294 réponses à ce sujet

[Am1vf]

@ Il Divo: Well of course it is safer to keep all the features that worked in the past, but in a limited time and budget I think it is better in the long run to try new things, even if you risk loosing what made the previous title succesful you can learn more for future projects.

The safe option may make a decent enough game but if it doesnt add anything meaningful, like AC:Revelation (great example, by the way), it is not really pushing forwad and you end up wondering if it was even necesary to make another game.

Modifié par Am1_vf, 17 janvier 2012 - 04:28 .

[LinksOcarina]

@alex90c Skyrim also dumbed down the races so much its pointless to role-play as one sometimes.

spiked armor is also a matter of preference. Hell Skyrim has some flavors of that too so I hardly doubt thats a valid complaint.

Distinct in this case means you can kind of tell who is an Elf, Dwarf, Kossith, etc. They basically tried to make the races more foreseeable from a distance over up close, the dwarves are bit more stocky in that regard, the elves had the re-design (although I do think some of them look a bit too off for my tastes) and I barely hear anyone complain about the retcon for the Kossith...

Another thing I noticed was the brighter palette. The color scheme is less dreary and brown-based, which I personally like.

See, this is all opinion, alex. It doesn't really matter much though because its an opinion, but since it is doubtful they will go back to the other style, then, complaint or not, this will stay the way it is.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 17 janvier 2012 - 04:43 .

[Il Divo]

Am1_vf wrote...

@ Il Divo: Well of course it is safer to keep all the features that worked in the past, but in a limited time and budget I think it is better in the long run to try new things, even if you risk loosing what made the previous title succesful you can learn more for future projects.

The safe option may make a decent enough game but if it doesnt add anything meaningful, like AC:Revelation (great example, by the way), it is not really pushing forwad and you end up wondering if it was even necesary to make another game.

Actually, I thought the limited time and budget was exactly why they should have stuck with what was familiar. The lack of diverse environments, if I remember correctly, was a result of the developers having a limited budget. By relying on DA:O's mechanics and art style, that would have saved substantially more time + resources with which to focus on the other things a game must have (dungeons, environments, dialogue, etc).

That was what happened with Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, which was made in a year. The game relied almost entirely on the exact same graphics and designs of Ocarina of Time, but the developers still managed a few clever ways of changing the style of its predecessor. Coincedentally, much of Majora's Mask (like DA2) is focused around one particular city.

Let me put it like this, compare Dragon Age: Awakening's gameplay vs. the Den Defense mechanic of AC:R (the one element that might be considered "new" to the franchise".

If a critic were to criticize Awakening's gameplay, they couldn't really do it by saying "it's bad", assuming they also enjoyed DA:O's gameplay. In terms of core mechanics, Awakening is DA:O's gameplay. They might criticize it for not taking risks, and being far too derivative, but it's difficult to deem it "bad". This is what happened to Revelations; the gameplay was basically AC: Brotherhood and (to a lesser extent) AC2, so they couldn't say it was bad gameplay, but reviews still suffered as a result.

On the other hand, if a critic dislikes Den Defense altogether, the developer isn't going to get even that much credit, because there never was previous praise for the feature. The critic won't say "it's still enjoyable, but it's starting to get old". Instead, the critic will say (in more polite terms) "wow, this sucks".

That's where I think stagnation has certain advantages. Change always brings risks, since it will either be lauded or hated, but some of the elements which DA2 chose to alter many considered surprising and somewhat unnecessary.

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 janvier 2012 - 04:54 .

[alex90c]

LinksOcarina wrote...

@alex90c Skyrim also dumbed down the races so much its pointless to role-play as one sometimes.

Not sure how that's relevant to the point I was making about their elves being ugly.

spiked armor is also a matter of preference. Hell Skyrim has some flavors of that too so I hardly doubt thats a valid complaint.

Precisely. Like I said, I've seen spiked armour a million times before, and I'll hate on it whether it exists in Skyrim, DA2 or any other RPG.

Distinct in this case means you can kind of tell who is an Elf, Dwarf, Kossith, etc. They basically tried to make the races more foreseeable from a distance over up close, the dwarves are bit more stocky in that regard, the elves had the re-design (although I do think some of them look a bit too off for my tastes) and I barely hear anyone complain about the retcon for the Kossith...

I don't care how a race looks from a distance, I care about how they look up close, and the elves look awful. The change in the dwarves was so negligible I didn't really care (well apart from the whole "let's take out female dwarves" thing, especially after having made a great character like Sigrun in DA:A).

I thought the kossith looked fine in DA2, and the "retcon" was much more acceptable since it had been pointed out by Bioware right from the start that they had wanted them to be horn heads, so I had much less of a problem. On the other hand you get the elves that just changed because .... distinctive! iconic! and it's jarring going from DA:O's elves to DA2's donkeys.

Another thing I noticed was the brighter palette. The color scheme is less dreary and brown-based, which I personally like.

If you think the colour scheme is less brown based, you obviously haven't played DA2. 

BROWN BROWN EVERYWHERE

Same for DA:O of course, but the colour scheme still sucked. I think it really showed the most in Legacy to be honest, while the environments were definitely nice, I think the limited colour pallette was really holding the game back from really looking pretty.

See, this is all opinion, alex. It doesn't really matter much though because its an opinion, but since it is doubtful they will go back to the other style, then, complaint or not, this will stay the way it is.

Sure, everything here is opinion, but I like discussing opinions. If I wanted to discuss pure facts, I'd go to a maths forum. Though yes, Bioware probably won't be going back to the older art style, we're just going to have to stick with this awful pile of ******.

[Am1vf]

@Il Divo: The thing is I belive everythig you say is true, the only diference between our opinions is that you prefer a less risky but better resolved sequel while I value more the innovation and bravery on the side of the devs. It is a matter of opinion, I think.

[LinksOcarina]

alex90c wrote...

Another thing I noticed was the brighter palette. The color scheme is less dreary and brown-based, which I personally like.

If you think the colour scheme is less brown based, you obviously haven't played DA2. 

BROWN BROWN EVERYWHERE

Same for DA:O of course, but the colour scheme still sucked. I think it really showed the most in Legacy to be honest, while the environments were definitely nice, I think the limited colour pallette was really holding the game back from really looking pretty.

Well, lets see...





The two above, the color scheme is more drowned out, kind of like a digital grade we would see from most movies, the bue and brown hues for simulate darkness for the ogre shot there, which puts the richer colors, the maroons and golds and bronzes, down a bit. We see in the other, darker green palette to simulate the wilds there; kind of damp and dark where things also muted, if you ask me.

And there is color to be had. Most of it is pale though. the Mage robes for example, are a very pale color of goldenrod and blue, and the Ogre again looks like a grey-skinned beast in this light, when it is more flesh-toned and has some shades of brown and maroon adorning the clothing on his body. The backgrounds also look less dynamic, which is not a big deal because it happens in II as well.





Now, comparatively to me at least, we a difference between them. Sundermount is a bit more brighter, the green color is less pronounced, and it allows for some brighter colors to shine through. Not as much because we see the shadows here, but the shadows are more pronounced in a specific area, if that makes sense. It's not the filter over the graphics that make it dark, which we see a lot more in Origins I feel to simulate the darkness in a dungeon, night time,  etc. 

The second image is a night scene, but it again doesn't follow the blue tone we see in origins. It is dark, yes, but more naturally dark, so that color can shine through a bit, we see more realistic looking gold, organge and white, for example, and even the environments are a little more pronounced than Origins at times. 

Of course this is preference though, but the palette is brighter in II over Origins, at least by sight at least. Of course it has that twinge of realism to it, but the more pronounced colors are noticable in II if you ask me.

And if you want more examples ill show them side by side if you like...

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 17 janvier 2012 - 05:42 .

[Il Divo]

Am1_vf wrote...

@Il Divo: The thing is I belive everythig you say is true, the only diference between our opinions is that you prefer a less risky but better resolved sequel while I value more the innovation and bravery on the side of the devs. It is a matter of opinion, I think.

Agreed.

[bEVEsthda]

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.

 
No, you're just wrong yet again.
Considering how you also don't answer the many questions I've asked you, but just ignore them, I'm guessing that the root to your spectacular failure at reading comprehension is that you're so focused on your own need, that your view never shift focus to what's really at hand. You never make any attempt to comprehend what is written, you're caught up in your own needs and whatever arguments for whatever point YOU would like to make.

“If that is the context then, it's poorly implemented into the argument”

- What an awful sentence! And so revealing! Please explain to me in detail what you think the “argument” is. And why the context need to be implemented into it.

The context in this case is the background against which I make my statement.
“how it destroyed Dragon Age” was never needed to consider. It's not a part of the case. It's not open for an argument, it's a posit. It's enough that I consider DA destroyed for me. Why is irrelevant. I explained the reason why I hate DA2. And I did this against the background of the assumption that it is some kind of disappointment that DA2 wasn't DA:O. That perception fails to consider the heart of the matter: That the Dragon Age of DA:O is now gone, replaced by trash. It is not the disappointment of DA2, it's the disappointment that the DA of DA:O is now gone.

I would say that all this is pretty crystal clear already in my first comment to Maria Caliban. But this was also already elaborated on in an explanation to you in my immediate answer to your first post.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 18 janvier 2012 - 07:37 .

[Gotholhorakh]

AlexXIV wrote...
Well it depends what you mean by destroying it. Change is not necessarily bad.

I think that you've hit on the point, there. "Change is necessarily bad" is the position that we're supposed to have, that is attributed to us, but which we don't have.

Change isn't bad. Bad change is bad.

Look at (tired example, sorry) Skyrim. I have seen plenty of people who were concerned about things that were being cut from the game, generally happy and playing it for hundreds of hours.

Back to Dragon Age I don't think "destroyed" is too strong a word. It has already been said that the design rationale behind DA2's butchery of the core experience, is being pursued into DA3.

If that is the case (and we have no reason to doubt it) and DA3 consequently turns out to be a waste of time, then DA2 has indeed destroyed Dragon Age.

Even ignoring that, DA is in the gutter with the present game as far as I (and many other people) are concerned.

[FieryDove]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Of course this is preference though, but the palette is brighter in II over Origins, at least by sight at least. Of course it has that twinge of realism to it, but the more pronounced colors are noticable in II if you ask me.

You bring up a good point. Kirkwall beige, red, brown, kirkwall beige, kirkwall biege and more kirkwall beige. My eyes were bleeding with the bright vibrant palette that David Silverman talked about pre-release.

Some changes were good, some were not good. Some love the game, some dislike it, some are meh. It really doesn't matter. Bioware has a vision and DA3 will be that vision no matter what we forumites think/want.

That is probably for the best as some of the suggestions I have seen make me go....

[LinksOcarina]

bEVEsthda 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.

 
No, you're just wrong yet again.
Considering how you also don't answer the many questions I've asked you, but just ignore them, I'm guessing that the root to your spectacular failure at reading comprehension is that you're so focused on your own need, that your view never shift focus to what's really at hand. You never make any attempt to comprehend what is written, you're caught up in your own needs and whatever arguments for whatever point YOU would like to make.

“If that is the context then, it's poorly implemented into the argument”

- What an awful sentence! And so revealing! Please explain to me in detail what you think the “argument” is. And why the context need to be implemented into it.

The context in this case is the background against which I make my statement.
“how it destroyed Dragon Age” was never needed to consider. It's not a part of the case. It's not open for an argument, it's a posit. It's enough that I consider DA destroyed for me. Why is irrelevant. I explained the reason why I hate DA2. And I did this against the background of the assumption that it is some kind of disappointment that DA2 wasn't DA:O. That perception fails to consider the heart of the matter: That the Dragon Age of DA:O is now gone, replaced by trash. It is not the disappointment of DA2, it's the disappointment that the DA of DA:O is now gone.

I would say that all this is pretty crystal clear already in my first comment to Maria Caliban. But this was also already elaborated on in an explanation to you in my immediate answer to your first post.

*sigh*

See, I let it go because I realized there is no point in arguing anymore...but you got to drag it out and attack me again for no f*cking reasons...how childish.

 I did read it, several times to make sure I understood it. I even showed other people what you wrote (to make sure I wasn't making a fool out of myself in what I would reply. Oh and if you don't like that, not my problem.) and I don't get it still. No one did actually, they didn't understand your point even in the context of what you said it was.

Maybe I don't have blind hatred like you do. Maybe I just can't rationalize such a hatred because I never experienced it in a game series before. Maybe I just wanted to discuss further how dumbstruck your assumption actually is, despite the fact I don't agree with it either. Such a posit is still based on the grounds of your opinion, and even expouting it like you did, I just had to understand why. 

And the only reason this is continuing is the fact that you used terrible terminology  that is not an opinion, nor is it accurate, so I again don't understand the further attacks here. I had no agenda except to get to the bottom of such a strange statement, and every time you expouted information I couldn't help but shake my head to that.

As to the new claims you made, id humor you but you said it for me; changes in transition from Origins to II. But what gets me was the bit at the end, which I wanted clarification on because it a bit extreme. You gave it, and it was terrible, and I pointed out why...chaos ensues. 

I mean I get it, I really do. You hate the game and you feel like it destroyed a series for you.  I even said several times I don't care if you liked it or not, or that the game is trash or things like that. Thats an opinion I personally don't share, we can live and learn by discussing things then. 

But what I can't stand is the continual hammering in on a point that is not relevant to what I was saying to you. Fact of the matter is, your posit is wrong, and it is open for discussion because of how dumbstruck it sounds. Maybe not to you, but, oh well, deal with it. 

And if you don't feel like talking about it, then maybe you should stop bringing it up whenever I post something. 

[LobselVith8]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Well it depends what you mean by destroying it. Change is not necessarily bad.

I think that you've hit on the point, there. "Change is necessarily bad" is the position that we're supposed to have, that is attributed to us, but which we don't have.

Change isn't bad. Bad change is bad.

Look at (tired example, sorry) Skyrim. I have seen plenty of people who were concerned about things that were being cut from the game, generally happy and playing it for hundreds of hours.

That's true. Skyrim made improvements on issues that people had complained about before (like the 5+5+5 leveling system in Oblivion), while I don't understand why the developers decided to go from a game that was meant to appeal to the old-school RPG fans (even being advertised as a "spiritual successor" to Baldur's Gate 2) to completely changing what appealed to the fans of Origins to a system more akin to Devil May Cry.

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Back to Dragon Age I don't think "destroyed" is too strong a word. It has already been said that the design rationale behind DA2's butchery of the core experience, is being pursued into DA3.

If that is the case (and we have no reason to doubt it) and DA3 consequently turns out to be a waste of time, then DA2 has indeed destroyed Dragon Age.

Even ignoring that, DA is in the gutter with the present game as far as I (and many other people) are concerned.

I feel the same way. Given how many claims about Dragon Age II turned out not to be true, I'm honestly not holding out much hope for Dragon Age III.

[ScotGaymer]

I just wanna say one thing to the negative about DA2 people in this thread.

Please remember that a lot of the bullcrap rhetoric about Dragon Age 2 that came out prior to release was the fault of the Marketing Team and not the Dev team (except the button=awesome debacle, poor Mike) because let's face it Bioware's Marketing Division SUCKS.
It isn't surprising because it seems like they are a led by a man who has no idea what in god's name he is doing (or so it appears).

So let's not blame the Dev Team for the too high expectations and hype of Dragon Age 2.

[philippe willaume]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

I just wanna say one thing to the negative about DA2 people in this thread.

Please remember that a lot of the bullcrap rhetoric about Dragon Age 2 that came out prior to release was the fault of the Marketing Team and not the Dev team (except the button=awesome debacle, poor Mike) because let's face it Bioware's Marketing Division SUCKS.
It isn't surprising because it seems like they are a led by a man who has no idea what in god's name he is doing (or so it appears).

So let's not blame the Dev Team for the too high expectations and hype of Dragon Age 2.

Being one the negative people towards DA:2, Allow me to retort.
 
Yes few people have visceral hatred for all things DA2 or DA:0 for that matter but most of us are not in the burn them all frame of mind.
In fact most of the critics and supporters have well constructed and mention a valid or good debatable points.
For example I totally agree that playing DA:0 with the same DA:2 optimum build approach is really the same experience and all things considered DA:2 I would say DA2 is an improvement in that respect.
And it is equally true that the DA:0 fan base did not play DA:0 with the DA:2 optimum build approach and liked DA:0 because it works at other level.
 
Now the salles figures and the feneral mood are strong indicators as to where the land lays.
Marleting is not more to “blame” than the concept or design team.  I am not sure that there is a main “ problem” that we are all unhappy about. It is more the sum of nagging problems and features compounded by unitended concequences from conceptual and design changes that made the playing experience not as good as DA:0 or TW1 or 2.
 
Of course when the same old approach, you retrograde retarded DA:0 fanboys/old farts who do not understand modern/ it works great for me  LTP, however well disguised  is like waving a red flag to a bull and will cause temper and comments to flare.
 
Philippe
 

Modifié par philippe willaume, 21 janvier 2012 - 05:39 .

[ScotGaymer]

philippe willaume wrote...

FitScotGaymer wrote...

I just wanna say one thing to the negative about DA2 people in this thread.

Please remember that a lot of the bullcrap rhetoric about Dragon Age 2 that came out prior to release was the fault of the Marketing Team and not the Dev team (except the button=awesome debacle, poor Mike) because let's face it Bioware's Marketing Division SUCKS.
It isn't surprising because it seems like they are a led by a man who has no idea what in god's name he is doing (or so it appears).

So let's not blame the Dev Team for the too high expectations and hype of Dragon Age 2.

Being one the negative people towards DA:0, Allow me to retort.
 
Yes few people have visceral hatred for all things DA2 or DA:0 for that matter but most of us are not in the burn them all frame of mind.
In fact most of the critics and supporters have well constructed and mention a valid or good debatable points.
For example I totally agree that playing DA:0 with the same DA:2 optimum build approach is really the same experience and all things considered DA:2 I would say DA2 is an improvement in that respect.
And it is equally true that the DA:0 fan base did not play DA:0 with the DA:2 optimum build approach and liked DA:0 because it works at other level.
 
Now the salles figures and the feneral mood are strong indicators as to where the land lays.
Marleting is not more to “blame” than the concept or design team.  I am not sure that there is a main “ problem” that we are all unhappy about. It is more the sum of nagging problems and features compounded by unitended concequences from conceptual and design changes that made the playing experience not as good as DA:0 or TW1 or 2.
 
Of course when the same old approach, you retrograde retarded DA:0 fanboys/old farts who do not understand modern/ it works great for me  LTP, however well disguised  is like waving a red flag to a bull and will cause temper and comments to flare.
 
Philippe
 

Excuse me?

Firstly, you shouldnt call people retrograde retards, and I assume it was directed at me and if so you VASTLY misunderstood my post.

Secondly, It really appears like you didnt understand me at all.

I never said anything about liking DA2 over DAO or DAO over DA2 or that either game sucked, or was amazing or anything like that.

I was merely pointing out that Bioware's Marketing Division SUCKS (and it does) and a lot of the hype, rhetoric, and misinformation about DA2 prior to release was SQUARELY the fault of the Marketing Team. It is not a failing of the Dev Team or any other team when the Marketing is patently wrong (which it was on many occasions).

I was saying this because some people on this thread seem to be unleashing vitrol on the Dev Team for a number of things that were either the fault of the Marketing Team, or the fault of their own too-high expectations.

If we are going to be constructive (which I hope I have always been) then let's put the blame for what things went wrong where they belong. And let's give credit over the things that were done right where it is due.

Thirdly, I also never said one thing about the poor implementation of certain gameplay things in the game, and the poor patching process that the game has undergone. Or anything like that.
I addressed ONE issue, and one only.

So you are "retorting" against something I didn't say.

That is all.

Modifié par FitScotGaymer, 21 janvier 2012 - 05:11 .

[philippe willaume]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

philippe willaume wrote...

FitScotGaymer wrote...

I just wanna say one thing to the negative about DA2 people in this thread.

Please remember that a lot of the bullcrap rhetoric about Dragon Age 2 that came out prior to release was the fault of the Marketing Team and not the Dev team (except the button=awesome debacle, poor Mike) because let's face it Bioware's Marketing Division SUCKS.
It isn't surprising because it seems like they are a led by a man who has no idea what in god's name he is doing (or so it appears).

So let's not blame the Dev Team for the too high expectations and hype of Dragon Age 2.

Being one the negative people towards DA:0, Allow me to retort.
 
Yes few people have visceral hatred for all things DA2 or DA:0 for that matter but most of us are not in the burn them all frame of mind.
In fact most of the critics and supporters have well constructed and mention a valid or good debatable points.
For example I totally agree that playing DA:0 with the same DA:2 optimum build approach is really the same experience and all things considered DA:2 I would say DA2 is an improvement in that respect.
And it is equally true that the DA:0 fan base did not play DA:0 with the DA:2 optimum build approach and liked DA:0 because it works at other level.
 
Now the salles figures and the feneral mood are strong indicators as to where the land lays.
Marleting is not more to “blame” than the concept or design team.  I am not sure that there is a main “ problem” that we are all unhappy about. It is more the sum of nagging problems and features compounded by unitended concequences from conceptual and design changes that made the playing experience not as good as DA:0 or TW1 or 2.
 
Of course when the same old approach, you retrograde retarded DA:0 fanboys/old farts who do not understand modern/ it works great for me  LTP, however well disguised  is like waving a red flag to a bull and will cause temper and comments to flare.
 
Philippe
 

Excuse me?

Firstly, you shouldnt call people retrograde retards, and I assume it was directed at me and if so you VASTLY misunderstood my post.

Secondly, It really appears like you didnt understand me at all.

I never said anything about liking DA2 over DAO or DAO over DA2 or that either game sucked, or was amazing or anything like that.

I was merely pointing out that Bioware's Marketing Division SUCKS (and it does) and a lot of the hype, rhetoric, and misinformation about DA2 prior to release was SQUARELY the fault of the Marketing Team. It is not a failing of the Dev Team or any other team when the Marketing is patently wrong (which it was on many occasions).

I was saying this because some people on this thread seem to be unleashing vitrol on the Dev Team for a number of things that were either the fault of the Marketing Team, or the fault of their own too-high expectations.

If we are going to be constructive (which I hope I have always been) then let's put the blame for what things went wrong where they belong. And let's give credit over the things that were done right where it is due.

Thirdly, I also never said one thing about the poor implementation of certain gameplay things in the game, and the poor patching process that the game has undergone. Or anything like that.
I addressed ONE issue, and one only.

So you are "retorting" against something I didn't say.

That is all.

Hello
Nope you assume wrongly. The comment was not addressed to you. and since I typed DA:0 instead of DA:2 in my opening line, that might have lead to a certain confusion (oooouuupssss, sorryyyyyyyy)

You see this type of thread has been with us for almost as long as DA2 was out.
it went through all phases: console VS PC, old school vs modern, DA:0 owner vs DA:2 only owners and so on and I think only minor religions like Wotanism or early Mithraism have not been brought as the causing effect... hence the diatribe

the main crux is that the most vocal resentment is coming from the people, like me, that liked DA:0 much more than DA:.2
The marketing team did not put a gun to our head, they did the same job as they did for DA:0.
Basically of course they are going to tell us that the next game is going to be the best thing since sliced bread. Politician do the same at election time, you will get used to it.

The disappointment did not come from the game was not what they promised; it came from the game not being as good as we expected it to be given the lineage.
A fair amount of people who owned pre-ordered DA:2
there are a multitudes of reason and the significance of each varies according to the individuals.

Other that being a convenient slagging tool, the "awesome button" did not do it for me, as I suspect it did not really do it for the people that ordered DA:2 on the back of DA:0 and DA:A. The experience with DA:0 did.

Phil

[TEWR]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

I just wanna say one thing to the negative about DA2 people in this thread.

Please remember that a lot of the bullcrap rhetoric about Dragon Age 2 that came out prior to release was the fault of the Marketing Team and not the Dev team (except the button=awesome debacle, poor Mike) because let's face it Bioware's Marketing Division SUCKS.
It isn't surprising because it seems like they are a led by a man who has no idea what in god's name he is doing (or so it appears).

So let's not blame the Dev Team for the too high expectations and hype of Dragon Age 2.

The dev team actually promised it as well. A few of Mike Laidlaw's interviews prior to release had him say the same things marketing did.

Rise to Power, choices that shape Kirkwall, etc.

So yes, expectations were set too high.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 21 janvier 2012 - 10:06 .

[bEVEsthda]

 

LinksOcarina wrote...

*sigh*

See, I let it go because I realized there is no point in arguing anymore...but you got to drag it out and attack me again for no f*cking reasons...how childish.

I did read it, several times to make sure I understood it. I even showed other people what you wrote (to make sure I wasn't making a fool out of myself in what I would reply. Oh and if you don't like that, not my problem.) and I don't get it still. No one did actually, they didn't understand your point even in the context of what you said it was.

Maybe I don't have blind hatred like you do. Maybe I just can't rationalize such a hatred because I never experienced it in a game series before. Maybe I just wanted to discuss further how dumbstruck your assumption actually is, despite the fact I don't agree with it either. Such a posit is still based on the grounds of your opinion, and even expouting it like you did, I just had to understand why.

And the only reason this is continuing is the fact that you used terrible terminology that is not an opinion, nor is it accurate, so I again don't understand the further attacks here. I had no agenda except to get to the bottom of such a strange statement, and every time you expouted information I couldn't help but shake my head to that.

As to the new claims you made, id humor you but you said it for me; changes in transition from Origins to II. But what gets me was the bit at the end, which I wanted clarification on because it a bit extreme. You gave it, and it was terrible, and I pointed out why...chaos ensues.

I mean I get it, I really do. You hate the game and you feel like it destroyed a series for you. I even said several times I don't care if you liked it or not, or that the game is trash or things like that. Thats an opinion I personally don't share, we can live and learn by discussing things then.

But what I can't stand is the continual hammering in on a point that is not relevant to what I was saying to you. Fact of the matter is, your posit is wrong, and it is open for discussion because of how dumbstruck it sounds. Maybe not to you, but, oh well, deal with it.

And if you don't feel like talking about it, then maybe you should stop bringing it up whenever I post something.

Well, well. What a load of hostile gibberish. Very much expected, I would say, since it's typical of your posting style.

No, you still don't get it. Not really. This post reveals it. It also seems to reveal more of what I suspected was your agenda all the way. You know, if you had answered my questions, we would have been so much further towards the heart of the matter. And you still don't answer my questions. (so, you know, quietly in my mind I'm wondering why I should answer yours?) But you have your posting style. The problem here is not me, but you.

Look, whether DA2 destroyed DA or not (for whomever) is something we don't know until DA3 has been released.
You want to say my posit is wrong? Well you can't. And this is one of the things you don't understand. Whether a posit is wrong or not, is irrelevant to the demonstration. (And besides, if I feel it has destroyed DA for me, then the posit is right! But that is somewhat beside the point I made.)


But the only thing that is in your little head is that you don't think DA2 destroyed DA, and that is what you wanted to argue with me about. Am I right?

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 21 janvier 2012 - 10:57 .

[Realmzmaster]

I never bought into the hype otherwise I would have believed that DAO was the spiritual successor to BG. Retrograde retard? If that is the case I will wear the label proudly along with the one where someone said I have low standards.

Marketing is there to hype a product and rarely does the product deliver in full on the hype. Also what designer is going to say anything that goes against the marketing of the game? Doing that is career suicide.

 I play to have fun. DA2 is far from the worst game I have played. I play them all to conclusion. I had fun with DA2 and DAO. They were good games not great. I have my definition of great. No AAA game of the present age fits that definition. I know a few indie publishers who do and I extol their products.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 21 janvier 2012 - 11:04 .

[John Epler]

And we're done.

Those who felt it might be a good idea to break out the insults, well, you'll have 24 hours to reconsider that.