On the fun part, true, other people can like it. But just because others like mediocrity doesn't mean the rest of us have to.nitefyre410 wrote...
vallore wrote...
nitefyre410 wrote...
Now what in the bloody hell does this have to do with Dragon Age... almost everything and more...see while Origins in its rights was great game(just like the great player)... it just would not hold up.If you just compare and contrast DA:O with Mass Effect it looks like a step backwards. Now I know many here did not do that but a lot did. For many Mass Effect was they first time of hearing about Bioware. Now we as fans could give a good damn less about that we just want our game and want out money not to be spent one crap. What Bioware has and I mean HAS to do is to know when its time the start moving a franchise in new direction when the old model starts to get stale. Now that can be for many different reasons in gaming its mostly do to tech advancement you can simply do more with what you have. The trick is to make the move at the right time and make the change seem almost seamless. ..
But why would something like, say, DAO2, not hold up?
This is often assumed as a gospel truth, and I’m not criticizing you but, when it comes up to provide reasons for that assumption, we only get vague answers, usually in the line of the “need to change” or “go with the times,” or yet to ”avoid stagnation.”
But seriously, what was causing the need to change in that particular direction?
Where was the stagnation?
I saw cause for evolution not revolution.
You see, for a gamer, what is relevant in a game feature is, if the presence or absence of it in the game results in an increase of his fun, or if it actually decreases it.
It doesn’t really matter if it the feature is old, or done before. Conversely, it doesn’t matter if some new feature is a revolutionary innovation either; bottom line, what it matters is “is the feature fun or not?”
And for many of us, most of the old ant tried features of DAO resulted in a fun game, while the innovations brought by DA2 were simply not fun.
"Fun" is completely subjective because I can find fighting games fun but you may absolutely hate fighting games but does the fact that you don't like fighting games make them any less fun for someone.
Honestly I think alot of people look at Origins through rose colored glasses as do those whole defend Dragon Age 2. Both were flawed and lacking in the alot of things that Bioware has to get better. I think origins gets over on a very old school nostigic fell so people look past things like
Moving to Position for the entire length of combat and the mutliple choice dialouge options that felt more like a test than game. A interesting but run of the mill Story staple story and absolute Joke of anatongist... Really a Giant Decoying demon corrupted Dragon as the Arch Demon. Just to have that trumpet by loghain who has to be smart enough to know that Dark spawn Blight are or not is more of threat to his home than his former enemy. Comat the was like playing patty cake instead of combat.... You know I under stand the whole spiritual successor to BG but for crying out loud Tech as moved forward... use it.
As well as Dragon Age 2 with its complete senseless time skips, closed off map(an issue for both games) Its 2011 damn it let go and explore and travel to where I need to get to. Stop telling about deep world and let me go explore it. A Three Act Story was lossely tied togother at best and times skips that lest lacking information about what's going on. Not being to hide enemy Spawns... GAME DESIGN 101 my god I have seen 16 bit era aracade brawlers do better that.. The combat looked better as let it looked like a fight and playing patty cake but it lacked any and all tatcial value.
Could care less about how Darkspawn in both games they were ugly and in the endwill be nothing bloody spots on ground.
Now the being said I had fun playing both games... though I sounds like didn't . DAhave better classes even if some of the skills were meh. The plot while run of the mill was at least tied together and had direction... DA 2 not so much. Even through I had to be point and click on where I want go at least i had a few places to go instead of just Kirkwall. I think Kirkwall itself was pretty damn cool looking city... it was former slave trading hub and it looks and feels that way with gates and the stone and the on way to get in and out of different places.
The problem with the changes is not that they were made its the fact they implemented its the face that they did not impliment the right way as rushed but they had to be made and it looks like some people on the team were not all on the same page cause DA 2 was over the place.
1. "Moving to Position for the entire length of combat and the mutliple
choice dialouge options that felt more like a test than game."
-Yeah the game required patience and brain power, something apparently only a few people have. if you wanted to go through the game you had to use your smarts, placing your caracters in given positions to gain the most out of them, while making sure other caracters didn't get caught up in the process.
2. "A interesting but run of the mill Story staple story and absolute Joke
of anatongist... Really a Giant Decoying demon corrupted Dragon as the
Arch Demon. Just to have that trumpet by loghain who has to be smart
enough to know that Dark spawn Blight are or not is more of threat to
his home than his former enemy."
-Yes, it was a run of the mill story. But it had depth to it, there was more to the story than just "big bad x is coming that will destroy us all". Oh the king is an idiot, oh everyone of your allies died, oh loghain betrayed you. The story wa solid, as oppose to.
"you're the campion of redcliff" - Ok? How did I become that? "Don't care next "
"Oh there's no big bad boss" Then what is the purpose of all this? "You take out smaller villains, one of which isn't a villain but just have a culture different from yours" - Can't I just reason with him then? "No you fight him no matter what your decision is"
3."Comat the was like playing patty cake instead of combat.... You know I
under stand the whole spiritual successor to BG but for crying out loud
Tech as moved forward... use it."
- see number 1.
4. "closed off map(an issue for both games) Its 2011 damn it let go and explore and travel to where I need to get to."
- NO, FOR GODS SAKE NO. Just because some games does it well doesn't mean every other game has to, Dragon Age: Origins was open enough in that you had many places to visit, you didn't have to wade through big areas, it felt consistent with the feel of the game. Dragon Age is a franchise building on old school pen-and-paper RPGs. It should stay that way, it's partialy what makes the games unique. :happy:
5. "The combat looked better as let it looked like a fight and playing patty cake but it lacked any and all tatcial value."
- Either action or tactical, Bioware should chose one and stick with it, imo tactical "patty cake" as you call it seem the best.
6. "Could care less about how Darkspawn in both games they were ugly and in the endwill be nothing bloody spots on ground."
- I thought the Darkspawn in DA:O had something going for them, they looked horrid (as in scary and bloody) and seemed like an overall thread, as you progressed through the game you could see that the threat of the Blight was not in the single darkspawn, but the horde of creatues it would sweep upon the world with.
Where as in DA2 the darkspawn provided no plot at all, they were simply, as they looked, saturday morning cartoon villain minions. No threat, no danger, just things to slice through.
Agree with rest of your points though. (except the fun in DA2)
Happy holidays everyone!
Retour en haut
