108 réponses à ce sujet

[Kreid]

@OP I agree on some points with you, I'd take deep characters and BioWare storytelling over TeS any day (over most anything but books and good movies anyway) so in a way DA2 can be as much as immersive as Skyrim but Betheda's game is to me obviously much more ambitious and a better game almost by sheer content, I don't fully understand what BW was trying with DA2 but even a Shakespearian story won't suffice if the world is so boring and limited as Kirkwall.

Modifié par Creid-X, 29 décembre 2011 - 12:15 .

[PSUHammer]

Sidney wrote...

Hammer6767 wrote...
That being said, if Bioware would have invested even 10% of the effort in dungeon design that Skyrim has, it would have gone a long way to answering my gripes of its game play.

Dungeon design is a place I really disagree. Massive re-use of assets (all Draugar tombs look the same, not similar the same) - now in fairness doing however many dungeons they do all of each type will look the same.  Almost all spaces are the same layout - linear hall->room-->hall-->room layout.  They camoflauge that by making things twist and turn but it is basically one long line. The "deeper" dungeons are just terrible crawls through a mass of all look same foes. The encounter design is really not good. There are too many one dude alone in a  room type fights and not many interesting tactical situations.

Now, none of that is to say DA2 was better (or even close to good) but what Skyrim does isn't a highlight of the game for me.

The world  design, the enemy design, armor and weapons look are all things I love. I just got to Markath and was blown away by that city and how it felt - it was what I wanted Orzammar to feel like. I also like the "not on the map" stuff that you trip over. I like not everything being tied to a quest and something are just "there".

Well, I guess you could also make that argument about the landscape of Skyrim, itself.  It is all just snowy, mountainous terrain that recycles textures.  But I think the dungeon design was varied enough to keep things interesting.

The Dwemer ruins were similar, sure, but they were all DIFFERENT in that they didn't have the exact same layout.  The old Nord crypt type dungeons (dauger infested) were also a similar design but it was the architecture of the culture.  They, too, were designed differently, especially the major ones.  I loved coming across small caves only to find a bear inside with some dead bandit it recently had for lunch.  Markarth, Solitude, Riften...they all were completely different.

I liked that they had some thought into layout.  I am not a fan of the random, auto generated Diablo dungeons.  But, I agree they could have done more with boss fights and enemies.  There IS something that still creeps me out each time a casket gets beat open from the inside by a dauger, though.

My point is that DA2 didn't even change the corridors or rooms in their design...they literally just reused an entire area and called it something else.  They could have at least changed the corridor layout in some of them.

[Sidney]

Hammer6767 wrote...
Well, I guess you could also make that argument about the landscape of Skyrim, itself.  It is all just snowy, mountainous terrain that recycles textures.  But I think the dungeon design was varied enough to keep things interesting.

The Dwemer ruins were similar, sure, but they were all DIFFERENT in that they didn't have the exact same layout.  The old Nord crypt type dungeons (dauger infested) were also a similar design but it was the architecture of the culture.  They, too, were designed differently, especially the major ones.  I loved coming across small caves only to find a bear inside with some dead bandit it recently had for lunch.  Markarth, Solitude, Riften...they all were completely different.

I liked that they had some thought into layout.  I am not a fan of the random, auto generated Diablo dungeons.  But, I agree they could have done more with boss fights and enemies.  There IS something that still creeps me out each time a casket gets beat open from the inside by a dauger, though.

My point is that DA2 didn't even change the corridors or rooms in their design...they literally just reused an entire area and called it something else.  They could have at least changed the corridor layout in some of them.

They aren't carbon copies but they are all just lines of the same rooms strung together. They do a nice job of making them seem different by making them turn left and not right but it can't mask it really is just the same thing that is really no more than a straight line.

The cities, I agree felt fresh and different. The comparison of Markath or Riften versus Kirkwall is sad and pathetic to even make.  It was really the dungeons that seemed more cut n' pasted together. DA2 was an abomination of level design and encounter design so best not to even speak to it other than to say how awful it was.

[eliesan]

While Skyrim offers more choice (and I've played all the Elder Scrolls games)..... I do miss my Dragon Age. My god, I completed DA2 4 times and I still miss it.

[PSUHammer]

Sidney wrote...

The cities, I agree felt fresh and different. The comparison of Markath or Riften versus Kirkwall is sad and pathetic to even make.  It was really the dungeons that seemed more cut n' pasted together. DA2 was an abomination of level design and encounter design so best not to even speak to it other than to say how awful it was.

Agree with you there...although they did earn back some respect with their expansions, so far.  The only thing DA2 got really well, in my opinion, is emotion and cinematic storytelling.  The Elder Scroll games have cookie cutter and generic NPCs and dialog.  Not real bad overall, but Bioware does NPC and PC interaction so well that it does put a lot of other games to shame in that department.

I wish a company would just be able to combine the best elements of each world and make the best game of all time.  LOL.

[Tryynity]

I have so far 2-3 hours of Skyrim and been totally bored...

- I still have no clue about the storyline - its boring walking around with Zombies for companions.

-The NPCs are flat cardboard cutouts with a voice assigned to them.

-Targeting for 30secs simply to loot something gets old real fast.

Yay! they have bowstrings.
Yay! for the beautiful graphics and world detail.
Yay! that I can go anywhere.

This is not a BOO post to BETHSEDA it is a truly beautiful game - just not made with my style of play in mind - that is ok, maybe I am in the minority and will just have to suck it up.

I said to a good friend - if you were to cross SKYRIM's yay points with DAO' storylines, companionships, true RPGing - you would have my perfect game. DAO was so very close - those SKYRIM yay points get it over the line.

Yes - focus on strengths and go with that. I have always applauded TURBINE for their DDO and the uniqueness of that MMO compareed to what is available. SWTOR could give them a run for their money with its own uniqueness.

Modifié par Tryynity, 29 décembre 2011 - 03:04 .

[Sidney]

Hammer6767 wrote...

Agree with you there...although they did earn back some respect with their expansions, so far.  The only thing DA2 got really well, in my opinion, is emotion and cinematic storytelling.  The Elder Scroll games have cookie cutter and generic NPCs and dialog.  Not real bad overall, but Bioware does NPC and PC interaction so well that it does put a lot of other games to shame in that department.

I wish a company would just be able to combine the best elements of each world and make the best game of all time.  LOL.

Bioware gives you a great story to play in
Bethesda gives you a great sandbox to play in

They're very different experiences and I'm not sure you can do the crossover of depth and breadth. One price of freedom is that people may not play the main plot (and I know in Morrowwind and Oblivion I sure didn't) so if you work hard on a great ME1/DAO type story people could literally miss it entirely.

[Sidney]

Tryynity wrote...

I have so far 2-3 hours of Skyrim and been totally bored...
- I still have no clue about the storyline - its boring walking around with Zombies for companions.
-The NPCs are flat cardboard cutouts with a voice assigned to them.
-Targeting for 30secs simply to loot something gets old real fast.

- The storyline actually does get a bit better - it isn't "good" by any means but it goes get better. It is really short if you just play the main quest. Sadly the Empire vs Stormcloaks "plot" is the most compelling in theory but the game gives you so little information on it (I'm level 46 so I've done a lot) that it is hard to figure out much about what either side actually means or stands for. I wound up picking a side just to see what happened not out of any sense my character had a motive.

- The NPC's never get any better.

- Looting doesn't get better. While selling gets better (because as time goes on you do less of it) the process of getting loot is slow and painful.

What will start to whip you is loading screens. It killls me to finish a quest and leave dungeon (loading screen). Fast travel to a city (loading screen). Enter the armor shop (loading screen). Sell. Leave armor shop (loading screen). Walk to general good shop and enter (loading screen). Sell. Leave general goods shop (loading screen). Enter building for next quest (loading screen). Ugh.

[Tryynity]

I forgot to mention how often I have to stop and chuck everything - because I cannot carry it all because the dungeon/quest is very long.

The upside of that is - it is freakin hilarious when you throw out mulitple items and you close the screen and the stuff flys off you onto the floor around you and you leave a pile of junk behind you - but after 10 dumps that gets old too. LOL

Bioware gives you a great story to play in
Bethesda gives you a great sandbox to play in

They're very different experiences and I'm not sure you can do the crossover of depth and breadth. One price of freedom is that people may not play the main plot (and I know in Morrowwind and Oblivion I sure didn't) so if you work hard on a great ME1/DAO type story people could literally miss it entirely.

Maybe not so much a large world is needed  perhaps - but simply being allowed to roam unhindered in each area to explore.  I hated not being able to walk over a pile of rocks - or walk through water.

There is also a way to control quest givers in each township - so as not to be distracted from the storyline.  I enjoyed the little side missions in Denerim - the only ones I dislike are the ones that take me miles away to another town (especially if I have been there already - it was a Blight and time was paramount - traipsing back and forth for little rewards was a bit silly from an RPG perspective.)

The same in DA2 - running back and forth across the land.

Maybe it would work better to place it as Post-game stuff to do - I hate it when the movie is over and its time to leave the theatre, it would be nice to hang around and say goodbye to the world and characters you have grown to love slowly.

LOL

Modifié par Tryynity, 29 décembre 2011 - 03:45 .

[twincast]

Solution: Fight the impulse to take every piece of trash with you. You really don't need to.

[Everwarden]

RosaAquafire wrote...
It's perfectly okay to dislike DA2 or Skyrim based on their own merits.

I'm glad we agree on this. Unfortunately I can't seem to find the merits in Dragon Age 2 like some other people can. They must be hiding under the bed. The only thing in Dragon Age 2 I remember liking was Varric. 

But the statement that DA2 is inferiour because it doesn't allow Skyrim's level of choice is as flawed as the statement that Skyrim is inferiour because it doesn't offer DA2's depth of character and relationship simulation.

I agree. Though I don't think I've seen anyone actually claim that DA2 is a bad game because it isn't a Bethesda-style-sandbox. It's a bad game using Bioware's usually high standard of quality, not because it doesn't measure up to a vastly different game released over half a year later.

[Yrkoon]

Sidney wrote...

Dungeon design is a place I really disagree. Massive re-use of assets (all Draugar tombs look the same, not similar the same) - now in fairness doing however many dungeons they do all of each type will look the same.  Almost all spaces are the same layout - linear hall->room-->hall-->room layout.  They camoflauge that by making things twist and turn but it is basically one long line. The "deeper" dungeons are just terrible crawls through a mass of all look same foes. The encounter design is really not good. There are too many one dude alone in a  room type fights and not many interesting tactical situations.

Now, none of that is to say DA2 was better (or even close to good) but what Skyrim does isn't a highlight of the game for me.

The world  design, the enemy design, armor and weapons look are all things I love. I just got to Markath and was blown away by that city and how it felt - it was what I wanted Orzammar to feel like. I also like the "not on the map" stuff that you trip over. I like not everything being tied to a quest and something are just "there".

Ok, reading your posts on the subject recently, I got the impression that you simply weren't very Wowed by Skyrim.  Which is fine.  People have different tastes.

But here you've crossed that line, and are now posting ridiculously false information.    (aah Screw the minced wording,   You're LYING.)   So I'm going to correct you.

-We'll start with Draugr tombs, since you specifically mentioned them.  They DON'T look the same, unless your definition of "the same" is:  well, hehehehe, they all got draugrs in them and coffins, and urns and Nord carvings  on the walls, therefore, they're the  same!"      And if that's what you're trying to say then your  vocabulary  needs help.  Because that's not "sameness".  That's called a *THEME*  It's to let you know that you're in a damn Nord  tomb.  But as far as  layouts, the Draugr tombs are as varied as they could possibly be and still be called tombs.     There are some that have clusterphobically narrow passages and darkened rooms filled with cobwebbing.  And then  there are some  who's layout is the complete opposite:  Huge and cavernous, winding and water-filled, with Gorges and bridges, steep inclines and  ceilings  high enough to almost make you feel like you're outside  (Visit Laberynthian sometime, then come back an apologise for, you know... Lying.)

-Then there are Dwemer Ruins.... very blatantly and obviously different from   Draugir ruins  (and  each other, for that matter) in both theme and layout.  Some  seem decidedly older-looking and more "ruined" than others.  Some are small and shiny, others are Massive spralling campuses, bigger than any city in the game.  Some even contain  sections that  deliberately deviate from the Dwemer theme  (Mzuft, for example, has a bizzare open area filled with colorful vegetation and a flowing waterfall)

-There are Snow caves, large and small.  They're white and filled with snow.  Some look  to have natural, uncarved rock walls, ceilings and passages, while  others  have very obvious   man-made layouts.  Size-wise, thse caves vary wildly, some are just one area, others are a few LEVELS in size.  Some have rooms.  Others are just  a plain cavernous  area with no rooms at all.


-Falmer Ruins.  You don't bother to even mention those, even though there are at least a dozen of them in the game.  They're dark.  But sometimes the walls glow  with glowing mushrooms.  It's difficult to even pinpoint a theme with falmer dungeons since they're all so wildly chaotic in looks, size, layout.  In fact, the only thing they have in common with each other is their inhabitants:  Falmer.  Although I once visited what I thought was a falmer ruin and it  ended up having Vampires in it instead.

-Castles.  This one doesn't even need to be mentioned.  That I'm even defining them as castles is already a point of contention, because some don't look like castles at all,   from the inside or the outside.

-Grottos -  There are "dungeons"  in this game that aren't even dungeons.  They're semi-enclosed areas with no ceiling.  Some look like ruins.  others look like Gardens,  Some are level, others have cliffs, bridges, gorges, and winding paths.

-Submerged dungeons.  I've found 2 in this game.  Yes, Submerged, they're mostly underwater.  Best explored by waterbreathing items.

City Building interiors.  There are  Tents, there are  cabins, there are stone dwellings, there are sewers,  there are fancy noble estates, there are farm houses,  and government buildings.    There's a Government building inside a   giant cave that decends to a giant  ancient Dwemer ruin comprised of a  half dozen buildings connected by a series of bridges, on different levels, stretching over  a  large river.  There's a fancy, well lit  Jarl's castle that has an entire wing which is, itself a dark ancient ruin.

-There are lighthouses, and towers with spiral staircases.  Some are free standing, others are connected by a long bridge that takes you over a river and to another tower.  Some have no stairs at all.  Others have stone stair cases that aren't spiraling.  Some are mixed.  There's a tower that decends into a Draugr tomb.

-There's the monestary, too.  Cant forget that one.  It's way way up in the mountains., yet it manages to have a back yard.

-There are stranded/abandoned/occupied  Ships you can swim to and explore.  SHIPS.  with rooms and levels.

This, of course,  is all aside from the *Miles* of vastly differing (and interactive) outdoor terrains that you can spend 100+ hours traversing.      And this all  goes without saying for any honest person who's played Skyrim.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 29 décembre 2011 - 01:23 .

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Fast Jimmy wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Who becomes Master Levyn, protecting refugees, if The Warden tells him to leave the dungeon. [/quote]

La-dee-da. That just shows people can reform, not that blood mages aren't dangerous. We've seen Templars who are just and blameless, have we seen an apostate? [/quote]

Considering that Jowan was acting under orders from the Hero of River Dane because he was told that Arl Eamon was a threat to Ferelden, I don't see how you can villify Jowan for poisoning Eamon. I admit that Jowan has a lot of flaws, but it's not as though he was trying to cause problems. The national hero who rescued Ferelden from the Orlesian occupation told him that an Arl was a threat to Ferelden, and promised to resolve things with the Circle, so I don't know what else you expected.

The difference between the flawed Jowan can be seen in the mage protagonist, who is referred to by the Abomination Uldred as "Irving's star pupil." The Surana or Amell Warden can stand as a prime example of the good that a mage is capable of, outside Chantry and templar control, and his (or her) request to emancipate the mages in the Circle of Ferelden is met with a resounding agreement from the new ruler of Ferelden.

[quote]Fast Jimmy wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Morrigan was raised by Flemeth, and has little respect for people who can't defend themselves because she was raised in a survival of the fittest type of mindset. The Warden can challenge this, though, such as when he can persuade her to consider that she may have been raised as a Circle mage, if things were different. Morrigan can be persuaded to see it as a possibility.

And as for preserving the soul of an Old God, I don't see why you think it's bad. It would be the soul of an Old God, untainted by the darkspawn corruption. I don't see what's bad about wanting to preserve one of the last mysteries of the world when we are completely ignorant about this. My Surana Warden trusted Morrigan.[/quote]

None of that means that its not extremely dangerous behavior. What if Morrigan had been lied to by Flemeth, and the OGB would combine with the power of a mage and do something EVEN WORSE? Morrigan is smart, but she can't possibly comprehend the powers she was messing with, nor can she trust that everything Flemeth told or taught her was the truth. [/quote]

How can you say it's dangerous when you're not in a position to accurately determine how informed Morrigan is about the Dark Ritual and the OGB? It's nothing more than speculation, especially when Morrigan seems to speak from a position where she is knows more about what's going on than The Warden. Clearly, Morrigan is more informed than the protagonist is.

[quote]Fast Jimmy wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

You already addressed that the man who is insane... I don't think insane people make rational choices.[/quote]

True, he was insane. Why not give us a sane apostate then? [/quote]

We had a sane apostate: Morrigan.

[quote]Fast Jimmy wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

People are divided on Anders' actions at the end of Dragon Age II, and its mired in the dichotomy between mages and templars. It's the result of a man who is acting in response to the Chantry controlled Circles across Thedas.[/quote]

Whether he was right or wrong, ultimately, is debatable, you're right. But he still killed many people using magic, making him, in his own words, exactly what the Templars are afraid of and the reason why the Circle concept was presented. [/quote]

The "Circle concept" was presented due to religious reasons, according to the History of the Chantry Part 4, as it was established by Emperor Drakon I when he conquered and united the surrounding city-states to create the Orlesian Empire, which followed with him establishing the Order of Templars, the Chantry of Andraste, and the Circle of Magi following his religious beliefs as a member of one of the cults of Andraste.

Placing mages in prisons (as termed by the Magi Origin VO) was the result of the mages holding a nonviolent protest over their lack of rights during the reign of Divine Ambrosia II, and the consequence being that mages would be isolated from society and housed in Circle Towers, according to History of the Circle.

[quote]Fast Jimmy wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Marethari let a demon loose through her own volition. Merrill and Hawke have to stop her. And are you seriously arguing that it's all Merrill's fault that a group of Dalish hunters try to commit cold-blooded murder? How does that argument make any sense? [/quote]

Because people died. And they would not have died if Merril was not obsessed with forbidden knowledge. Knowledge she would not have been allowed to pursue if she was in the circle. The choices of others are of consequence, but Merril's actions still resulted in the death of others. That makes her dangerous and isn't a case for allowing mages to run about all willy nilly. [/quote]

You mean they wouldn't have died if they didn't try to commit cold-blooded murder?

And Merrill was being proactive about the decline of the People. She was responsible with her actions, she was willing to sacrifice her life for the chance to give revolutionary technology to the elves. It's not her fault when grown adults try to murder her because Hawke didn't pacify them about what Keeper Marethari did.

[quote]Fast Jimmy wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

All but one of the mage antagonists in Dragon Age II was insane and stupid.[/quote]

Good. I'm glad you noticed that. [/quote]

I'm glad you noticed it, too.

[quote]Fast Jimmy wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Feynriel saves the life of a woman who was about to be raped through his Dreamer abilities.[/quote]

Assuming he's not possessed by a demon. If he is, then he haunts the dreams of people all over Kirkwall. Again... the potential for doing good does NOT predicate the reality of the danger posed. [/quote]

Feynriel used his power to kill rapists and made a friend. I don't see the harm in that.

[quote]Fast Jimmy wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Who have their own Circle of Magi and Order of Templars.[/quote]

And who doesn't abide by the normal Circle/Chantry strictures or guidelines. [/quote]

Which doesn't change the fact that Tevinter has its own Chantry, Circle of Magi, and Order of Templars. Magisters have power, mages and non-mages alike are under their heel.

[quote]Fast Jimmy wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Hawke? I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here, and leave it at that.[/quote]

I don't mind if you aren't respectful, but if you disagree, I would like a bit more of an argument. Hawke doesn't do much good and is surely not the best hero around (insert the whole reactive-hero-only argument here) but as a mage, he doesn't go about hurting innocents, creating chaos and, all in all, being a destructive influence. Almost every other mage in the series does. [/quote]

No, Hawke simply allows other poeple to harm innocents by doing nothing to stop them, even when it's within his power to do so. I give more credit to Merrill for trying to help her people, while Hawke does nothing. Whether Cullen is going to take Bethany away to a Circle where Hawke knows templars are making mages tranquil illegally, or Petrice admitting that she is going to incite a religious war and has no problem killing innocent people, or doing nothing for three years while Meredith becomes the de facto Viscount, Hawke does nothing. I find his inaction very troubling, and it continues in the last two story DLCs that we were provided.

[quote]Fast Jimmy wrote...

And that's my point. Not that mages should be locked in a tower with their Templar prison guards... far from it! I WANT the mages to be free. But for the love of all that is holy, Bioware... give us an apostate that isn't either evil incarnate or isn't messing with incredibly dangerous powers that could/do kill the people around them. [/quote]

The templars weren't exactly painted in a positive light, either. Meredith's "ultimatium" at the end of Dragon Age II bordered on ridiculous because there was no reason to call for its order, unlike Greagoir during "A Broken Circle," and ignited comparisons with WWII Germany because she seemed to want people death simply for being mages. On one hand, we had insane and stupid mages, and on the other, we had rapists and sadists making up the templars. I would have preferred for the narrarive to intelligently handle the dichotomy between the mages and the templars without making everyone on either side into a Satuday morning cartoon. Both sides can have flaws while the characters representing both factions can have their own personalities and not be so over-the-top ridiculous.

[quote]Fast Jimmy wrote...

I realize this is dark fantasy, but not every mage character needs to destroy everything around them in order to have an epiphany that magic can be dangerous. [/quote]

Given that Orsino and Meredith seemed to be fighting over who can display more stupidity at the end of Dragon Age II, I'm not certain it was much of a dark fantasy.

[Hatchetman77]

BioWare's focus on story is going to require taking players down a certain path and a full on sandbox like Skyrim just can't accomplish what BioWare wants to do with their games.  However that being said, there is no reason why there can't be two or three different paths to go down in a BioWare game.  I don't think anyone would have complained about recycled environments if the same environments were in different potential story arcs.  THEN BioWare can say the recycled environments are an innovative feature allowing them to put in more content, because then it actually would be.

[Get Magna Carter]

Hatchetman77 wrote...

BioWare's focus on story is going to require taking players down a certain path and a full on sandbox like Skyrim just can't accomplish what BioWare wants to do with their games.  However that being said, there is no reason why there can't be two or three different paths to go down in a BioWare game.  I don't think anyone would have complained about recycled environments if the same environments were in different potential story arcs.  THEN BioWare can say the recycled environments are an innovative feature allowing them to put in more content, because then it actually would be.

Bioware never claimed the recycled environments were an innovative feature..they said that they were rushed for deadlines and limited in resources and forced so to either re-use environments or drop quests.

Maybe the thing they should take from Skyrim is to increase the development time and budget to get the game to be up to the expected standard rather than rush it out asap

[PSUHammer]

Sidney wrote...

Hammer6767 wrote...

Agree with you there...although they did earn back some respect with their expansions, so far.  The only thing DA2 got really well, in my opinion, is emotion and cinematic storytelling.  The Elder Scroll games have cookie cutter and generic NPCs and dialog.  Not real bad overall, but Bioware does NPC and PC interaction so well that it does put a lot of other games to shame in that department.

I wish a company would just be able to combine the best elements of each world and make the best game of all time.  LOL.

Bioware gives you a great story to play in
Bethesda gives you a great sandbox to play in

They're very different experiences and I'm not sure you can do the crossover of depth and breadth. One price of freedom is that people may not play the main plot (and I know in Morrowwind and Oblivion I sure didn't) so if you work hard on a great ME1/DAO type story people could literally miss it entirely.

It technically could be done.  There is no reason it couldn't.  It would just be a matter of the developer spending some time with actually having NPCs show emotion or employing some cinematic directing/editing techniques the way Bioware does.  Guess it depends on the amount of resources they want to devote to the game.

GTA4 had a pretty decent storyline and that was a sandbox game.  Rockstar's character animations blow Bethesda's away.

[Tae Jir]

Hey! RosaAquafire...great post.

Loved playing Oblivion, loved playing DA:O, DA2 not so much.

What I notice in playing Skyrim, is that without the character interaction of DA:O, it seems more like repetitive work. I love dungeon crawling, and I think the dungeons in Skyrim are the best I've ever seen, but...well, without my frisky Dog, and the banter and sniping of Alistair, Morrigan, etc. I just can't muster the enthusiasm I had for Oblivion.

Darn you Bioware! (sob) You've diminished sand box games for me!

[DreamwareStudio]

Just got through playing a bit of Skyrim. It is a beautiful game. The Witcher 2 is a beautiful game as well. Skyrim, though, seems fairly lonely. Playing Skyrim, I miss my companions in DA:O. I never feel that with the Witcher 2, though, cause I talk to folks all the time. So many similarities between these three outstanding games. All go about gameplay differently but well.

So many differences in them from Dragon Age 2.

It's inconceivable to me that Dragon Age 2 followed Origins and not the other way around. It's also inconceivable to me that Dragon Age 2 came out in the same year as the Witcher 2 and Skyrim.

Frankly, DA 2 pales to white in comparison.

[Tryynity]

twincast wrote...

Solution: Fight the impulse to take every piece of trash with you. You really don't need to.

Yea - I figured that out after the 10th dump - buuuut I still check for gold & really good stuff & thats where the real annoyance is, lining up in the exact right spot to loot.

[Fast Jimmy]

Rather than nitpick the arguments all listed above, I'll just say that mucking with incredibly dangerous powers,  powers outlawed by the Circle, is, by definition, dangerous. Regardless of  what the mage thinks they know about these powers, their intentions or the result of it, it is still dangerous. I'm just asking for an apostate mage that isn't dangerous or evil or power hungry, outside of the Hawke family. Since Bethany, Hawke and Ethan Hawke seem to qualify as the only ones that aren't. Again, I know Merril, Morrigan and others are not neccessarily evil and could even be seen as good, they put themselves in the position where they are messing with magical powers that could very easily overtake them and put their lives and others at risk.

LobselVith8 wrote...
Both sides can have flaws while the characters representing both factions can have their own personalities and not be so over-the-top ridiculous.

...

Given that Orsino and Meredith seemed to be fighting over who can display more stupidity at the end of Dragon Age II, I'm not certain it was much of a dark fantasy.

And this is something I think we can all agree on, wholeheartedly. And leave it at that.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 30 décembre 2011 - 01:00 .

[Hatchetman77]

Get Magna Carter wrote...

Hatchetman77 wrote...

BioWare's focus on story is going to require taking players down a certain path and a full on sandbox like Skyrim just can't accomplish what BioWare wants to do with their games.  However that being said, there is no reason why there can't be two or three different paths to go down in a BioWare game.  I don't think anyone would have complained about recycled environments if the same environments were in different potential story arcs.  THEN BioWare can say the recycled environments are an innovative feature allowing them to put in more content, because then it actually would be.

Bioware never claimed the recycled environments were an innovative feature..they said that they were rushed for deadlines and limited in resources and forced so to either re-use environments or drop quests.

Maybe the thing they should take from Skyrim is to increase the development time and budget to get the game to be up to the expected standard rather than rush it out asap

http://www.eurogamer...ge-ii-interview

In this article BioWare states that recycled environments were a choice, and not forced on them due to deadlines or "limited" resources.  Before we get into this I just wanted to make a point that limited resources does not equal inadequate resources.  All games have limited resources as no game has ever received unlimited resources.  You have limited resources to make a game.  Even a large amount of resources is limited, as it is not infinate.  I don't remember any article in which BioWare specifically states that they had insufficient resources to adequatly finish making this game and as such had to cut corners, such as recycling environments.

BioWare stated that the choice was made to recycle environments to maximize resources they had and focus resorces to other areas that were considered more important. So the choice was made to shift resources away from level design to other elements that BioWare considered more important.  Changing what you are doing in a new way with the intention of making an improvement is an innovation (well, it's an innovation if what you do is actually an improvement, but BioWare's intention was to make an innovation), and that is what BioWare is claiming that they are doing here. 

http://www.eurogamer...l-us-what-to-do

Here's another article where BioWare stated that they control what they do and not EA.  So who is this mysterious force rushing them then?

I don't recall ever reading an article in which BioWare stated that they were FORCED to cut corners.  They have always stated that everything in the game was done by choice.  The closest thing I've ever read was Inon Zur, the game's music composer, stating that the score was rushed.  No official statement from BioWare has ever stated that the game was rushed. 

That being said I agree that I think the game was rushed, but BioWare is making all sorts of claims to the contrary and making claims about artistic choices.  My post was to illustrate that recycling environments can actually be used to inhance a game if it is used appropriatly, to add more wanted content (in this case player freedom) while not negativly detracting from the game itself.

[Zanallen]

@Hatchetman77

He says it was a choice, but it was a choice between cutting content like sidequests and so on or having a lot of reused environments. So yes, it was a choice. However, it was a choice between two terrible options. It was not him saying "Oh yeah, we can make some more enviromnents to go with all these missions, but why? No one will care."

As for being rushed, Bioware was either rushed or they severely underestimated the time and resources required to make the changes they wanted to make.

[Yrkoon]

Hatchetman77 wrote...
Here's another article where BioWare stated that they control what they do and not EA.  So who is this mysterious force rushing them then?

  They're  "fibbing" for marketing sake.  EA  determines all  of EA's  product schedules and release dates.     They're the publisher, remember?  In the case of DA2,  it was a race to get the game out within EA's 2010 fiscal year, which ends in March.    DA2's Day 1 release needed to happen  by then so that the 2010 sales figures could be rounded out.  Basic stuff.

Hatchetman77 wrote...
I don't recall ever reading an article in which BioWare stated that they were FORCED to cut corners. 

And you won't, until later... perhaps in a year, when the Devs working on the Dragon Age   IP have shifted the promotion  to the next installment and have stopped promoting the current one.

And really,  the game just came out 9 months ago.  What do you expect them to say?     "Yeah, we were rushed so we had to  severely cut corners with this game, please buy it anyway."?  Because that would be silly.   That kind of language doesn't sell games.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 30 décembre 2011 - 04:53 .

[DreamwareStudio]

Yrkoon wrote...

Hatchetman77 wrote...
Here's another article where BioWare stated that they control what they do and not EA.  So who is this mysterious force rushing them then?

  They're  "fibbing" for marketing sake.  EA  determines all  of EA's  product schedules and release dates.     They're the publisher, remember?  In the case of DA2,  it was a race to get the game out within EA's 2010 fiscal year, which ends in March.    DA2's Day 1 release needed to happen  by then so that the 2010 sales figures could be rounded out.  Basic stuff.

Hatchetman77 wrote...
I don't recall ever reading an article in which BioWare stated that they were FORCED to cut corners. 

And you won't, until later... perhaps in a year, when the Devs working on the Dragon Age   IP have shifted the promotion  to the next installment and have stopped promoting the current one.

And really,  the game just came out 9 months ago.  What do you expect them to say?     "Yeah, we were rushed so we had to  severely cut corners with this game, please buy it anyway."?  Because that would be silly.   That kind of language doesn't sell games.

Nope, that kind of language certainly does not sell games.  Over-marketing for a subpar game will not sell future games either.  Time they step up and do the development right followed by some great but accurate marketing, I say.

[Wulfram]

Bioware would have done a better Oblivion. The Bethesda formula was a pretty poor fit to that game, though it's well suited to Skyrim.