiteKnyght]

The article mainly focuses on the re-usage of maps, repetitive character interactions, and locking companion clothings.

But arguably, Origins and it's DLC's reused maps too, they just covered it better.(Example, the lower level of the Tower of Ishal in Return to Ostagar is the same map as the Elven Ruin in the Dalish Elf Origin. Not to mention several of the Random Encounters used one large map and sectioned it off with boulders on each event or started the player off facing a different angle)

Also repetitive interactions with characters is realistic. If you live in the same place for ten years, you're gonna be seeing familiar faces unless someone moves or dies.

And so what if you cant give your companions new outfits? It's more realistic that they would wear what suits them and not you. And I'll take a sexy customized appearance over ten people all wearing leather armor and heavy plate made of Silverite or Dragonbone any day.

But you guys are blatantly ignoring where the author compliments the game's core aspects. The combat system, the graphics, the voice acting, and the writing are all top knotch in his opinion.


And yes, I agree that Skyrim is an epic game. But one thing Dragon Age II has over it, DAII isn't littered with excessive lagging(especially on PS3) and and Bioware's devs are actually smart enough to fix their game breaking bugs.

Modifié par The Grey Nayr, 17 décembre 2011 - 01:22 .

[nightscrawl]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

to clarify as long as a game is set in the Dragon Age universe ie in Thedas then that means that it is perfectly valid for it to carry the Dragon Age title, There is no written rule that says because DAO was the 1st game that all later games must follow its mould in its entirety. But since as you have Delliberatly ignored the basic point to justify your claim that a comparison is valid, I'll speel it out in plain simple English the two DA games are 2 Different types of RPG with 2 different sets of priorities, so there is no way you can compare the 2 because they are as different as meat is to vegetables

Here is a more accurate comparison: Neverwinter Nights to Neverwinter Nights 2.

Bioware made NWN. Very popular game. I and many others bought all expansions, collector's editions, all that jazz. When I heard NWN2 was going to be released I was very excited and I basically relied on my previous experience with the series in making the decision to buy it. They farmed out NWN2 to Obsidian Entertainment. I strongly disliked it, didn't even finish (honestly, it's been so long since I played it I don't even remember the reason why I disliked it so strongly [other than the UI, which I do remember]). The voice acting was great though ( Bishop).

I suppose I should have read more reviews or read more forums or something, but I am one of those who reviews rarely apply to. If I had read all of the negative DA2 reviews and decided not to buy it, I would have deprived myself of hundreds of hours of entertainment that I have since gotten out of that game. So, I determined that the main reason for NWN2 not "meeting my expectations" (sound familiar?) was because they gave it to Obsidian.

Along comes DAO. It's totally awesome, I play it several times, buy DLC, etc. Then I hear DA2 is being made, but Bioware isn't farming out this one, they are doing it themselves! Really, I don't think it's illogical, naive, or stupid to assume that a game in the same franchise, with a name like Dragon Age 2, made by the same company and many of the same people in that company would be similar in construction and quality. There is such a thing as "brand recognition". You are supposed to know what you're getting with a Bioware game. DAO also had an active forum community, and I also feel that it is not unreasonable that they would keep what works in their first game while at the same time trying some new things for their second game.

My issues with NWN2 taught me one thing however: to take an individual game on it's own merit. So, I look at DA2 in a different way than DAO. It has its problems yes, but I am mainly interested in the stories of Thedas. So if succeeding games build on the story, even if I don't see my Warden, Hawke, Alistair or Flemeth ever again I will still be satisfied because I think the universe they have developed is so interesting, especially since it mirrors our own in many ways.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 17 décembre 2011 - 01:23 .

[jbrand2002uk]

@Nightscrawl I also enjoy DA2 and am likely on playthrough 30 by this point( i lost track at 25) my post you've quoted was in response by many "Disgruntled DAO players" claim that because it was called Dragon Age 2 it is somehow required to follow the DAO mould ad nauseum and that because some elements from DAO were either removed or changed so radically that it had no right bearing the Dragon Age name.

I was simply pointing out that all that is required for it to a Dragon Age game is for it to be set in the Dragon Age Universe( in this case Thedas) and that removing or radically altering some elements so not mean that it cannot be called a Dragon Age Game but as is with the BSN that 1 single point gets lost in the unending fan rage that follows

[jlb524]

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...
Sorry, no desire to go back to the "is Merrill a doormat?" discussion. Suffice to say that in romance subplots the hyper-submissive thing annoys me, the sex-as-reward thing annoys me, and Bioware has an irritating tendency to do both.

But you first commented on it.

Sex as reward?  Hyper-submissive?

Wha?

[billy the squid]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

... in response by many "Disgruntled DAO players" claim that because it was called Dragon Age 2 it is somehow required to follow the DAO mould ad nauseum and that because some elements from DAO were either removed or changed so radically that it had no right bearing the Dragon Age name.

 

Really? Who stated that? Or is this being made up as you go along to give some credence to your points?

[jbrand2002uk]

Well MR Squid here's one in this post its not the 1st there have been many and doubtless more in other threads though i'm sure you'll disagree via some highly complex market analysis speak^_^

SammyJB17 wrote...

But when a game is released as a sequel to a certain type of game, is made by the same company, and stressed by that company that it still IS Dragon Age, comparisons are valid.

[billy the squid]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Well MR Squid here's one in this post its not the 1st there have been many and doubtless more in other threads though i'm sure you'll disagree via some highly complex market analysis speak^_^

SammyJB17 wrote...

But when a game is released as a sequel to a certain type of game, is made by the same company, and stressed by that company that it still IS Dragon Age, comparisons are valid.

You have selected a passage relating to comparisons, what does that have to do with statements that both games must be exactly the same?

Modifié par billy the squid, 17 décembre 2011 - 02:24 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

"Change with the times" usually means "accept this crap we're giving you or we'll call you old-fashioned".

To quote Morriagn for a second:

"Many fear change and will fight it with every fiber of their being. But sometimes change is what they need most. Sometimes change is what sets them free."

Changing with the times does not mean accepting crap (which Dragon Age II is not, if it was I wouldn't defend it), but it does mean evolving tastes and experimentation. That is the point I was trying to make, and a lot of people, hardcore RPG players, casual gamers, industry folk and guys like Avellone were saying.

We live in a world where "change" something done for its own sake, in order to give companies something new to sell this quarter, and "evolution" is used as a buzzword to convince people that they need The Newest Thing every time it comes out.

"Change" is value-neutral.  If it's for the better, good, if it's for the worse, then ignore it.  Being "changed" or "new" or "evolved" doesn't make a product or design better, it just makes it different, or at least packaged and marketed differently. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 17 décembre 2011 - 04:23 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Sylvianus wrote...

Sometimes, I feel, that it is just a story of fanboyism. Some Tw2 fans bash DA2, and some DA2 fans bash Tw2. Each side uses hyperbole.

I don't have anything to say about either of the Witcher games, having not played them. 

I restrict my commentary to games I have played, and only compare them along bloodlines.  ME and ME2, or DA:O and DA2, for example. 

Whatever The Witcher or its sequel is or is not, is absolutely irrelevent and meaningless to a discussion of the flaws and merits of Dragon Age 2.

[Plaintiff]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

"Change with the times" usually means "accept this crap we're giving you or we'll call you old-fashioned".

To quote Morriagn for a second:

"Many fear change and will fight it with every fiber of their being. But sometimes change is what they need most. Sometimes change is what sets them free."

Changing with the times does not mean accepting crap (which Dragon Age II is not, if it was I wouldn't defend it), but it does mean evolving tastes and experimentation. That is the point I was trying to make, and a lot of people, hardcore RPG players, casual gamers, industry folk and guys like Avellone were saying.

We live in a world where "change" something done for its own sake, in order to give companies something new to sell this quarter, and "evolution" is used as a buzzword to convince people that they need The Newest Thing every time it comes out.

"Change" is value-neutral.  If it's for the better, good, if it's for the worse, then ignore it.  Being "changed" or "new" or "evolved" doesn't make a product or design better, it just makes it different, or at least packaged and marketed differently. 

But change is still necessary. If game companies never experimented, we'd all still be playing Pong. And the worst part is, we wouldn't know any better.

"Different" may not be better, but variety is.

[The Hierophant]

Change isn't the problem, it's how said advancements are executed/implemented, that people should be worried about.

[Plaintiff]

The Hierophant wrote...

Change isn't the problem, it's how said advancements are executed/implemented, that people should be worried about.

And? Personally I have no problem with how DA2 was implemented.

[The Hierophant]

^ Wish i could feel the same way, but having an uninformative dialogue/personality wheel that forces the player to metagame out of fear that the dialogue option they chose didn't represent the outcome they wanted is wonky. Add the Friend/Rival point system to the equation and you have a verbal mindfield to navigate through. But that's just my opinion on one change that i felt was handled poorly.

[Realmzmaster]

The Hierophant wrote...

Change isn't the problem, it's how said advancements are executed/implemented, that people should be worried about.

Change is not always nice and neat no matter how well executed or implemented the change. Some of  best discoveries happen in spite of what was intended. Expermentation is good for without it there can be no change. We learn more from our "failures" than our "successes" no matter how painful the failures can be..

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 17 décembre 2011 - 07:02 .

[The Hierophant]

Realmzmaster wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

Change isn't the problem, it's how said advancements are executed/implemented, that people should be worried about.

Change is not always nice and neat no matter how well executed or implemented the change. Some of  best discoveries happen in spite of what was intended. Expermentation is good for without it there can be no change. We learn more from our "failures" than our "successes" no matter how painful the failures can be..

You got me on that one.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

As for BioWare's direction, meh. I make all sorts of long posts indicating what I'd like them to do -- as little gameplay/story segregation as possible, a large, deep, meaningful character system with combat, enemy and encounter design with (some) verisimilitude in mind and the quest + level design to accomodate varied gameplay styles, supported by ambient storytelling and world building elements to provide the illusion of a living world. -- and none of that inherently rules out mass appeal. Or did New Vegas not sell 5+ million and Skyrim 10+ million?

But really, I'm just one dude on a forum ranting. BioWare will do what they want and how well it's received will depend on what they actually do and how they execute it, regardless of my own opinions and ideas. They are the developers, not me. I just hope that what they do in future is in line with what I'd like.

FWIW, I think some people here are equating change with innovation and experimentation. It's absolutely true that Dragon Age 2 has some big changes over Origins, but considering that many of the changes were directly inspired or influenced by their other IP, Mass Effect (dialog wheel + voiced protagonist), it's a stretch to call those changes innovation or experimentation.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 17 décembre 2011 - 09:04 .

[Addai]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

@Nightscrawl I also enjoy DA2 and am likely on playthrough 30 by this point( i lost track at 25)

  You're joking.  Gotta be.

[Fast Jimmy]

Plaintiff wrote...

But change is still necessary. If game companies never experimented, we'd all still be playing Pong. And the worst part is, we wouldn't know any better.

"Different" may not be better, but variety is.

Variety is important, true. Unfortunately, with the changes BW implemented in DA2, I feel like there are no WRPGs that take player choice, multiple endings/plot lines and excellent narrative, all in the same package, on the market anymore. This is just my opinion, I am no trying to state it as a fact, just a fact for me.

By trying to appeal to a wider base and remove backgrounds for my character, branching choices and multiple endings, I feel like Bioware took that brand of game OFF the market. Thereby narrowing my variety through their innovation.

Again, just my opinion. I agree that change is important. But I also agree that showcasing features that made you successful and unique should trump removing these elements to try new "innovations" that are not implemented perfectly and are seen in dozens of other games.

[Fast Jimmy]

Addai67 wrote...

jbrand2002uk wrote...

@Nightscrawl I also enjoy DA2 and am likely on playthrough 30 by this point( i lost track at 25)

  You're joking.  Gotta be.

He's British. They aren't allowed to have a sense of humor. And if anyone takes offense to that statement which is obviously a joke, then that may just prove it.

In regards to your comments, jbrand, about not being able to compare a Lexus SUV with a hypercar, I would agree that would be totally true if the packaging were different. When I played Dragon Age Legends online, I did not expect Origins in the least because it was in a different medium, went by a different title and was marketed in a different way.

None of that was true for Dragon Age 2. It wasn't Dragon Age: Rise to Power. Or in a book form, or live action form, or in anime form... it was a video game, made by many of the same development team, with the same branding, by the same company. It wasn't like the difference between Fallout 2 and Fallout 3, where it was widely known that Black Isle had gone belly up and it was instead being made by Bethesda. Or the difference between Mass Effect and Dragon Age, as it was made by totally different departments.

To market, package, and, for all intents and purposes, appear to be the exact same thing until you get it out and start playing it for two or three hours is like expecting to buy a Lexus SUV and then finding out that once the car gets on the highway, you can't fit people in the backseat, it can't hit a pothole without flying out of control and just tapping the gas pedal will send you blazing across the interstate.

That's why many "car buyers" are upset that Dragon Age 2 wasn't what they expected. Because it wasn't packaged as anything BUT a sequel to Origins, and everything that entailed.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Change for its own sake is wasteful and idiotic. New because it's new is wasteful and idiotic.

If they're necessary, then they're just side-effects of doing what's actually important.

I'm sick of the culture of worshipping "new" and "change" as laudable values to be strived for in and of themselves.