294 réponses à ce sujet

[Am1vf]

easygame88 wrote...

Am1_vf wrote...

wich is what many DA2 haters actually ask for DA3.

Actually it isn't. At all. Pretty sure most people just want a good game.

Alright, that bit may be unfair. How about: ...is what some DA2 haters seem to be asking for in the forums.

@JohnEpler
How can you people at bioware speak so well? it is astonishing. Do they give you all writting courses or something? (except the marketing department of course).

[SeanMurphy2]

I had a more positive reassessment of the companions.

They felt more independent in constructing a life in Kirkwall.  They were driven by something and had a sense of plans and hope for the future.


They do seem more Loghain-like. They are ambiguous and open to interpretation. They can act in stupid and flawed ways

I apologise to the writers because I remember going on about how Loghain's actions should have been the early focus of DA:O. To present more uncertainty and ambiguity about what happened at Ostager. They actually did something like that in DA2 and I didn''t show any appreciation,

Modifié par SeanMurphy2, 12 janvier 2012 - 06:38 .

[Morroian]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

I just can't agree with articles praising DA2's characters. They are the most 2 dimensional and boring characters i've seen in a Bioware game.

 
IMHO they're overall better characters than DAO, which also had good characters I hasten to add, and they gain dimensions by the end of the game especially if you explore the different ways they can change.

[John Epler]

And while I'm here, let's let the idea that 'people who didn't like DA2 just wanted more of DA:O' die. It's unfairly homogenizing what is a rather diverse group, and certainly doesn't lead to any sort of constructive discussion.

@Am1_vf - I'm an English major, and so wrote an unhealthy number of papers in university. Learning to communicate effectively and clearly is something I had to do fairly early on so that they wouldn't just laugh me out of academia.

[Am1vf]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

...

 Picking out game flaws and somehow turning them into some vague pro. It is absolutely ridiculous.

I agree with you there. Ignoring the flaws, or worse, attempting to turn it into good things, is as bad as ignoring the achievements of the game. Even worse since it devalues everything else said.

And DA2 has a lot of flaws, but so does Skyrim

[Icinix]

JohnEpler wrote...

And while I'm here, let's let the idea that 'people who didn't like DA2 just wanted more of DA:O' die. It's unfairly homogenizing what is a rather diverse group, and certainly doesn't lead to any sort of constructive discussion.

Yes please! I may not always be the most eloquent when I bring up my issues / concerns with DA2 but I really, REALLY like what DA2 tried to do! And I REALLY, REALLY want to see those concepts expanded upon.

[ElitePinecone]

Icinix wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

And while I'm here, let's let the idea that 'people who didn't like DA2 just wanted more of DA:O' die. It's unfairly homogenizing what is a rather diverse group, and certainly doesn't lead to any sort of constructive discussion.

Yes please! I may not always be the most eloquent when I bring up my issues / concerns with DA2 but I really, REALLY like what DA2 tried to do! And I REALLY, REALLY want to see those concepts expanded upon.

I mostly agree. Also, unfairly homogenising critics of DA2 as people 'just wanting more Origins' completely excludes the (significant?) number of people who didn't mind some of the sequel's changes but felt dissatisfied with the result. 

An unhelpful reaction to fan criticism of DA2 would be to assume that it was because the sequel wasn't a copy of its predecessor, and not (at least in part) because there were some large issues with DA2 itself. I'm sure Bioware haven't done this (and from everything I've read, genuine and constructive criticism has been taken in good faith) but it's frustrating to see news articles on the DA team's future plans feature the spectre of Origins as a reason for fan dissatisfaction. The cynic in me would think blaming fans for their unrealistic expectations in the shadow of the game's predecessor isn't so different than downplaying the sequel's own problems. 

That said, if criticism invokes Origins only as a representation of a varied gameworld rich with content, a customisable and relatable protagonist (and an antagonist, for that matter), and as a game with scope and player choice - and compares it unfavourably with its successor - then I'd be hard pressed to find a problem with it. 

[AlexXIV]

Sorry but the best thing about DA2 is the mostly negative reaction of the fanbase. Not saying it is all fair etc. but looking at DA2 I can clearly see where Bioware went wrong, and they need to know even though it is brutal at times. If I imagine that the game would have been recieved well or better than DA:O then I'd really lose faith in humanity, or at least the Bioware fanbase. There is things you just can't do as a developer and that's for example wrong judgement of your fanbase as it happened in DA2. The game went completly astray in that. If I look at DA2 I have the strong feeling that Bioware did not target their usual fanbase. Because usually their fanbase is smarter. I try to be civil here if you don't notice, I could have said that in a much ruder tone.

[SinnSly]

I love Dragon Age 2, enough said
I don't really care what others say, if they hate it so be it, haters gonna hate =3

[DreamwareStudio]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

I dislike it when people are so desperate to find good things about DA2 that they make vague connections of certain game aspects that were never intended by the devs.
Case in point is when the author mentions that his view of Carver was heavily influenced by his combat expertise, and how his character was ultimately determined by it. Just sounds like a load of bull, like he's pulling stuff out of his ass to make the characters sound far more profound than they actually are.

"By stripping the game of much of its visual excess—characters stick to the same environments, don’t age despite the story taking the better part of a decade, always wear the same clothes—the player’s attention is steered to the characters themselves and all of their likes, dislikes, politics, morals, and humors."

Exactly what i'm talking about! Picking out game flaws and somehow turning them into some vague pro. It is absolutely ridiculous.

That bolded text sounds like marketig spin.

"By stripping the game of much of its visual excess..."

LOL

[Plaintiff]

Pretty good articles. I'd be very disappointed if the incessant ****ing meant that DA2 ended up being the only game of its kind.

Story is the most important thng to me, and DA2's is the best one I've played in a while. I dont give a **** about art direction or model rendering or battle animations or anything else.

Considering the majority of this forum wields the term "DA2 fan" like the worst kind of insult, I don't really trust most people who post here to be capable of recognizing its merit or the merit of these articles.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 12 janvier 2012 - 11:52 .

[Dubya75]

I would make the bold statement that no-one who keeps visiting and posting on these forums really hate DA2.
For example, there are particular games I have played and ended up hating, and the last thing I want to do is waste time going on their forums. I care not.
Instead people really love the franchise but are frustrated and disappointed. And what better place to voice that than here?
I am also frustrated, and I realize it sometimes comes out wrong. Human.
However, I am also confident that the Dragon Age team take criticism positively and like JohnEpler said, it helps them create better games.
Sometimes I don't like the criticism I see, sometimes I agree with it. But as long as they can take something from it, it's all good!

[goofyomnivore]

Dragon Age: Origins was a cliche and predictable story written very well.
Dragon Age 2 was a game with novel and unique concepts not always executed very well.

I'm hoping with the longer development time, game engine foundation and combat reboot finished that Dragon Age 3 can execute better than Dragon Age 2.

[Cutlasskiwi]

Morroian wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

I just can't agree with articles praising DA2's characters. They are the most 2 dimensional and boring characters i've seen in a Bioware game.

 

IMHO they're overall better characters than DAO, which also had good characters I hasten to add, and they gain dimensions by the end of the game especially if you explore the different ways they can change.

I agree. I think BioWare took them to the next level with DA2 and they felt more alive, IMO. In DAO I always reacted to how much they would go on and on about their past and not react enough to things happening around them. I think DA2 managed to strike a nice balance between the two.

[HiroVoid]

Plaintiff wrote...

Pretty good articles. I'd be very disappointed if the incessant ****ing meant that DA2 ended up being the only game of its kind.

Can I honestly just ask this since I've seen it plenty of times on these forums?  Why do people still keep cussing even though they know it's just going to be censored.  Especially with topics, it comes off as looking immature.

[TheRealJayDee]

Plaintiff wrote...

I dont give a **** about art direction or model rendering or battle animations or anything else.

Yeah, well, you know, maybe some people do. Story and characters are really important to me too, but if things like the art direction and the combat animations make it hard for me to take the world the story is set in seriously, then it's a problem.

Brockololly wrote...
 It seems most of those articles acting like Da2 was some hidden gem are recalling some game that doesn't exist in actuality- again, they're praising the concept of what DA2 could have been but the execution is no where near close to what they're claiming.

I totally have to agree with this. On release there was a review in magazine I really liked and trusted. They don't score games, so it was just a well written text, which described a game I absolutely loved. Sadly I had already played DA2, and knew that what was descibed was the game DA2 could have been, not the game it turned out to be.

[DreamwareStudio]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Story and characters are really important to me too, but if things like the art direction and the combat animations make it hard for me to take the world the story is set in seriously, then it's a problem.

Brockololly wrote...
 It seems most of those articles acting like Da2 was some hidden gem are recalling some game that doesn't exist in actuality- again, they're praising the concept of what DA2 could have been but the execution is no where near close to what they're claiming.

I totally have to agree with this. On release there was a review in magazine I really liked and trusted. They don't score games, so it was just a well written text, which described a game I absolutely loved. Sadly I had already played DA2, and knew that what was descibed was the game DA2 could have been, not the game it turned out to be.

This on both counts.  Well said, RealJayDee.

[Plaintiff]

HiroVoid wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Pretty good articles. I'd be very disappointed if the incessant ****ing meant that DA2 ended up being the only game of its kind.

Can I honestly just ask this since I've seen it plenty of times on these forums?  Why do people still keep cussing even though they know it's just going to be censored.  Especially with topics, it comes off as looking immature.

I "cuss" because that's how I talk. Words are words. That people choose to associate them with "rudeness" or "immaturity" is their own hang up, not mine. It's difficult to explain where I draw my personal line, since (being censored) I can't demonstrate the words I think are "okay". Suffice it to say, with the exception of slurs against religious/racial/sexual minorities, I'm not offended by other "cusswords" unless they are used specifically to offend me. They are colloquialisms, nothing more.

I'm perfectly aware of the arbitrary rules of etiquette that govern social behaviour, and will modify my speech in times when I feel it is appropriate (eg, in a job interview or at a funeral), because I am senstive to the fact that other people will be offended, even if I wouldn't be. But I see no reason to monitor myself on the internet, especially if other people are already going to do it for me.

That Bioware chooses to censor these words on their social forums is totally their prerogative, but I have to question the redundancy of going through such posts and further editing them to change the word completely, which  have seen them do. I also consider it somewhat (read: very) hypocritical for the developers to censor the use of words that they scatter pretty liberally in their own games. A short exchange between Aveline and Isabela contains more "cussing" than ten of my average posts.

The Dragon Age games are intended for adults, and the majority of users that frequent the forum are also adults (legally, if not in any other sense). It seems silly to babysit us instead of trusting us to exercise our own judgement in the use of language.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 12 janvier 2012 - 02:21 .

[Plaintiff]

TheRealJayDee wrote...
Yeah, well, you know, maybe some people do. Story and characters are really important to me too, but if things like the art direction and the combat animations make it hard for me to take the world the story is set in seriously, then it's a problem.

If you allow yourself to be distracted by meaningless superficialities, then that's your problem. Obviously plenty of other people are able to see past those things to take DA2's story seriously, since they've gone on to write articles about it.

The characters and environments of Origins may have been less stylized than those of DA2, but if you're seriously going to try and tell me that they looked more "real", I'll probably laugh until I puke.

It's an obviously bull**** excuse. Technology has only very recently reached the point where it can come even close to emulating reality. But I don't see anybody claiming that the comparatively extremely poor and decidedly unrealistic art direction of Bioware's early games distracted them from storylines that they consider to be so very compelling, despite their extremely formulaic and predictable nature. There is no style of animation that precludes the possibility of delivering a complex, mature, serious storyline. Any claims to the contrary stem not from objecive reasoning, but from personal bias.

As for combat animation, I doubt very much that anyone on this forum is qualified to dictate what "real combat" actually looks like. Tell me, do you have any first-hand experience with swordfighting? Or any fighting?

Modifié par Plaintiff, 12 janvier 2012 - 02:24 .

[TEWR]

Mr.House wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I do find that image of Varnell to be hilarious though.

They are amusing, but Brock did not show them with that intention. He intended to show that DA2 sucks, which he does almost on a daily basis.  It's no diffrent then comparing DAO elves to teh DA2 ones and showing the good looking DAO elves then showing the ugly DA2 elves.

Oh I know. While some facial animations were bad, there were some really nice ones. And indeed, Anders' wonky eyebrows escaped my notice on my playthroughs because I was glad to see that the attempt at better expressions was made.

Fenris' expressions, Merrill's, and Isabela's were probably the best.

John Epler wrote...

You know, I'm going to suggest that if you're not planning on arguing in good faith, that you should, perhaps, take a break from the forums.

There's nothing wrong with illustrating the problems you have with DA2. I've always argued that people should feel free to share their opinions, whether positive or negative, and that it's only through criticism that we're able to grow as developers and ensure that our future products are of a higher quality.

Indeed. While I was heavily disappointed with DAII I always discuss what I didn't like about it in threads that deal with certain aspects of it.

The most recent example that comes to mind is in the thread "The Bethany/Carver Problem", where I felt that the death of the sibling in the beginning was a horrible attempt at getting us to care about a person we don't even know. And the only way we can care about said sibling is through metagaming what we learn about them if they survived.

John Epler wrote...

But 'good faith' is the key. Taking the worst examples (or, to be fair, the best examples) and saying 'this is truly representative of the quality of the game as a whole' is not good faith.

Good man. This is exactly the type of stuff I have issue with, and it's usually due to what Mr. House gave as an example. It's almost always used to slander the DAII elf design.

Also, thank you for showing support for the people that disliked DAII by saying that the commonly held belief that people that disliked DAII only wanted more DAO is far from correct.

At least when it's being used to describe everyone that was disappointed with DAII. I'm sure some may have felt that way, but personally speaking I was excited about the concepts you were working with and I was severely disappointed with how it turned out.

 

[Rawgrim]

You don`t need combat experience to realize a person can`t "skateboard" across the ground just like that. And poking someone with a dagger doesn`t make them explode.

[TanyaT]

Rawgrim wrote...

You don`t need combat experience to realize a person can`t "skateboard" across the ground just like that. And poking someone with a dagger doesn`t make them explode.

that depends on just how many brussel sprouts they've eaten over Christmas

[TEWR]

Plaintiff wrote...

As for combat animation, I doubt very much that anyone on this forum is qualified to dictate what "real combat" actually looks like. Tell me, do you have any first-hand experience with swordfighting? Or any fighting?

For magic, certainly no one can claim what's realistic. Well, within reason. Hemorrhage is obviously unrealistic and it's not just something that is seen only in Blood Mage Hawke's gameplay. Grace uses it too in the BSC cutscene and that needs to change.

Stabbing yourself in the stomach with a staff -- one that also magically enters a portal and disappears without coming out of your backside -- is just bad.

A hemorrhage is simply defined as profuse bleeding. While the ability certainly conveys that, it also leaves one wondering how a person that just stabbed themselves in the stomach can still stand and fight. Cutting a vein would be better served at conveying profuse bleeding and retaining the ability to fight.

This is something that suspension of disbelief will not work for.

But for conventional weapons and armor, there was an article made by a blacksmith some time ago. I forget where.

However, I can certainly help attest to what is realistic with one-handed weapons in terms of speed and weight as I own a Civil War Sabre. Granted, they were used more by cavalry, but it's a one-handed weapon all the same.

However, I have never been in a fight with a sword -- whether to the death or simply to outmaneuver an opponent in a controlled fight. Not that I'd want the former to happen mind you. The latter I'd probably be a part of -- but I fervently believe that in war you must strike quickly and powerfully in order to defeat your opponent. I've often called the wearing of armor and use of weapons akin to weight lifting, in that eventually the weight of the weapons/armor will seem like nothing after extensive use.

Rawgrim wrote...

You don`t need combat experience to realize a person can`t "skateboard" across the ground just like that. And poking someone with a dagger doesn`t make them explode.

For the first point, indeed that's one of my problems with the S&S warrior animations.

For the second, I've landed plenty of critical hits now with a dagger and they don't explode. And even if they do, it can now be chalked up to Varric embellishing.

When I can be certain it does happen is when an enemy is made brittle by a freezing spell and a critical hit lands, which makes it realistic.

If you've ever experimented with liquid nitrogen, it's the same thing basically.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 12 janvier 2012 - 03:31 .

[Am1vf]

Plaintiff wrote...

TheRealJayDee wrote...
Yeah, well, you know, maybe some people do. Story and characters are really important to me too, but if things like the art direction and the combat animations make it hard for me to take the world the story is set in seriously, then it's a problem.

If you allow yourself to be distracted by meaningless superficialities, then that's your problem. Obviously plenty of other people are able to see past those things to take DA2's story seriously, since they've gone on to write articles about it.

The characters and environments of Origins may have been less stylized than those of DA2, but if you're seriously going to try and tell me that they looked more "real", I'll probably laugh until I puke.

It's an obviously bull**** excuse. Technology has only very recently reached the point where it can come even close to emulating reality. But I don't see anybody claiming that the comparatively extremely poor and decidedly unrealistic art direction of Bioware's early games distracted them from storylines that they consider to be so very compelling, despite their extremely formulaic and predictable nature. There is no style of animation that precludes the possibility of delivering a complex, mature, serious storyline. Any claims to the contrary stem not from objecive reasoning, but from personal bias.

As for combat animation, I doubt very much that anyone on this forum is qualified to dictate what "real combat" actually looks like. Tell me, do you have any first-hand experience with swordfighting? Or any fighting?

I didn't have any problem with it but I can understand how the visual input provided by Dragon Age Origins could keep certain people from valuing the more "serious" themes of it's story, the same way as the videogame medium can keep others from taking any story told by it seriously. Visuals convey a mesage and it can conflict with the writing depending on the background of the person playing the game.

About Dragon Age being "realistic", there are ways to convey a sense of realism (wich doesn't mean the same as real) and it would be a very valid objective for any fantasy universe. The Bioware team decided to take the franchise in the opposite direction and such a decision is just as good, not the one I would have chosen but that doesn't make it worse, but some people really can't stand it. The thing is that while Origins wasn't in any way realistic it didn't develop the more fantastic side of combat either, as they developed the visuals and the combat the path that was chosen became more obvious so people that haven't been put off by it in Origins would now notice in DA2, and it is understandable that people expecting the Dragon Age series to go on a more realistic way would be disappointed.

Modifié par Am1_vf, 12 janvier 2012 - 03:28 .