1306 réponses à ce sujet

[seraphymon]

Elhanan wrote...

Such as the Qunari still residing in the compound after time passed by.

Such as Sister Petrice and her active involvement against the Quanri.

Such as the words and actions of the Arishock concerning Javaris.

Then there are the chats with the Viscount, Saemus, and the Qunari themselves. as well as the Tal-Vashoth.

For me and maybe others, it was not a question if they would fight, but when.

Just because certain parts of 1 act, are present in another doesnt bring both acts into one cohesive story plot.

[Elhanan]

batlin wrote...

How many times must I recount this? Just because things are introduced with relevance to the next act doesn't mean that it builds up the next act, especially when it doesn't bother to divulge the relevance, or that the primary objectives in each act (the most important of them) have anything to do with each other. The boss isn't made apparent in act 1. Nor is the importance of the idol. The idol finally has it's relevance known in act 2, but this is one of the few connections between act 2 and act 3. And, of course, Hawke becoming a noble, the Qunari occupation, and the templars vs. mages only have incidental relevance to each other. Want to compare your list to the chain of events in DA:O?

- You are drafted into the grey wardens to fight back the blight.

- Loghain turns on the wardens for the purpose of uniting Ferelden under its own banner against the blight

- Now fugitives, the warden and his group have to use their treaties to unite the factions to fight back the blight.

- Once all the factions are united, Loghain is brought down and Ferelden is completely united to fight the blight.

- Then, they fight the Archdemon for the purpose of ending the blight.

See how they're all directly related while the events in DA2 aren't?

Did not need to read the summary this time, as I was able to follow and enjoy the storylines of both games.

I am a fan of the old Perry Mason series. While on many occasions the culprit was introduced early in the show, there was often no direct ties seen until the courtroom confession at the end of the show, which sometimes revealed the possible linking clue. Was not too complicated, though somewhat different than some other mysteries, and it was highly entertaining.

Guess different styles do not appeal to everyone. That said, Bioware is not required to write in the same one for every game. And otther than Orsino, there certainly is nothing flawed in the presentation. IMO.

Hope DA3 has more of both games.

[Elhanan]

Lillithszarmy wrote...

What was I meant to do when I got given DA2 as a gift? Shove it in their face and say no thanks?
Yes, my account is new, as it allows me to get mods.
I didn't, as you seem to be suggesting, create this account for the soul purpose of writing posts to annoy others.
I just posted my opinion and my thoughts on the game, just as you and others had.
You just seem to be finding fault with it.

Accept the gift graciously. But loading, playing, and quitting are all on your call; not theirs. This is probably why so many Fathers have a bundle of ties in their closets from their children.

As for DA2, hope more is to follow in DA3; same for DAO.

[batlin]

Elhanan wrote...

Did not need to read the summary this time, as I was able to follow and enjoy the storylines of both games.

I am a fan of the old Perry Mason series. While on many occasions the culprit was introduced early in the show, there was often no direct ties seen until the courtroom confession at the end of the show, which sometimes revealed the possible linking clue. Was not too complicated, though somewhat different than some other mysteries, and it was highly entertaining.

Here's the difference between your comparison and Dragon Age 2: at the end of the show, they're still trying to solve the mystery that started at the beginning of the show. Had Perry Mason been structured like DA2, they would solve the mystery before the first commercial break and the last half of the show Perry would be dealing with a bad heart attack that wasn't caused by anything regarding the case.

Guess different styles do not appeal to everyone. That said, Bioware is not required to write in the same one for every game. And otther than Orsino, there certainly is nothing flawed in the presentation. IMO.

Give me a break. Having a consistent narrative is not a "style", it's a fundamental aspect of storytelling. You may as well say that having a protagonist is a "style".

Modifié par batlin, 15 mars 2012 - 01:06 .

[TjM78]

It's just a matter of opinion. I actually really love DA2. I have no clue why I just enjoy it tremendously

[eroeru]

TjM78 wrote...

It's just a matter of opinion. I actually really love DA2. I have no clue why I just enjoy it tremendously

This is the only fundamental statement I've seen here. Applause. (YYY)

[Realmzmaster]

eroeru wrote...

TjM78 wrote...

It's just a matter of opinion. I actually really love DA2. I have no clue why I just enjoy it tremendously

This is the only fundamental statement I've seen here. Applause. (YYY)

It is the only statement that matters. If you liked the game that is your opinion. If you did not like the game that is your opinion. You do not have to state the reasons why you did or did not like it unless you wish to provide constructive criticism. You simply like what you like or dislike and do not have to justify it to anyone.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 15 mars 2012 - 01:55 .

[eroeru]

^^ That's what I meant. I was actually sincere.

[batlin]

I like how "I like this game but I don't know why" is a fundamental statement but "I don't like this game and here's why" isn't...

Modifié par batlin, 15 mars 2012 - 03:02 .

[eroeru]

It's certainly less simple and more problematic.

edit: I especially liked the fact he didn't know why he liked it - I feel for that as I also have no idea why anyone would like DA2. 
Besides, I enjoyed the change of pace (and style) that the post seemed to bring about (in contrast to previous discussions).

Modifié par eroeru, 15 mars 2012 - 03:07 .

[batlin]

Constructive criticism usually is.

[Pasquale1234]

Here is another attempt at a fundamental statement that is, hopefully, in keeping with the title of this thread:

When one compares the sales figures for DA2 with those of its predecessor, it certainly looks like something went awry.

[Elhanan]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Here is another attempt at a fundamental statement that is, hopefully, in keeping with the title of this thread:

When one compares the sales figures for DA2 with those of its predecessor, it certainly looks like something went awry.

This just in: Some that played DAO discover they do not like FRPG's, or pasrts thereof....

Not everyone liked DAO for any number of reasons, and were not planning on getting this or any sequel; why I stopped watching Harry Potter after the first film.

[batlin]

Elhanan wrote...

This just in: Some that played DAO discover they do not like FRPG's, or pasrts thereof....

Not everyone liked DAO for any number of reasons, and were not planning on getting this or any sequel; why I stopped watching Harry Potter after the first film.

Judging from the sales figures though, the some that disliked Origins pale in comparison to the some disliked DA2.

[Das Tentakel]

eroeru wrote...

It's certainly less simple and more problematic.

edit: I especially liked the fact he didn't know why he liked it - I feel for that as I also have no idea why anyone would like DA2. 
Besides, I enjoyed the change of pace (and style) that the post seemed to bring about (in contrast to previous discussions).

It's only when you do NOT like something but WANTED to love it that you start try to figure out why.
You can probably summarise a lot of the supplementary whining, including mine, as:

Why, oh why Bioware, hast thou forsaken me?

Modifié par Das Tentakel, 15 mars 2012 - 03:26 .

[Realmzmaster]

Das Tentakel wrote...

eroeru wrote...

It's certainly less simple and more problematic.

edit: I especially liked the fact he didn't know why he liked it - I feel for that as I also have no idea why anyone would like DA2. 
Besides, I enjoyed the change of pace (and style) that the post seemed to bring about (in contrast to previous discussions).

It's only when you do NOT like something but WANTED to love it that you start try to figure out why.
You can probably summarise a lot of the supplementary whining, including mine, as:

Why, oh why Bioware, hast thou forsaken me?

I remember that was the same feeling I got with DAO in comparison to Baldur's Gate. DAO was a spiritual successor to BG in that it was a pale imitation.

[Elhanan]

batlin wrote... *snip*

Give me a break. Having a consistent narrative is not a "style", it's a fundamental aspect of storytelling. You may as well say that having a protagonist is a "style".

Hmmm....

http://en.wikipedia....erary_technique

style

Part of Speech:
noun

Definition:
fashion, manner

Synonyms:
appearance, approach, bearing, behavior, carriage, characteristic, cup of tea, custom, cut*, description, design, druthers, flash*, form, genre, groove*, habit, hand, idiosyncrasy, kind, method, mode, number, pattern, peculiarity, rage*, sort, spirit, strain, technique, tenor, thing*, tone, trait, trend, type, variety, vein, vogue, way
* = informal/non-formal usage


Break me off a piece of that Kit-Kat bar....

Modifié par Elhanan, 15 mars 2012 - 03:44 .

[Realmzmaster]

Getting back to the title of the post. No I do not accept that DA2 went in the wrong direction. IMHO, that started with DAO which took out many of the elements I consider essential to a cRPG. Others see it as micromanagement. I have detail what I like in a cRPG in other threads, so I see no need to repeat where I stand. I simply accept DAO and DA2 for what they are and not what I wanted them to be.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 15 mars 2012 - 03:49 .

[Pasquale1234]

Elhanan wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Here is another attempt at a fundamental statement that is, hopefully, in keeping with the title of this thread:

When one compares the sales figures for DA2 with those of its predecessor, it certainly looks like something went awry.

This just in: Some that played DAO discover they do not like FRPG's, or pasrts thereof....

Not everyone liked DAO for any number of reasons, and were not planning on getting this or any sequel; why I stopped watching Harry Potter after the first film.

Irrelvant.  The fact remains that DAO --> DA2 went the wrong direction in sales figures.

Realmzmaster wrote...

I remember that was the same feeling
I got with DAO in comparison to Baldur's Gate. DAO was a spiritual
successor to BG in that it was a pale imitation.

Understandably so, and many of us would have loved a BG3.  DAO was not a sequel, but an entirely new franchise.

[Das Tentakel]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Das Tentakel wrote...

eroeru wrote...

It's certainly less simple and more problematic.

edit: I especially liked the fact he didn't know why he liked it - I feel for that as I also have no idea why anyone would like DA2. 
Besides, I enjoyed the change of pace (and style) that the post seemed to bring about (in contrast to previous discussions).

It's only when you do NOT like something but WANTED to love it that you start try to figure out why.
You can probably summarise a lot of the supplementary whining, including mine, as:

Why, oh why Bioware, hast thou forsaken me?

I remember that was the same feeling I got with DAO in comparison to Baldur's Gate. DAO was a spiritual successor to BG in that it was a pale imitation.

Luckily I never saw it as the successor to Baldur's Gate, which, like DA:O, I genuinely liked. But did not love.
It gave me the emotional distance to see it for what it was - the progeny of Neverwinter Nights (which I did not even like), and thus much closer to Neverwinter Nights II (which I did like, bugs and all) than Baldur's Gate.
I never considered the spiritual successor blathering as more than PR talk.

My 'emotional' beef with DA2 is probably the result of hoping to like it even more than DA:O, as well as seeing the potential in the game, its setup and some of the care and thought that went into it. Maybe a good comparison would be dating some nice girl's sister, having heard that she is truly great, and secretly hoping that the sparks would fly.
And ending up with an obviously schizophrenic girl with a nice figure but questionable hygiene.
But damn, can she occasionally be funny.

Man, this metaphor just went off the rails:?

Modifié par Das Tentakel, 15 mars 2012 - 03:59 .

[Realmzmaster]

D20 was available for use by Bioware, so a new franchise was not entirely necessary.Simply created the Dragon Age world within the D20 ruleset. Bioware could not use any of the D & D settings without licensing from Hasbro. The D20 is freely given for use.

Bioware chose to create a new IP (with different mechanics) which is their right. Just like Bioware chose to make changes to the IP for DA2. Just Bioware will make changes to the IP for DA3. The buying public will decide whether they like the changes or not.

[Pasquale1234]

Das Tentakel wrote...

My 'emotional' beef with DA2 is probably the result of hoping to like it even more than DA:O, as well as seeing the potential in the game, its setup and some of the care and thought that went into it.

Or at least as much... or at all...

The world of Thedas introduced in DAO seemed so rich, so deep, so amazingly filled with so much potential and so much more to explore.  Maybe I was expecting too much from DA2.  My primary beefs with it are not so much the story or characters, but the customization and gameplay elements that were nerfed, and the resulting genre shift.  I don't really consider DA2 to be an RPG, but an action-adventure game with RPG elements.  I don't especially want to get into a discussion about what constitutes an RPG, but trying to role-play Hawke just doesn't work very well for me, and I think the fixed morality, VO, auto-dialogue and liberal use of cinematics are the primary cause.

[Das Tentakel]

Realmzmaster wrote...

D20 was available for use by Bioware, so a new franchise was not entirely necessary.Simply created the Dragon Age world within the D20 ruleset. Bioware could not use any of the D & D settings without licensing from Hasbro. The D20 is freely given for use.

Not just D20, there are A LOT of RPG systems - and settings, from novels to published pen & paper settings - that they could have taken. Creative liberty and not having to pay any royalties were presumably the main factors influencing this decision. I think this also gives potentially a lot of power to the writers and the marketeers to steer / influence the creative process. For good or for ill.

I remember talking to a friend (himself a very experienced and gifted DM) about the fact that current Bioware games seem to do a lot of deliberate and very blatant 'sexual pandering' (Miranda, Isabella etc.), something I don't really remember from earlier Bioware games, even if they did have 'romancable' characters. Referring to KotOR and SWTOR, he replied that this is the kind of thing LucasArts would actively prevent in any Bioware games using their IP. After all, a bit of bare skin is alright (Princess Leia slave outfit and all), but there are some fairly strict limits they observe.
I mention this as an example of 'creative boundaries' that, like creative freedom, has both advantages and disadvantages.

[TjM78]

I loved the combat and I really enjoyed the fact that it wasn't one man trying to save the world. I also liked the companions allot better.

I guess I meant I just have no idea why it pulled me in so much more than Origins (Which I thought was fantastic)

Also Verric is the man

[TjM78]

Sales?


By that logic  Britney Spears>>>Social Distortion

Modifié par TjM78, 15 mars 2012 - 04:25 .