294 réponses à ce sujet

[Yrkoon]

LinksOcarina wrote...

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,

Nope.     It's a survey that determines what you, as a player, look for in an MMO experience. 

 That  some of its player profiles  just happen to feature game play preferences that also exist in some RPGs doesn't  help  (or hurt, or affect at all) your argument against bEVEthesda's points.


For example,   According to  the Bartle's test findings,   A sizable number of MMO players like exploration, and getting achievement points/trophies.  That's great.  Can we  conclude from this  that  RPG fans also  like exploration and getting achievement points/trophies?    I suppose.   But it wouldn't be a statistically accurate conclusion, it would simply be a guess.   Because the people  taking  it were  specifically  asked about their MMO preferences.  Many many gamers prefer vastly different things in their MMOs than they do in their RPGs.

Me, for instance.  the Bartle Test would label me as a Socialite.   In the rare occasions when I play MMO's, I do it for the interaction; to chit-chat with other people while I'm playing.  But that's  cetrainly  NOT what I like in an  RPG.  When it comes to RPGs, I'm a true Spade.  Exploration and discovering  secrets/digging into  the lore is what makes an RPG fun for me. 

Modifié par Yrkoon, 16 janvier 2012 - 01:19 .

[bEVEsthda]

[quote]LinksOcarina wrote...

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. [/quote]

Sooo? .. so what? What's your point? It takes three post for you to get an explanation that you think is good enough? ..And then you think it's terrible, because of one of the usual invented reasons you as usual just pick right out of the air. "presumptions of a lot of things" eh?

To me the initial statement was all I had to say in this context. (I've said and explained my position on various things DA2 in many posts previously). And this time it concerned specifically this assumption that people thought some people hated DA2 because it wasn't DA:O. That is not quite accurate! It has to do with DA:O, but the connection is more complex. This is what I responded to and explained. That single post does that good enough for anybody but severely thick idiots.
Context! LinksOcarina, Always consider the context.

[quote]
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.[/quote]
This shouldn't really need to be explained,.. At least I would have thought so. But you know, to me, any attempt to define RPG, in a way that includes games considered by sizeable groups to be RPGs, is utterly irrelevant. The only thing that would ever make any definition of RPG relevant, is if you could trust it deliver a certain kind of game that offers the possibility of having a certain experience, which perhaps happens to be the only reason for personal interested in these games. Then it would actually work as a label. Sadly this can't be trusted. Though fairly recently wrpg and jrpg were roughly reliable guides. So the reason why I should look up the Bartle test utterly evades me. I'm only interested in the Bevesthda test. I mean , even if this test happens to be 'compatible' to me, it's still not used. It's not like games are marked: "passed the Bartle test". So whatever, why should I be interested?[/quote]

[quote]Oh, and guys, don't report him for swearing. Thats uncalled for. 
[/quote]

Oh that's alright. I've been banned for nothing before. What it takes is someone reporting, says mr Epler. Also according to him, only DA2 fans report. Never DA2 critics. At least that is his explanation for why DA2 fans can incessantly attack people who don't like DA2 without any action taken. I know, it sounds funny. Especially since I know at least one case where he has banned himself, on his own spot, so to say. I don't really care since it's their forum. Anyway, I've put the system to the test now.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 16 janvier 2012 - 01:07 .

[LinksOcarina]

 Yrkoon

I know, that is why I take issue with the categorization of the process of questioning the test often has. Like I said though the theory is being used outside of the MMO market now and has specialized versions for different genres of games.Basically the theory behind the test is sound, which is why it has been applied to other genres. They just change the aim of the survey and, like any normal psychology study, ask questions to their focus group. 

That one example you give is case en point of the strengths and problems. It discusses one aspect we like in RPGs, but it is too vague because of not only the questions asked, but also the stigma of the test as a whole. 

I'm actually writing an article about the whole test, and why its both valuable and needs to be tweaked when discussing RPGs as a whole, not just MMORPGs and MUDs. The past few years it has evolved, and met a lot of valid criticism. But is it still something that is applicable. 

So you are right Yrkoon, the Bartle Test when talking about MMOs and so forth is not good here. but the theory applies because others have basically used to fit several genres since then. 

bEVEthesda: I did consider context. It wasnt in the first post though, from what I saw. If it was I missed it, so sorry to overshoot that one.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 16 janvier 2012 - 01:10 .

[bEVEsthda]

LinksOcarina wrote...

bEVEthesda: I did consider context. It wasnt in the first post though, from what I saw. If it was I missed it, so sorry to overshoot that one.

bEVEsthda wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Good reads - but something I dislike is how people who do like the game, just claim people who don't like it were 'expecting' something else.

That to me is just a cheap dismissal.

In general, I don't say that, but there are a number of posters who hated DA II months before it came out because it had changed elements from DA:O. Yes, I think expectation was the problem. People have even said that if they'd named it something other than Dragon Age, they probably wouldn't have been so disappointed.

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.

[LinksOcarina]

bEVEsthda wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

bEVEthesda: I did consider context. It wasnt in the first post though, from what I saw. If it was I missed it, so sorry to overshoot that one.

bEVEsthda wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Good reads - but something I dislike is how people who do like the game, just claim people who don't like it were 'expecting' something else.

That to me is just a cheap dismissal.

In general, I don't say that, but there are a number of posters who hated DA II months before it came out because it had changed elements from DA:O. Yes, I think expectation was the problem. People have even said that if they'd named it something other than Dragon Age, they probably wouldn't have been so disappointed.

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.

The context is...you dislike it because you don't play RPGs to listen to dialogue? Or that its useless? 

I'm sorry, I just don't see much context here, I just see complaints with little weight to them. 

[Morroian]

bEVEsthda wrote...

DA2 tells a story without involving the player, not giving the player any responsibility. We're just a passenger.

I would have thought that was more an adventure game type style than jrpg. 

[taine]

Morroian wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

DA2 tells a story without involving the player, not giving the player any responsibility. We're just a passenger.

I would have thought that was more an adventure game type style than jrpg. 

Dragon Age II was nothing at all like a classic adventure game. Those required actual thinking.

[bEVEsthda]

LinksOcarina wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

bEVEthesda: I did consider context. It wasnt in the first post though, from what I saw. If it was I missed it, so sorry to overshoot that one.

bEVEsthda wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Good reads - but something I dislike is how people who do like the game, just claim people who don't like it were 'expecting' something else.

That to me is just a cheap dismissal.

In general, I don't say that, but there are a number of posters who hated DA II months before it came out because it had changed elements from DA:O. Yes, I think expectation was the problem. People have even said that if they'd named it something other than Dragon Age, they probably wouldn't have been so disappointed.

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.

The context is...you dislike it because you don't play RPGs to listen to dialogue? Or that its useless? 

I'm sorry, I just don't see much context here, I just see complaints with little weight to them. 

....

I'm speechless...  And I frankly don't care about entertaining you anymore. I'm done.

[Morroian]

taine wrote...

Morroian wrote...

I would have thought that was more an adventure game type style than jrpg. 

Dragon Age II was nothing at all like a classic adventure game. Those required actual thinking.

Yeah for puzzles, the story is still railroaded and its a valid form of game that a lot lament the decline of.

[billy the squid]

bEVEsthda wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

bEVEthesda: I did consider context. It wasnt in the first post though, from what I saw. If it was I missed it, so sorry to overshoot that one.

bEVEsthda wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Good reads - but something I dislike is how people who do like the game, just claim people who don't like it were 'expecting' something else.

That to me is just a cheap dismissal.

In general, I don't say that, but there are a number of posters who hated DA II months before it came out because it had changed elements from DA:O. Yes, I think expectation was the problem. People have even said that if they'd named it something other than Dragon Age, they probably wouldn't have been so disappointed.

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.

The context is...you dislike it because you don't play RPGs to listen to dialogue? Or that its useless? 

I'm sorry, I just don't see much context here, I just see complaints with little weight to them. 

....

I'm speechless...  And I frankly don't care about entertaining you anymore. I'm done.

But I'm not.

@Link
How did you get that not listening to dialoge is the context?

The context is that DA2 is a pale shadow of its predecessor, but regardless of its position as a sequal, dialogue alone is not enough to save the game when it is lacking in so many other areas.

For other information I would recommend searching for any of the numerous threads which list the problems in excruciating detail in some cases, as some of us see no need to repeat complaints ad nausium.

Modifié par billy the squid, 16 janvier 2012 - 02:25 .

[LinksOcarina]

@Billy.

If that is the context then, its poorly implemented into the argument.

And it still doesn't excuse or explain how it destroyed Dragon Age, which was the original point I was making.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 16 janvier 2012 - 02:31 .

[billy the squid]

As I said look up any number of the threads which list the multiplicity of issues that were present in DA2, that should be sufficient illustration of why some believe DA2 destroyed the IP.

[Il Divo]

LinksOcarina wrote...

@Billy.

If that is the context then, its poorly implemented into the argument.

And it still doesn't excuse or explain how it destroyed Dragon Age, which was the original point I was making.

If you alter enough elements that some consider critical to an IP's identity, to the point where some might not even be able to recognize it, I'd say that's sufficient grounds to call for an IP's destruction. DA2 added: a voiced protagonist, reimagined the art style, and added a greater emphasis on the game's action elements. It's possible you might prefer the alterations, but it still demonstrates a substantial shift in a game's presentation. DA2 doesn't so much add to the Dragon Age franchise as reimagines it.

[Kidd]

I approve these articles linked herein.

[AlexXIV]

Il Divo wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

@Billy.

If that is the context then, its poorly implemented into the argument.

And it still doesn't excuse or explain how it destroyed Dragon Age, which was the original point I was making.

If you alter enough elements that some consider critical to an IP's identity, to the point where some might not even be able to recognize it, I'd say that's sufficient grounds to call for an IP's destruction. DA2 added: a voiced protagonist, reimagined the art style, and added a greater emphasis on the game's action elements. It's possible you might prefer the alterations, but it still demonstrates a substantial shift in a game's presentation. DA2 doesn't so much add to the Dragon Age franchise as reimagines it.

Well it depends what you mean by destroying it. Change is not necessarily bad. Most franchises change over time. Some people say the prequels destroyed Star Wars but did they really? Only for some. DA2 certainly didn't destroy DA:O because you can just ignore it. But ... it will remain to be seen DA2's impact on DA3. Even if Bioware do their best to make DA3 great it may still be considered a flop if not enough preorder/buy early. We'll see it though.

[staindgrey]

AlexXIV wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

@Billy.

If that is the context then, its poorly implemented into the argument.

And it still doesn't excuse or explain how it destroyed Dragon Age, which was the original point I was making.

If you alter enough elements that some consider critical to an IP's identity, to the point where some might not even be able to recognize it, I'd say that's sufficient grounds to call for an IP's destruction. DA2 added: a voiced protagonist, reimagined the art style, and added a greater emphasis on the game's action elements. It's possible you might prefer the alterations, but it still demonstrates a substantial shift in a game's presentation. DA2 doesn't so much add to the Dragon Age franchise as reimagines it.

Well it depends what you mean by destroying it. Change is not necessarily bad. Most franchises change over time. Some people say the prequels destroyed Star Wars but did they really? Only for some. DA2 certainly didn't destroy DA:O because you can just ignore it. But ... it will remain to be seen DA2's impact on DA3. Even if Bioware do their best to make DA3 great it may still be considered a flop if not enough preorder/buy early. We'll see it though.

The negative fan reactions to DAII doesn't really ensure that DAIII will be a flop, or even that it will be hindered by DAII's performance. As finnicky as we gamers act, we have really short memories, it seems.

- Bioshock Infinite is being heavily advertised and almost unanimously hyped despite Bioshock 2 being universally regarded as a let down (it's been cheaper than its predecessor at most retailers for over a year).

- Gears of War 3 got over 3 million preorders and had the most sales of the year before MW3 and Skyrim came out, despite Gears of War 2 having a disasterous launch plagued with issues of lag, glitches, and an overall unclean game.

- Kane & Lynch was a disaster. Yet plenty of people bought its sequel. Not even sure why the sequel was made, but it sold.

- Sonic games. I'm not sure if I need to elaborate on this. For nearly a decade Sonic games were bad, and each one's release came hand in hand with people vowing they were "done with Sonic". Then the next bad game would sell just as well as the last bad game. Part of this is due to kids, but adults still have product loyalty as well, and it shows on internet forums.

Regardless, EA is the king of marketing in the gaming industry, behind only perhaps Microsoft. They have lots of money to invest to make sure their AAA titles sell, and you can bet your ass they'll do the same for the inevitable DAIII.

[HiroVoid]

It's been about a year since DAII's release and people are still ragging on it. Another 5-6 months, and DAIII would've had the same development time as DAII had.

In a way, Bioshock Infinite was almost in a similar situation I think.  Bioshock II was an obvious cash-in on a successful franchise, but people are looking forward to Bioshock Infinite because it has obvious hard work and effort put into it.

Modifié par HiroVoid, 16 janvier 2012 - 09:40 .

[philippe willaume]

LinksOcarina wrote...

@Billy.

If that is the context then, its poorly implemented into the argument.

And it still doesn't excuse or explain how it destroyed Dragon Age, which was the original point I was making.

DA:2 conceptually improves on lots of DA:O weakness but basically fails to deliver to the level of DA:0
in some respect if fails to deliver to ME2 level as well. It is not that I viscerally hates DA:2.

You were asking for example: the companions are a perfect one. The back ground stories are much more developed in DA:2 than in DA:0.but if you peeed in the Andrate Urn Leliana was going to get her knickers in a twist.
Now i magine that you romanced Anders, that is a big ask I know, after 3 year expanding mojo, not one night you had a “what the hell did you do outside at that time of the night moment.”
Is hawk that crap in bed that even with 100% friendship  you can not get a “listen mate I have something to tell you” from the cat lover.
 
 
Not to mention that as the flipping champion, we have a tendency to get involved into other people business.  Mage and templar have been at each other throat more savagely than ever before during those 3 years.
What did do hawk.
Hawk: “Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaassssssssssssssssssssssssssuuuuuuuuuuupppppppp”
No seriously hawk hat did you do
Hawkl: 2well watching the game having a bud”
What Hawk but ,,but don’t you care about Kirkwall or  you friends
Hawk : “hey hey haaaahaa Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaassssssssssssssssssssssssssuuuuuuuuuuupppppppp”
 
It is not a matter of wanting to change the events, like you could in DA:0, but at least give me the impression that I cared and I did not spend my time in moronic indolence.
 
The same goes with siding with either the mage or the templar does not really matter. In fact I am almost surprised that Aveline did not turn up as a axe murdered, that Varris did not elope with fenris and left to be happy ever after, whilst Isabella announced that she joined the chantry and Meriel become a prostitute at the rose selling lyrium.
After all every other cast member is losing the plot and act without reason or motivation.
 
Seriously, even in DA:0 thinks did not turn up the way you expected, and that is fine as such but at least you had a good shot at trying.

[Il Divo]

AlexXIV wrote...

Well it depends what you mean by destroying it. Change is not necessarily bad. Most franchises change over time. Some people say the prequels destroyed Star Wars but did they really? Only for some. DA2 certainly didn't destroy DA:O because you can just ignore it. But ... it will remain to be seen DA2's impact on DA3. Even if Bioware do their best to make DA3 great it may still be considered a flop if not enough preorder/buy early. We'll see it though.

You're right. Destroyed is a bit of a strong word. But what I'm getting at is that, with any game, rarely is there a single 100% clear reason why people enjoy it. As a result, the more things you change, the more you risk alienating your previous audience. Let's take DA:O. People loved it for the companion characters, the setting, the main storyline, the customization, the silent protagonist, the Origin stories, etc. Some loved it for all these reasons, while some preferred certain aspects more than others. But with DA2, the art style was significantly altered, the silent protagonist was abandoned in favor of voice-acting, Origin stories were also removed, emphasis on speaking with companions was lessened, and armor cusomization was heavily reduced.

 If you enjoyed any (or all) of those elements of DA:O, there's a good chance that DA2 will not mesh with you as well. And that, I think, was Bioware's great mistake. If they wanted to produce a sequel to DA:O, even a good sequel, it would have been more easily accomplished if they didn't attempt to change the style. They could have easily taken the Awakening approach, added a few new abilities, completely original story, and called it DA:O2. I'm not saying that DA2 is necessarily terrible, but significant changes in a variety of areas risk alienating a substantial number of fans more than sticking to the familiar.

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 janvier 2012 - 02:52 .

[LobselVith8]

Morroian wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
 
Doesn't that happen to Bethany because of the scene where Hawke stands idly by while his sister is taken into a Circle of Magi where he knows mages are being made tranquil against Chantry law? Where Hawke does nothing to try to stop them despite knowing what happened to Karl, and that the same fate could happen to Bethany? I'm not certain that's much of an argument in Hawke's favor since he does nothing when two templars take her away to a place where she might be made tranquil against the law.

In which Hawke does nothing to help either side for three years until the Champion stumbles upon Orsino giving a speech.

Thats your own personal reaction why can't you acknowledge that others may have a different reaction?

I'm not denying that others may have a different reaction to Hawke's passive nature over the course of a seven year narrative, but I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned at all.

[Am1vf]

Il Divo wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Well it depends what you mean by destroying it. Change is not necessarily bad. Most franchises change over time. Some people say the prequels destroyed Star Wars but did they really? Only for some. DA2 certainly didn't destroy DA:O because you can just ignore it. But ... it will remain to be seen DA2's impact on DA3. Even if Bioware do their best to make DA3 great it may still be considered a flop if not enough preorder/buy early. We'll see it though.

You're right. Destroyed is a bit of a strong word. But what I'm getting at is that, with any game, rarely is there a single 100% clear reason why people enjoy it. As a result, the more things you change, the more you risk alienating your previous audience. Let's take DA:O. People loved it for the companion characters, the setting, the main storyline, the customization, the silent protagonist, the Origin stories, etc. Some loved it for all these reasons, while some preferred certain aspects more than others. But with DA2, the art style was significantly altered, the silent protagonist was abandoned in favor of voice-acting, Origin stories were also removed, emphasis on speaking with companions was lessened, and armor cusomization was heavily reduced.

 If you enjoyed any (or all) of those elements of DA:O, there's a good chance that DA2 will not mesh with you as well. And that, I think, was Bioware's great mistake. If they wanted to produce a sequel to DA:O, even a good sequel, it would have been more easily accomplished if they didn't attempt to change the style. They could have easily taken the Awakening approach, added a few new abilities, completely original story, and called it DA:O2. I'm not saying that DA2 is necessarily terrible, but significant changes in a variety of areas risk alienating a substantial number of fans more than sticking to the familiar.

So you are saying that game franchises should never change and never take any risk. Just add a couple of skills and add another story and charge 50$ for it.

Sorry but I couldn't disagree more, that only leads to stagnation and another franchise that just clones a once original concept until it is boring. DA2 may not have worked out well but at least the devs have my respect for trying something diferent despite the risks.

[LinksOcarina]

Il Divo wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Well it depends what you mean by destroying it. Change is not necessarily bad. Most franchises change over time. Some people say the prequels destroyed Star Wars but did they really? Only for some. DA2 certainly didn't destroy DA:O because you can just ignore it. But ... it will remain to be seen DA2's impact on DA3. Even if Bioware do their best to make DA3 great it may still be considered a flop if not enough preorder/buy early. We'll see it though.

You're right. Destroyed is a bit of a strong word. But what I'm getting at is that, with any game, rarely is there a single 100% clear reason why people enjoy it. As a result, the more things you change, the more you risk alienating your previous audience. Let's take DA:O. People loved it for the companion characters, the setting, the main storyline, the customization, the silent protagonist, the Origin stories, etc. Some loved it for all these reasons, while some preferred certain aspects more than others. But with DA2, the art style was significantly altered, the silent protagonist was abandoned in favor of voice-acting, Origin stories were also removed, emphasis on speaking with companions was lessened, and armor cusomization was heavily reduced.

 If you enjoyed any (or all) of those elements of DA:O, there's a good chance that DA2 will not mesh with you as well. And that, I think, was Bioware's great mistake. If they wanted to produce a sequel to DA:O, even a good sequel, it would have been more easily accomplished if they didn't attempt to change the style. They could have easily taken the Awakening approach, added a few new abilities, completely original story, and called it DA:O2. I'm not saying that DA2 is necessarily terrible, but significant changes in a variety of areas risk alienating a substantial number of fans more than sticking to the familiar.

See, the strange thing is I like both games fairly equally, because both have major pros and cons to them. What was good in Origins I won't take away, I liked the idea of the origin story, I liked the companions and the storyline, I loved Ferelden a lot.

But Dragon Age II has great strengths as well. The art style is more distinct, which I felt was a breath of fresh air personally compared to the muddled look of Origins. I like the fact that the protagonist is voiced, that is something Bioware has been going for since Mass Effect, and I bet it will be something we see a lot of in the future, as games like Alpha Protocol and Deus EX showcase. Plus I felt the voiced protagonist gave the singular character more of a personality; the distinction between Origins and II is that simply, even though both games follow the same mechanics story-wise. 

I also feel I got to know my companions more in Dragon Age II because they had events specifically made for them; not just one questline but a series of questlines where we peel back layers to their personalities. Plus it was a more natural flow of conversations versus asking them everything at once and later getting no response. It offered complexity and strong narrative pacing that kept me interested in their struggles, and the struggles of Kirkwall. That is me though.

I won't deny some people don't like the changes. Thats fine and it opens up discussion on things for us. What I hate is that people get too dramatic over them to the point of boldly declaring things that sound, for the lack of a better word, stupid, such as how it ruins the franchise, or that EA is the cause of all the evil in the world. That is what I am vehemently against basically, because it makes no sense to me to make a claim like that without any basis of logic or information to prove it, because claims such as that are quntative more to fact than opinion. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 17 janvier 2012 - 04:12 .

[Il Divo]

Am1_vf wrote...

So you are saying that game franchises should never change and never take any risk. Just add a couple of skills and add another story and charge 50$ for it.

Sorry but I couldn't disagree more, that only leads to stagnation and another franchise that just clones a once original concept until it is boring. DA2 may not have worked out well but at least the devs have my respect for trying something diferent despite the risks.

Uhh, no. Stop trying to strawman my position.  

I'm suggesting that if you change too much, particularly elements which people do not complain about and actually enjoy, you risk isolating all the people who may have become fans in the first place. The devs might earn your respect for trying something different, but they only earn my purchase if I like what they have changed between games. No one gets extra credit for trying something different, unless it works better than what you had before.  

As it stands, were there extensive complaints regarding the Origin stories? The level of armor customization? The art style? The silent protagonist? The ability to choose your race? So on and so forth.

That's not to say stagnation doesn't occur. Perfect example of the opposite problem: Assassin's Creed: Revelations. Personally, I think it's a great game and the best in the franchise in terms of gameplay, but it's also a perfect example of how a game suffers from too much reliance on formula, with minimal alterations between each installment. It's basically Brotherhood, with new environments.

I'm saying, between the two, stagnation and bad changes, Bioware would probably have been better off choosing stagnation, given the limited time frame within which they had to operate. Stagnation is usually met with the "well, it's technically better than the original, but not by much".

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 janvier 2012 - 04:23 .

[Il Divo]

LinksOcarina wrote...

I won't deny some people don't like the changes. Thats fine and it opens up discussion on things for us. What I hate is that people get too dramatic over them to the point of boldly declaring things that sound, for the lack of a better word, stupid, such as how it ruins the franchise, or that EA is the cause of all the evil in the world. That is what I am vehemently against basically, because it makes no sense to me to make a claim like that without any basis of logic or information to prove it, because claims such as that are quntative more to fact than opinion. 

I personally try to stay away from the "EA is evil overlords" positions, as they tend to get very inflammatory. I (for example) loved Mass Effect 2, but am kinda neutral on DA2 (some things worked, some things didn't). And some complaints are absolutely bizarre. My favorite are the ones who hate DA2 before even playing it, merely because it didn't let them continue their own personal Warden fanfiction. For Bioware, Thedas is their playground.  

All I'm suggesting is any company needs to be extremely careful about gameplay changes. If there's a million complaints regarding one particular element, it stands to reason it would be better for Bioware to account for that. This was the case with Mass Effect 1's inventory. If people really loved the Origin stories, removing them is not likely to please the fanbase, particularly if it adds something very different from previous RPGs.

That, in large part, is what I think most of the criticisms are centered around; taking away from elements which people enjoyed or didn't need to be changed, while adding other elements that people were only lukewarm about.

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 janvier 2012 - 04:22 .

[alex90c]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Well it depends what you mean by destroying it. Change is not necessarily bad. Most franchises change over time. Some people say the prequels destroyed Star Wars but did they really? Only for some. DA2 certainly didn't destroy DA:O because you can just ignore it. But ... it will remain to be seen DA2's impact on DA3. Even if Bioware do their best to make DA3 great it may still be considered a flop if not enough preorder/buy early. We'll see it though.

You're right. Destroyed is a bit of a strong word. But what I'm getting at is that, with any game, rarely is there a single 100% clear reason why people enjoy it. As a result, the more things you change, the more you risk alienating your previous audience. Let's take DA:O. People loved it for the companion characters, the setting, the main storyline, the customization, the silent protagonist, the Origin stories, etc. Some loved it for all these reasons, while some preferred certain aspects more than others. But with DA2, the art style was significantly altered, the silent protagonist was abandoned in favor of voice-acting, Origin stories were also removed, emphasis on speaking with companions was lessened, and armor cusomization was heavily reduced.

 If you enjoyed any (or all) of those elements of DA:O, there's a good chance that DA2 will not mesh with you as well. And that, I think, was Bioware's great mistake. If they wanted to produce a sequel to DA:O, even a good sequel, it would have been more easily accomplished if they didn't attempt to change the style. They could have easily taken the Awakening approach, added a few new abilities, completely original story, and called it DA:O2. I'm not saying that DA2 is necessarily terrible, but significant changes in a variety of areas risk alienating a substantial number of fans more than sticking to the familiar.

See, the strange thing is I like both games fairly equally, because both have major pros and cons to them. What was good in Origins I won't take away, I liked the idea of the origin story, I liked the companions and the storyline, I loved Ferelden a lot.

But Dragon Age II has great strengths as well. The art style is more distinct

How does distinct automatically mean good? Skyrim has distinct elves, but God they're ugly. Same applies for DA2. If Bioware made all dwarves gorillas, and all elves in to cats, damn straight that would be distinctive, but hell no would it be good.

I'd hardly say the art style was distinct either, I've seen spiked armour in pretty much every single other fantasy game, so adding it for things like the bullsh*t Champion armour was just ... ergh.