294 réponses à ce sujet

[bEVEsthda]

LinksOcarina wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

So you think DA:O and DA2 is much the same game then?

I liked DA:O. I was looking forward to see the franchise continue. And by the way, I have waited for DA for about a decade, ever since Bioware announced this project on the old Bioware forum.

And instead we then get this new childish nonsense, the "new direction" in something that just is a spoonfed story, not a real RPG, japan-style, to add injury.

I'm sorry, but I need to let you know that the stance of Dragon Age II as "japan-style" is very mis-informed. 
<snipped irrelevant nonsens>

Lol, you can't change things by arguing. (though this is an approach I've seen a lot of in this forum from DA2 advocates)
Though I pretty much expected your respons, thus my introductionary line.

DA2 tells a story without involving the player, not giving the player any responsibility. We're just a passenger. And then we do the combat. That's all. Unless you belong to that group which is sooo delighted by being surprised with the dialogue lines.
Now that's telling a story japan-style. Spoonfed. And no, DA:O, BG etc are much different. Constructing contrieved arguments inuendo over details and perceptions don't change that.
You may not see that, but that then is perhaps because you come to RPGs from a different background and look for a different experience? Your definitions of "real RPG" is utterly irrelevant to me. As is the fact that you think it's "subjective". I mean - what on earth was your point with that? Where did you want to go with that?
Don't you see how useless such arguments are? WTF do I care about what you think "is very misinformed"? For me a RPG is a game that gives me the experience I want from a RPG. DA2 don't do that much. FF none at all.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 14 janvier 2012 - 01:25 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I liked DAO.

I did not like DA2.

I disliked DA2 not only because of what DAO had that DA2 didn't, but because the new direction DA2 went in wasn't implemented well.

Instead of improving the tactics of your AI group, they made all enemies weaker. What took my entire party to take down one demon in DAO, we now have quests where one encounter throws over twenty of them at us at once. And then they handicapped the potion cooldown and only gave you one healer, so you find yourself dying not because of hard enemies, bad tactics or leveling issues, but just poor mechanics.

The story is a complete lack of direction. If I had asked the vast majority of players where they thought the game would be ending in the middle of Act 2, very few would have said a showdown with Meredith and Orsino. Act 3 comes out of nowhere and turns what should have been a side quest or a footnote to the main plot into the climax, while it relegates truly interesting bits of story lore in DA2, like the mystical significance of Sundermount, the Enigma of Kirkwall notes, the Bonepit's purpose other than being a random monster cave and the graveyard for countless Fereldens (who you tried to help but ultimately killed), corrupted lyrium and the lost Thaig, all into either codex entries or weak tie ins to how the story progresses.

Companions, some of the best features of both DAO and DA2, are done well... when you can talk to them. One or two conversations an Act (including romance conversations and questlines) is all we get? Yes, Merrill, we understand you haven't had time to clean over the past seven years, but please don't take the Dread Wolf's name in vain. DA2 should have been set up like DAO with companions, where you had some conversations that were accessed solely by level of Friendship (or also Rivalry, in DA2's case) and some that were tipped by plot, such as Allistair's reactions post-Redcliffe, or Morrigan's after you completed the Circle and found the Black Grimoire.

And the quests were ludicrous. While some were simply "kill all the enemies in a cave", they were dressed up with good plot and dialogue... but they were simply a long list of side quests that never came together. Sure, you have a bunch of evil templars and blood mages... but it doesn't come together ever in a way that made you feel like you were doing anything other than killing crazies, which were around every corner.

If Act 1 was completely stripped out, and instead of spending an invisible year working for generic, non-important choice group to be allowed in the city and then do oddball quests to get enough money to go into the Deep Roads, what if instead, your sibling never died in the opening scene, and as soon as you reached Kirkwall, you weren't let in. But you were offered the job to go into the Deep Roads by Varric as a way to enter. Then, you could choose which sibling dies after you get a chance to know them through some event that happens, such as a darkspawn attack or a tunnel cave in. THEN have Act 1 BEGIN after the prologue of getting out of the Deep Roads.

But I guess, in that case, they would have actually had to make a coherent plot if their entire "filler" act was scrapped.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 14 janvier 2012 - 02:07 .

[TEWR]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Well, if it had gone to EA's intentions, this juvenile jprg-format drivel would have replaced "The spiritual successor to BG": That counts as destroying the franchise for me.

I don't hate the game for what it is. I don't like the game for what it is. But I don't hate it for that. I hate it for replacing the original/real DA franchise. That is why I hate it.

I dislike it mainly for its silly art direction (so yes, atmosphere amongst other things, the game doesn't take itself seriously) and the fact that it's just a told story, with very little  responsibility for the player. Just a movie with breaks for meaningless and senseless combat, void of strategic connection with anything else. Nintendo gameplay. Clear the levels, pick up the glowing rewards, wittle down the 'Boss'. And on the side we're told a story that is really nothing special at all.
Just look at the developers obsession with 'iconic looks', the silly name "Hawke" itself, the focus on cinematics, retarded ninja combat,.. We're supposed to think that's cool. Now me, I'm allergic to overdone stuff like that. Once I get the drift I start to really raise hackles. This game was not designed by game designers. It was designed by a shallow, clueless marketing group. And their focus group were their own 14y old nephews and their retarded friends. "- Oh Yes mister, this is an awesome game you have. It rocks. Awesome!"
 -Bah!
 And yes, I react too strongly. But that is due to the cummulative effect. Dislike feeds more dislike. If the sum of the whole was on the right side of the treshold, I probably wouldn't mind a number of details that now annoy me. But such are the way of things...
 

Personally speaking, I've never understood the JRPG complaint myself aside from how linear the game is. That's the only place I think it can apply.

I don't think the combat is necessarily bad. I happen to like the majority of the new animations -- yes I realize animations are not all combat is about -- and I've often proposed solutions to some of the classes.

I remember something I said months ago -- perhaps even in my blog on DAII's combat -- where I said that the new greatsword animations aren't the problem but the lack of reduction in attack speed when the 2H warrior uses up all of his/her stamina is. And so I proposed that if you use up all of your character's energy his attack speed goes to 75% instead of 100%.

I also don't like the DW Rogue animations as they don't look like they connect or have any real power put behind their swings, and I realize the jumping is an issue for people. It is indeed possible to jump 13-15 feet in distance so long as you have momentum. Without momentum it's about 7-8 feet. The height of the jump I'll grant shouldn't be as high as it is. I've wondered if Bioware could possibly implement a thing where the jump only works if you have momentum going for your character.

You know what? I don't want to retype all of it, so if you're interested in my thoughts on DAII's combat on the whole -- animations, tactics, waves, etc. -- my blog about it is here: http://social.biowar...83/blog/209894/. I just don't want to retype all of it when I also have other thoughts to jot down.

I don't really understand the JRPG accusation for anything other than the story and the tactics menu that the DA series uses, which is the same thing as FFXII's gambit system.

FFX and XII -- two JRPGs, though I'm well aware that FF is not the only series of JRPGs -- are actually realistic in their combat. Even FFXIII is realistic in its combat given the nature of the setting and the technology of the setting that enhances the physical body's abilities.

I don't know... perhaps I'm still not really understanding what you mean....

[bEVEsthda]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
<SNIP>
I don't really understand the JRPG accusation for anything other than the story and the tactics menu that the DA series uses, which is the same thing as FFXII's gambit system.

FFX and XII -- two JRPGs, though I'm well aware that FF is not the only series of JRPGs -- are actually realistic in their combat. Even FFXIII is realistic in its combat given the nature of the setting and the technology of the setting that enhances the physical body's abilities.

I don't know... perhaps I'm still not really understanding what you mean....

Well maybe that's because you're reading "JPRG" in all the places where I never wrote it?
I've accused DA2 for japan-style railroad storytelling. It adapts to the format of what jrpg considers is a 'RPG'. And THAT is also the main reason I'm not interested in jRPG.

On the combat I can partially agree with you. I respect what M.L. tried to achieve and I have said so many times before. But potentially fun by itself or not, it's out of place. Both by animations and by uberpower and consequential balancing. Besides,  I'll take good old-fashioned BG/IWD tactical combat before that, everyday. Even not considering that also had a number of strategic hooks and responsibilities, which are lacking in these "modern", "innovative", "streamlined" games. So regardless of what I see DA2 tried to accomplish with combat, I have no reason to be enthusiastic.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 14 janvier 2012 - 03:55 .

[TEWR]

bEVEsthda wrote...


Well maybe that's because you're reading "JPRG" in all the places where I never wrote it?

Ah, I figured that you were using what you said to mean the same thing as JRPG. My apologies for that.

I've accused DA2 for japan-style railroad storytelling. And THAT is also the main reason I'm not interested in jRPG.

Yes, the railroaded nature of the game is definitely one of its major flaws, especially when the framed narrative could've allowed for significant player-made changes to the story of DAII without affecting the overall story told or for Bioware to have to worry about importing issues.

I've said before that DAII should've been a game with a game-changing story, but not a world-changing one. In that the choices would have appropriate and believable consequences in-game.

On the combat I can partially agree with you. I respect what M.L. tried to achieve and have said so many times before. But potentially fun by itself or not, it's out of place. Both by animations and by uberpower and consequential balancing. Besides,  I'll take good old-fashioned BG/IWD tactical combat before that, everyday. Even not considering that also had a number of strategic hooks and responsibilities, which are lacking in these "modern", "innovative", "streamlined" games. So regardless of what I see DA2 tried to accomplish with combat, I have no reason to be enthusiastic.

I can agree certainly that the combat in DA lacks both the needed balance to make it work as well as strategy. That's something I take issue with DAII as well, as the combat is largely one-sided.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 14 janvier 2012 - 03:55 .

[LinksOcarina]

bEVEsthda wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

So you think DA:O and DA2 is much the same game then?

I liked DA:O. I was looking forward to see the franchise continue. And by the way, I have waited for DA for about a decade, ever since Bioware announced this project on the old Bioware forum.

And instead we then get this new childish nonsense, the "new direction" in something that just is a spoonfed story, not a real RPG, japan-style, to add injury.

I'm sorry, but I need to let you know that the stance of Dragon Age II as "japan-style" is very mis-informed. 
<snipped irrelevant nonsens>

Lol, you can't change things by arguing. (though this is an approach I've seen a lot of in this forum from DA2 advocates)
Though I pretty much expected your respons, thus my introductionary line.

DA2 tells a story without involving the player, not giving the player any responsibility. We're just a passenger. And then we do the combat. That's all. Unless you belong to that group which is sooo delighted by being surprised with the dialogue lines.
Now that's telling a story japan-style. Spoonfed. And no, DA:O, BG etc are much different. Constructing contrieved arguments inuendo over details and perceptions don't change that.
You may not see that, but that then is perhaps because you come to RPGs from a different background and look for a different experience? Your definitions of "real RPG" is utterly irrelevant to me. As is the fact that you think it's "subjective". I mean - what on earth was your point with that? Where did you want to go with that?
Don't you see how useless such arguments are? WTF do I care about what you think "is very misinformed"? For me a RPG is a game that gives me the experience I want from a RPG. DA2 don't do that much. FF none at all.

I can care less if you like the game or not. Thats not my place to change your mind on that. If you don't like it, then you don't like it. That is irrelvent. What I do care about is the logic behind it, because that logic is totally off.

For one, the type of Game Dragon Age II is similar to a lot of other games out there with those type of mechanics, and many are not from Japan. Betrayal at Krondor comes to mind as a rough example; you have the ability to explore, yes, but you follow a linear progression through a major plotline/narrative structure. Talking to NPCs invloved a tree-based conversation system, an attribute/skill system that allows for level up and progression, a small amount of NPCs with side-quests, turn-based combat, fixed narratives that stop the action as bookends to go onto the next chapters, and so on. 

And Origins is similar because of the narrative structure. The mechanics via combat and dialouge are different, but the storyline would "spoonfeed" you to what you need to do. You are told you have to join the Wardens, you are told to fight the archdemon, you are told to go to these four places. Again there is freedom in choosing where to go when, but thats not the point. The point is the game is as linear as any Final Fantasy title.  the only differences between the two titles are the graphics, the battle mechanics, how dialogue is handled, and the story. 

I don't really come from a different background. My first RPG that I completed fully was Planescape Torment, and I played Baldurs Gate, some of the older Ultimas, numerous Final Fantasies, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and so on as time goes by. I run the gamut on what I play, and most of them are good games. This is why the definition of a real RPG is simple really because its a universal one; what makes an RPG is not just a story or leveling up, because most games do that now, but also customization of the characters, degrees of choice and consequence wihin the game, exploration, combat mechanics, interaction with characters and the world or with friends on a multi-player map via something like Borderlands, and so on. 

And no, this is not subjective, because a majroity of RPG players would agree with that assessment I think.  Where I wanted to go with that is to give you a perspective on things to find out why you said that, and to show you why that perspective is not accurate.

So an RPG is a game that you would get an experience out of an RPG? Ok then...too broad and tells us nothing though. I kinda suspect that you have no clear definition of what is and what isen't, but not my place to say so, you got to tell me then. If that is the problem, then that is why you are misinformed. If that is not the problem, then I am either wasting my breath because you won't tell me, or you don't care about this conversation.

Something tells me its the latter.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 14 janvier 2012 - 04:19 .

[bEVEsthda]

LinksOcarina wrote...
<snip>
So an RPG is a game that you would get an experience out of an RPG? Ok then...too broad and tells us nothing though. I kinda suspect that you have no clear definition of what is and what isen't, but not my place to say so, you got to tell me then. If that is the problem, then that is why you are misinformed. If that is not the problem, then I am either wasting my breath because you won't tell me, or you don't care about this conversation.

Something tells me its the latter.

True, I don't care about this conversation. Your view on this doesn't interest me. But that sounds a bit impolite.
About spoonfeeding and railroading though. You're wrong. I have no problems making my own different personal imprint on the 'story', every time I play through DA:O. So whether you think they're the same or not, there's not enough branches and alternatives in DA2. It's almost an exaspering experience to bang your head against that damned dialogue wheel. Few consequences are deeper than the returned dialogue respons. Whatever you do, the game keeps dragging you towards the exact same events.

I would have believed that this is very evident to everyone who has played DA2. Why you fail to understand my point is what is not logical here. Which tells me that you might really have another agenda.
Then there is the quite considerable bit about that, in DA:O, your behavior is driven by need. Besides the fact that you do get a lot more freedom in how to tackle things, your direction comes naturally, because of need. But while you do know what you need to do, you don't know exactly how to accomplish it in details. And you do get a lot of freedom in those details. And there are a lot of added complications in those details. In DA2 you are driven by that there is nothing else to do.
But sure, DA:O is not anywhere near BG. In those games you were literally responsible for lives of your party members.
In DA:O you at least get to see to what they have for equipment. In DA2 even that is removed.

Unless you for some reason think you have to explain to me that these games have basically the same kind of mechanical foundation - what we can call 'story-driven' games - then your points about "same" are incomprehensible for me. But why would you believe you have to explain that to me?

[Chun Hei]

What I worry about is that because of the response to DA2 the designers may be even more reluctant to change the COMBAT of the Dragon Age series. In DA:O it was forgivable since the Darkspawn are a stereotypical mindless goblin horde of evil that comes at you till you kill them all. DA2 thankfully did not throw a typical mindless goblin horde of evil but...

The Templars, blood mages, Crows, slavers and mercenaries you did fight came at you like the stereotypical mindless goblin horde of evil. The differences in their abilities are barely recognized in combat and like the first game it was simply a matter of making sure your companions were healed enough to survive the fight that mattered.

My mage Hawke never had to worry about Templars disabling her/his magical abilities nor did the focus their attacks on Merrill the blood mage once she started doing her thing. The Crows and rogues occasionally teleport behind my characters but never seemed to use strategies that take advantage of stealth or ranged combat and force me to chance my tactics.

And mages? Just park next to them till their shield wore off and nail them.

No one retreats. No enemies return to fight you using knowledge of your previous battle to take advantage of their experience of your tactics.

The Darkspawn were [supposed to be] dangerous because they could overwhelm you with their numbers so they did not need to be geniuses although by the end of the game my Warden was so powerful she could wipe out the army in her sleep. I would expect "intelligent" enemies to use tactics other than overwhelming waves to do Hawke in but they do not. And since their waves were not overwhelming they came off looking worse.

[Morroian]

Chun Hei wrote...

The Darkspawn were [supposed to be] dangerous because they could overwhelm you with their numbers so they did not need to be geniuses although by the end of the game my Warden was so powerful she could wipe out the army in her sleep. I would expect "intelligent" enemies to use tactics other than overwhelming waves to do Hawke in but they do not. And since their waves were not overwhelming they came off looking worse.

The more intelligent enemies used more abilities in DAO than in DA2, I'd hope with the greater focus on encounter design as evidenced by the DLC that they would return to this.

[Crusader-Be]

Well, to be honest i pre ordered Dragon age 2 months before it came out, on release day i whas bloody exited, installed it straight away and after i started the game the dissapointmend fell in.
I found myself playing it for (lets say...) 4-6 hours and i whas like pffft and started to play other games and totaly ignoring DA2. Now (10 months) later i re installed the game to give it another go. that is even the reason why i am even back on these forums since i came here daily in DA:O times.
I hope the game shows me its treu colourfull character now that my expectations arent as high as they where(or should i just give it up?).
That said i will also say that i download games illigaly. I am 1 off the few that try a game and actualy buy it when they like it. I had a perfectly working dragon age origins copy downloadet but while running in the 1st dungeon at ostagar (the tower with alistair) i whas hooked to it and i had to show my respect and buy the game. Not only i bought the regular version, i bought the deluxe version (the cloth map still hangs at my pc )and all off the expansions (even the dull ones).
Dragon age 2 wasent worth my money (I pay'd release money. This is my opinion off course) and when dragon age 3 comes out (when it comes out) i will still buy it thinking on how good DA:O whas. When this is another dissapointment im afraid next game will b runned by a "test" period again.
Hope DA2 will satisfy me some more now.

[TEWR]

What I worry about is that because of the response to DA2 the designers may be even more reluctant to change the COMBAT of the Dragon Age series. In DA:O it was forgivable since the Darkspawn are a stereotypical mindless goblin horde of evil that comes at you till you kill them all. DA2 thankfully did not throw a typical mindless goblin horde of evil but...

The Templars, blood mages, Crows, slavers and mercenaries you did fight came at you like the stereotypical mindless goblin horde of evil. The differences in their abilities are barely recognized in combat and like the first game it was simply a matter of making sure your companions were healed enough to survive the fight that mattered.

My mage Hawke never had to worry about Templars disabling her/his magical abilities nor did the focus their attacks on Merrill the blood mage once she started doing her thing. The Crows and rogues occasionally teleport behind my characters but never seemed to use strategies that take advantage of stealth or ranged combat and force me to chance my tactics.

And mages? Just park next to them till their shield wore off and nail them.

Indeed. I expected with the revamp in combat animations and skills that the enemies would also use the new abilities and animations, but apparently Warden Carver is more of a Templar than the Templars themselves.

All they do is spin their sword in the air like that's supposed to mean something. But there's no Silence, no Holy Smite, and as far as I know no resistance to magic.

No one retreats. No enemies return to fight you using knowledge of your previous battle to take advantage of their experience of your tactics.

The Darkspawn were [supposed to be] dangerous because they could overwhelm you with their numbers so they did not need to be geniuses although by the end of the game my Warden was so powerful she could wipe out the army in her sleep. I would expect "intelligent" enemies to use tactics other than overwhelming waves to do Hawke in but they do not. And since their waves were not overwhelming they came off looking worse.

I always thought of those Darkspawn as the sort of noobie Darkspawn, in that they were the most recent "recruits" -- as it were -- ready for battle.

That said, I would've liked for the Horde of Denerim to have posed an actual threat. Even the Ogres were nothing special.

Morroian wrote...

The more intelligent enemies used more abilities in DAO than in DA2, I'd hope with the greater focus on encounter design as evidenced by the DLC that they would return to this.

I too hope for this, as enemies literally got dumber in DAII. In DAO they would at least switch from Bow/Crossbow to their S&S/2H weapons.

And Sebastian at least uses a combat knife and hand-to-hand combat if someone comes up to him.

In DAII the archer enemies don't do either of those things. They take like 10 seconds just to launch one attack, and most of the time you can interrupt those attacks so that they don't do any damage to you at all.

Not to mention the clear lack of abilities that we use. At least in DAO they used some of the same abilities we used, though imo not nearly enough.

Which is why I think it's so important that the enemies do in fact use the new animations/abilities. It would be somewhat harder methinks for the player to interrupt their attacks were that the case.

not to mention a level of consistency is needed. For our 2H warriors to attack as they do but for the others to use the Origins animations with a 3% increase in speed is absurd.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 14 janvier 2012 - 11:32 .

[Abispa]

@ Chun Hei -- I would point out that the one battle that DID see a realistic use of tactics was the final assault in DA:O with the traps and strategic placement of archers and trolls. Unfortunately the Warden was a juggernaut of death and destruction at that point that all it really accomplished was dragging out the end of the game another 15 to 20 minutes. The Archdemon battle was a waste, though. At least that DA:O final battle came off better than Meredith and her Tevinter Golems.

[Estherra Drack]

bEVEsthda wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

If I may ask, what are some specific elements within DAII that made you dislike/hate it? I think it's easy for a person that hated the game to say they hated it, but it doesn't really help other people understand why they hated it.

I hate DAII myself and I try to explain certain elements that made me hate it -- in threads where it's pertinent -- so people understand where I'm coming from and don't assume I "wanted Origins 2.0".

For you, was it the atmosphere of the game? Or was it something else? Because what you said is pretty vague.

Just curious, 'tis all.

Also, I wouldn't say DAII destroyed Dragon Age. Severely damaged it would be a more accurate description imo.

Well, if it had gone to EA's intentions, this juvenile jprg-format drivel would have replaced "The spiritual successor to BG": That counts as destroying the franchise for me.

I don't hate the game for what it is. I don't like the game for what it is. But I don't hate it for that. I hate it for replacing the original/real DA franchise. That is why I hate it.

I dislike it mainly for its silly art direction (so yes, atmosphere amongst other things, the game doesn't take itself seriously) and the fact that it's just a told story, with very little  responsibility for the player. Just a movie with breaks for meaningless and senseless combat, void of strategic connection with anything else. Nintendo gameplay. Clear the levels, pick up the glowing rewards, wittle down the 'Boss'. And on the side we're told a story that is really nothing special at all.
Just look at the developers obsession with 'iconic looks', the silly name "Hawke" itself, the focus on cinematics, retarded ninja combat,.. We're supposed to think that's cool. Now me, I'm allergic to overdone stuff like that. Once I get the drift I start to really raise hackles. This game was not designed by game designers. It was designed by a shallow, clueless marketing group. And their focus group were their own 14y old nephews and their retarded friends. "- Oh Yes mister, this is an awesome game you have. It rocks. Awesome!"
 -Bah!
 And yes, I react too strongly. But that is due to the cummulative effect. Dislike feeds more dislike. If the sum of the whole was on the right side of the treshold, I probably wouldn't mind a number of details that now annoy me. But such are the way of things...
 

The bold I agree with 100%.  

The only thing I disagree with is the Nintendo game play; I mean games are called Nintendo Hard for a reason…

Modifié par Estherra Drack, 15 janvier 2012 - 02:20 .

[Realmzmaster]

I could easily say I hate DAO not because of what it is. I could say I do not like it for what it is. I hate it because it replaced the real/original BG franchise. DAO did not live up to the claim of spiritual successor to BG. I could say that DAO is a pale imitation of BG missing many elements of BG that made BG great. But I have listed most of those issues on threads on this forum.

I like DAO for what it is. I like DA2 for what it is. Both for me are simply entertainment that I have fun with. There are older cRPGs that I consider heads and shoulders above all the new cRPGs that have come out including the Witcher 2 and Skyrim. But that is my humble opinion YMMV.

[LinksOcarina]

bEVEsthda wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...
<snip>
So an RPG is a game that you would get an experience out of an RPG? Ok then...too broad and tells us nothing though. I kinda suspect that you have no clear definition of what is and what isen't, but not my place to say so, you got to tell me then. If that is the problem, then that is why you are misinformed. If that is not the problem, then I am either wasting my breath because you won't tell me, or you don't care about this conversation.

Something tells me its the latter.

True, I don't care about this conversation. Your view on this doesn't interest me. But that sounds a bit impolite.
About spoonfeeding and railroading though. You're wrong. I have no problems making my own different personal imprint on the 'story', every time I play through DA:O. So whether you think they're the same or not, there's not enough branches and alternatives in DA2. It's almost an exaspering experience to bang your head against that damned dialogue wheel. Few consequences are deeper than the returned dialogue respons. Whatever you do, the game keeps dragging you towards the exact same events.

I would have believed that this is very evident to everyone who has played DA2. Why you fail to understand my point is what is not logical here. Which tells me that you might really have another agenda.
Then there is the quite considerable bit about that, in DA:O, your behavior is driven by need. Besides the fact that you do get a lot more freedom in how to tackle things, your direction comes naturally, because of need. But while you do know what you need to do, you don't know exactly how to accomplish it in details. And you do get a lot of freedom in those details. And there are a lot of added complications in those details. In DA2 you are driven by that there is nothing else to do.
But sure, DA:O is not anywhere near BG. In those games you were literally responsible for lives of your party members.
In DA:O you at least get to see to what they have for equipment. In DA2 even that is removed.

Unless you for some reason think you have to explain to me that these games have basically the same kind of mechanical foundation - what we can call 'story-driven' games - then your points about "same" are incomprehensible for me. But why would you believe you have to explain that to me?

I apologize I was out most of yesterday so I couldn't respond.

Simple really, the only reason I probed is because its the teacher in me. My only agenda, as it were, was to find out why you felt that way, and if it was right or wrong, show/tell you why it was. Blanket statements like that annoy me, basically, as do liking/hating things for the wrong reasons. 

See, I understand your point. The problem is its not a good one or, for the most part, accurate. But you said you didn't want to talk about so i'm not even going to mention it. Fact of the matter is you did explain more reasoning behind your logic and that suficient enough I guess.

[TheRealJayDee]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I could easily say I hate DAO not because of what it is. I could say I do not like it for what it is. I hate it because it replaced the real/original BG franchise. DAO did not live up to the claim of spiritual successor to BG. I could say that DAO is a pale imitation of BG missing many elements of BG that made BG great. But I have listed most of those issues on threads on this forum. 

Only DA:O wasn't labeled BG3. Dragon Age 2 is marketed as a direct sequel. And it's a game that feels so different from it's predecessor that I can totally understand the replacement  argument.

[Morroian]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Only DA:O wasn't labeled BG3. Dragon Age 2 is marketed as a direct sequel. And it's a game that feels so different from it's predecessor that I can totally understand the replacement  argument.

I don't think it feels that different but be that as it may the differences were quite clearly marketed before the game was released.

[bEVEsthda]

LinksOcarina wrote...
See, I understand your point. The problem is its not a good one or, for the most part, accurate.

- Utter Bull****! 

[Tommyspa]

bEVEsthda wrote...

- Utter Bull****! 

Would you mind sparing the rest of us on a public forum these kinds of posts? I'll get a mod involved next time.

[TheRealJayDee]

Marvin_Arnold wrote...

Well, let's be honest: If you compared Skyrim and DA:Origins, you would already call Origins (or any Bioware game I recall, for that matter) an "interactive movie with few streamlined choices." Well, I'm exaggerating. But DA:O was, of course, miles away from a D&D tabletop game.

And while I love to run around the gorgeous landscapes and environments of Skyrim, and gawk at the details, I miss the character-driven tight story of DA:O.

DA:O, for some reason hit the exact spot for me. It combined a "cinematic experience" (strong and involving story, good voice acting, beautiful design) with enough character customization and combat choices to be a challenge for a NWN veteran. The visual style and mechanics were fitting for a game rooted in the WRPG tradition.

And I think that balance was the secret of its success. And the reason people pre-ordered DA2.

DA2, on the other hand, seemed to come from a different franchise altogether. Why the devs had to throw out the perfect balance between storytelling and RPG challenge that had made DA:O successful and reinvent the wheel is beyond my comprehension.

When you have established a successful in-game universe and acclaimed game design and mechanics, you just don't try to take everything into another (NOT: new!) direction. Nothing in DA2 is "unique". It tries to please everybody (at least everybody under 20) by amalgamating old and worn-out elements from different and incompatible sources.

Furthermore, while DA:O was a computer game that ALSO ran on consoles, now we get a console game that KIND OF runs on the PC as well. I'm an elitist. I want the PC version to be better than the console version, dangit!

Short version: If it ain't broken, don't fix it!

I don't hate the game. I feel sorry for it. A few weeks ago, while I was wandering through the streets of Kirkwall, I kept thinking what could have been if DA2 had got the same production values and love as DA:O. I found the idea of an individual's rise to power told over ten years daring and very tempting.

I even warmed to the idea of a "city adventure". But if you do that, you have to actually present a living city (which is claimed to be "full to the brim" with fugitives), not a handful of buildings with a few zombies standing around. (Anybody remember a NWN community campaign called "Almraiven"? That's how you create an atmospheric city with a far simpler engine...)

I feel more sad than hateful towards the game. The idea was grand, but sadly because of rushed development and incompetent design decisions, it will remain a forgotten footnote of the DA franchise, including its unlucky protagonist. (If the DA franchise ever picks itself up again, that is...)

Our children will ask: "Daddy.app, tell us about Hawke!"

I like this post.

[bEVEsthda]

LinksOcarina wrote...
. My only agenda, as it were, was to find out why you felt that way,

So why do you feel I have not explained that thoroughly enough? What is it you don't understand?

and if it was right or wrong,

And how would you be able to decide that? 

show/tell you why it was.

And why would you be able to do that?

Blanket statements like that annoy me, basically,

What blanket statement?

 
as do liking/hating things for the wrong reasons.

So basically, I was right from the start. You think you can change thing by arguing?

See, I understand your point. The problem is its not a good one or, for the most part, accurate. But you said you didn't want to talk about so i'm not even going to mention it. Fact of the matter is you did explain more reasoning behind your logic and that suficient enough I guess.

Sufficient for what?
You guess? Guess what?
I explained everything clearly enough from the start. Only thing I did was explaining the case about linearity one more time, and adding that these things are such which anyone can see and experience clearly for himself. And they have. And have complained about it as well. I'm hardly a lone voice crying in the desert. Even the developers have admitted that DA2 has this problem, and it is one of those few they have promised to try to do better on. So I would think the case about lack of player agenda is very obvious and clear indeed.
But this is also on the side of both of my two main reasons why I dislike DA2.

I think you also misunderstand another thing. I'm not interested in you. As in not interested in discussing with you. You could say I've seen enough of your posts.

And look where it has got me this time. Already another forumite is threatening me with moderators.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 16 janvier 2012 - 12:01 .

[Yrkoon]

Tommyspa wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

- Utter Bull****! 

Would you mind sparing the rest of us on a public forum these kinds of posts? I'll get a mod involved next time.

lol

 "u said a bad word!   I'm telling.     MMMMOOOMMM!"

Modifié par Yrkoon, 16 janvier 2012 - 12:09 .

[LinksOcarina]

ahem...

bEVEsthda wrote...

Maybe I can throw some light on this for all you confused ones :

I disliked DA2 for what it was. There is much in and about DA2 that I just simply despise. Was it all bad? No. I found individual elements of Bioware's usual quality. Dialogue is occasionally really good. I don't care what anyone else thinks or says, some of that is really well written. But that is not even a beginning of being enough, since I don't play RPG to listen to dialogue. Da2 is kinda useless. I dislike DA2. And I would dislike DA2 for whatever, except if it had been some kind of lightweight bonus to DA franchise. Then I could possibly have liked DA2 enough, just because it was DA. And not to be taken seriosly.

However, DA2 destroyed Dragon Age. For that I hate DA2. That's a valid reason for hate. To say that this means I "expected something else" is a pretty far going distortion.

Followed by:

bEVEsthda wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...
Explain how it destroyed Dragon Age, exactly. So far,i'm not convinced that is a valid reason (or a reason at all, for that matter) to hate the game. 

So you think DA:O and DA2 is much the same game then? 

I liked DA:O. I was looking forward to see the franchise continue. And by the way, I have waited for DA for about a decade, ever since Bioware announced this project on the old Bioware forum.

And instead we then get this new childish nonsense, the "new direction" in something that just is a spoonfed story, not a real RPG, japan-style, to add injury.

And then finally, this.

bEVEsthda wrote...

Lol, you can't change things by arguing. (though this is an approach I've seen a lot of in this forum from DA2 advocates)

Though I pretty much expected your response, thus my introductionary line.

DA2 tells a story without involving the player, not giving the player any responsibility. We're just a passenger. And then we do the combat. That's all. Unless you belong to that group which is sooo delighted by being surprised with the dialogue lines. 

Now that's telling a story japan-style. Spoonfed. And no, DA:O, BG etc are much different. Constructing contrieved arguments inuendo over details and perceptions don't change that.

You may not see that, but that then is perhaps because you come to RPGs from a different background and look for a different experience? Your definitions of "real RPG" is utterly irrelevant to me. As is the fact that you think it's "subjective". I mean - what on earth was your point with that? Where did you want to go with that?
Don't you see how useless such arguments are? WTF do I care about what you think "is very misinformed"? For me a RPG is a game that gives me the experience I want from a RPG. DA2 don't do that much. FF none at all.

Took you three posts to get a good explaination from you, and even then, its a terrible explaination in the end because of the presumptions of a lot of things. 

One more thing, look up Richard Bartle and the Bartle Test. While I don't fully adhere to his belief of what RPG players want, its a good basis for what I was refering to what a "real RPG" is. And since you said your not interested in what I have to say anymore, (which is a shame since I sometimes make good points, if I can boast for a minute) his study will do it for me.

Oh, and guys, don't report him for swearing. Thats ****ing uncalled for. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 16 janvier 2012 - 12:27 .

[Yrkoon]

LinksOcarina wrote...

One more thing, look up Richard Bartle and the Bartle Test. While I don't fully adhere to his belief of what RPG players want, its a good basis for what I was refering to what a "real RPG" is. And since you said your not interested in what I have to say anymore, (which is a shame since I sometimes make good points, if I can boast for a minute) his study will do it for me.

The Bartle Test concerns itself with the different   MMO player personalities and their  preferences when playing an MMO.    It  adds nothing   to a discussion  about single player RPGs and what defines one.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 16 janvier 2012 - 12:40 .

[LinksOcarina]

Yrkoon wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

One more thing, look up Richard Bartle and the Bartle Test. While I don't fully adhere to his belief of what RPG players want, its a good basis for what I was refering to what a "real RPG" is. And since you said your not interested in what I have to say anymore, (which is a shame since I sometimes make good points, if I can boast for a minute) his study will do it for me.

The Bartle Test conserns itself with the different   MMO player personalities and their likes and dislikes when playing an MMO.  An extremely weak  (verging on a red herring) argument  to even cite it in a discussion about single player RPGs

Thats not entirely accurate. Yes it deals with MMORPGs mostly, it was designed primarily for that when it first came out. But it is also applied to table top games and singe player RPGs as well since then, and other genres in video gaming. 

For those who don't know, the Bartle test came out of a theory posed by Richard Bartle in1996, and was reshaped in 2000 to go over MMORPGs. Its basically a survey and it would determine what you, as a player, look for in an RPG experience, psychologically profiling you into a category on your preferences in-game, be it storyline, immersion, exploration, or PKing, to name a few examples. Since it is commonly applied to MMOs its often cited for that only, but in the past five years its been used for both single player RPGs, FPS titles, Adventure titles, and other genres in video gaming, both single and multi-player. 

So it works both ways. Now the validity of it is personal preference, and as I said I don't agree with all of the points made, but it is a good starting interpretation that is as close as one can get at the heart of what true role-playing is, along with the perceptions of the player character.