1306 réponses à ce sujet

[crawfs]

Barrendall111 wrote...

Story-wise I enjoyed DAII immensely. Yes, the recycled maps and the over-the-top melee animations were a little annoying but I didn't let it ruin my rpg experience. (The mage animations were an improvement however) I settled it in my head to enjoy the story and my choices as much as possible and ergo I wasn't disappointed.

My problem with this statement by epople saying "I enjoyed the story" is that there was no clear goal to be completed, let me clarify:

- In DA:O your goal after becoming a grey warden is to gather an army and stop the blight (pretty straightforward)
- In the Mass Effect series your goal is to prepare for and stop the reaper invasion.

I could go on with few more examples but I think you get the point. NOw the problem with Dragon age 2 was that there was no clear goal.

***SPOILERS BRIEF SUMMARY OF DA2***

Act 1 was essentially "make money" not really much of a plot at all.

Act 2 was just constant back and forth between the leader of Kirkwall (forgotten the name) and the Qunari Arishok which ended with battle started by the Qunari but what dealt with quite quickly and had no real affect on anything. Again you COULD argue that you have "a clear goal here" but my point is there are no "long term goals" in DA2

Act 3 was fluffing about between mages and templars which was pretty much the same as Act 2 except it involved two different groups

***END SPOILERS***

so basically there are no long term goals in DA2 making the story all but non-existant without and overall goal there is no plot or story to be had.

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

NovinhaShepard wrote...
Jade Empire, particularly represents the best of Bioware, story, choice, characters (maybe not setting, but I disagree).

Yeah, Jade Empire: the game where they invented an actually kind of interesting spin on the good vs. evil morality slider and proceeded to ignore it in favor of saving kittens/killing kittens morality. Character-wise, I guess the possessed kid and Master Li were kind of cool, but the rest were pretty forgettable. That said, however, I would play the **** out of Jade Empire: Good Edition (now with better writing and less stun-locking and arguable racism!)

 

NovinhaShepard wrote... 
Creating an rpg with a framed narrative was not a wrong or bad move, it was just a new way of story-telling, one that I think was pulled off nicely.

Well, it would have been interesting if they had actually done anything with it (*cough*AlphaProtocol*cough*).

Modifié par Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut, 03 mars 2012 - 04:16 .

[Jerrybnsn]

batlin wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

2's direction was far more ambitious, innovative and interesting than Origins', and I salute that. It would have been a solidly far better game if it had actually had enough development time. So no, I don't agree with this at all.

Tell me, in what ways did DA2 innovate?

I mean, I keep seeing people say that DA2 is innovative, but never once have I seen someone explain exactly what these innovations are.

Does innovation mean 'taking away elements"?  Like conversations, party equipment  or simplifying fetch quests?  Because DA2 was very innovative on this front.

[jbrand2002uk]

simply answered No i have both games and all the DLC DAO may be slightly better put together but for me the most important part is the combat and the story and tbh the combat in DA2 was more enjoyable overall sure the finishers in DAO like the decapitations were cool and if i'm really honest the story in DAO is still very cliche'd even if it is good.

I'd rather pay full price for a game that trys something different and fails than pay full price for a game that is too much like its predecessors and every other game out there plus or minus some minor tweeks( I'm looking at you Tiger Woods series)

[Xilizhra]

batlin wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

2's direction was far more ambitious, innovative and interesting than Origins', and I salute that. It would have been a solidly far better game if it had actually had enough development time. So no, I don't agree with this at all.

Tell me, in what ways did DA2 innovate?

I mean, I keep seeing people say that DA2 is innovative, but never once have I seen someone explain exactly what these innovations are.

A plot that tried to set up bad circumstances as the main foe instead of set villains, having it be about defending one city instead of adventuring, giving all of the companions rather set places in the world instead of them being just vague attachments to the hero alone... it tried to do a lot.

[crawfs]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

simply answered No i have both games and all the DLC DAO may be slightly better put together but for me the most important part is the combat and the story and tbh the combat in DA2 was more enjoyable overall sure the finishers in DAO like the decapitations were cool and if i'm really honest the story in DAO is still very cliche'd even if it is good.

I'd rather pay full price for a game that trys something different and fails than pay full price for a game that is too much like its predecessors and every other game out there plus or minus some minor tweeks( I'm looking at you Tiger Woods series)

Wait so a "bad" plot in DA:O is better than no plot in DA2?

[jbrand2002uk]

Does innovation mean 'taking away elements"?  Like conversations, party equipment  or simplifying fetch quests?  Because DA2 was very innovative on this front.[/quote]


But havent you heard less is more or so says Porsche each sucessive 911 has less in it which costs more 911T 911GT3RS and 911GT2RS where it will come to the point that a guy walks past a Porsche dealership and gets charged $1,000,000 for no porsche at all 

[jbrand2002uk]

crawfs wrote...

jbrand2002uk wrote...

simply answered No i have both games and all the DLC DAO may be slightly better put together but for me the most important part is the combat and the story and tbh the combat in DA2 was more enjoyable overall sure the finishers in DAO like the decapitations were cool and if i'm really honest the story in DAO is still very cliche'd even if it is good.

I'd rather pay full price for a game that trys something different and fails than pay full price for a game that is too much like its predecessors and every other game out there plus or minus some minor tweeks( I'm looking at you Tiger Woods series)

Wait so a "bad" plot in DA:O is better than no plot in DA2?

There is a plot just not the type your used to being fed on a regular basis The Devs have more or less said DA2 is really just a set up for DA3 a bridging game if you will,take it for what it is regardless the combat in DA2 at least didnt feel like a drag 

[seraphymon]

crustybots replies kinda is telling me he is another versago alt, made to troll the praising about DA2. Either way his statements are flat out not true. Sure some of of people who disliked DAO may have never even considered trying out DA2, doesnt mean they would like it,even if some may have.

Cliched doesnt mean its bad, but yes i feel DA2 did go the wrong direction overall. and from talks they insist on still going in the direction for the most part, despite everything. Which is dissapointing.

[JeeWeeJ]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...
Does innovation mean 'taking away elements"?  Like conversations, party equipment  or simplifying fetch quests?  Because DA2 was very innovative on this front.

But havent you heard less is more or so says Porsche each sucessive 911 has less in it which costs more 911T 911GT3RS and 911GT2RS where it will come to the point that a guy walks past a Porsche dealership and gets charged $1,000,000 for no porsche at all 

Well in that case we could also say that North Korea has a very innovative way of handling human rights??

Anyway, back on topic, sure, I totally agree that nobody (even the biggest DA2 critic) is really waiting for an exact copy of DA:O with just some minor alterations. And sure, if you like experimental games thats quite fine. But why do it in a sequel?? Thats something that just boggles my mind. They have this game that a lot of people love (or at the very least like, according to the sales charts) and then they say  "Well...this is rubbish! Let's do it COMPLETELY different but still call it a sequel!".  Wait...whu...*BOOM!* Mind blown!

Now I really appreciate the effort of Bioware to do things different, but why do it in a sequel??? Thats just asking for trouble! (and just look at the history of these DA2 forums for proof of that)

That said, it's quite telling that when I look in the EA Origin store, DA:O is still more expensive then DA2. Usually it's the other way around... (and the free ME2 copies they gave away also gave me the impression that Bio KNEW they made a mistake and tried to do some damage control)

Oh well, I'm ranting about conspiracies again....

Modifié par JeeWeeJ, 03 mars 2012 - 04:44 .

[batlin]

Xilizhra wrote...
A plot that tried to set up bad circumstances as the main foe instead of set villains, having it be about defending one city instead of adventuring, giving all of the companions rather set places in the world instead of them being just vague attachments to the hero alone... it tried to do a lot.

So restricting the setting to one place is innovative? Having the focus of the game be politics instead of fighting off villains is innovative? I could name a plethora of games that did all of this before, and did it better. Final Fantasy 12 comes to mind. As does Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines. And pretty much every GTA. Tell me, how are these things innovative if they have been done long before DA2?

Modifié par batlin, 03 mars 2012 - 05:11 .

[Joy Divison]

NovinhaShepard wrote...

Isn't it funny that if people enjoy an unpopular game, there opinions are wrong, and the company that made them 'went in a wrong direction'. Unfortunately, to appeal to the whining masses, the Dragon Age team may be forced to admit that DA2 wasn't an awesome game.

It is about as funny that because you enjoyed a game, your opinion is right and it was an "awesome" game.

[jbrand2002uk]

While I'm all for the "if it aint broke dont fix it" approach if I'm being asked to pay "new game" money then i want a New game not a rehashed version of the last game with a new character and some minor visual tweeks DA2 may not be the most well executed RPG but I'll give them a round of applause for at least trying something different rather than falling in the habbit of making tweeked clones off the original as EA have done with the Tiger woods series.

[Xilizhra]

batlin wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
A plot that tried to set up bad circumstances as the main foe instead of set villains, having it be about defending one city instead of adventuring, giving all of the companions rather set places in the world instead of them being just vague attachments to the hero alone... it tried to do a lot.

So restricting the setting to one place is innovative? Having the focus fo the game be politics instead of fighting off villains is innovative? I could name a plethora of games that did all of this before, and did it better. Final Fantasy 12 comes to mind. As does Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines. And pretty much every GTA. Tell me, how are these things innovative if they have been done long before DA2?

Less typical, if you'd prefer that. Something less common for the "standard fantasy setting" thing.

[batlin]

Xilizhra wrote...
Less typical, if you'd prefer that. Something less common for the "standard fantasy setting" thing.

"Less typical" is not a definition of "innovative".

See, the reason it's typical for fantasy RPGs to involve exploration of the lands, powerful villains, etc, is because of the inherent fantastical nature of the setting. You want to explore a fantasy world because of the natural marvels. Being sequestered in a city is, frankly, boring compared to exploring the unknown in a world where pretty much anything is possible. And epic villains lend scale and ominous-ness to the world in the way politics can't. Because really, if say the Qunari were to take over Kirkwall, it would have much less impact on the world than a Blight would. because not as much is at stake, we don't care as much.

[batlin]

Xilizhra wrote...
Less typical, if you'd prefer that. Something less common for the "standard fantasy setting" thing.

"Less typical" is not a definition of "innovative".

See, the reason it's typical for fantasy RPGs to involve exploration of the lands, powerful villains, etc, is because of the inherent fantastical nature of the setting. You want to explore a fantasy world because of the natural marvels. Being sequestered in a city is, frankly, boring compared to exploring the unknown in a world where pretty much anything is possible. And epic villains lend scale and ominous-ness to the world in the way politics can't. Because really, if say the Qunari were to take over Kirkwall, it would have much less impact on the world than a Blight would. Because not as much is at stake, we don't care as much.

[zyntifox]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

While I'm all for the "if it aint broke dont fix it" approach if I'm being asked to pay "new game" money then i want a New game not a rehashed version of the last game with a new character and some minor visual tweeks DA2 may not be the most well executed RPG but I'll give them a round of applause for at least trying something different rather than falling in the habbit of making tweeked clones off the original as EA have done with the Tiger woods series.

So you are not for "if it aint broke dont fix it" after all? For me all they had to do for the sequel was minor graphics upgrade and a new story and i would have gladly given them my $60.

[Xilizhra]

batlin wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Less typical, if you'd prefer that. Something less common for the "standard fantasy setting" thing.

"Less typical" is not a definition of "innovative".

See, the reason it's typical for fantasy RPGs to involve exploration of the lands, powerful villains, etc, is because of the inherent fantastical nature of the setting. You want to explore a fantasy world because of the natural marvels. Being sequestered in a city is, frankly, boring compared to exploring the unknown in a world where pretty much anything is possible. And epic villains lend scale and ominous-ness to the world in the way politics can't. Because really, if say the Qunari were to take over Kirkwall, it would have much less impact on the world than a Blight would. because not as much is at stake, we don't care as much.

Not only did we do that in the last game, but I actually found the marvels of this world (well, more like horrors, but still) to be much more interesting and definitive than the ones in the last game, which felt highly generic and shallow. The only one I can really think of that was unique to Origins was Andraste's ashes, and we learned nothing about them at all beyond what they could do. The Fade had its moments too, I suppose, but much less so than the primeval thaig and Enigma of Kirkwall business, among other things, in 2.

As for the "epic villains" thing... I don't count the Archdemon as a villain, really. We didn't even know the thing was sapient until Darkspawn Chronicles when it had a voice, but it's not a villain so much as a force of nature that can be stabbed. It has a backstory, but no motivation other than "darkspawn corruption makes you rampage," and the backstory has nothing to do with its behavior or current mindset, because the current mindset explicitly trashes all possible past motivations.

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

batlin wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Less typical, if you'd prefer that. Something less common for the "standard fantasy setting" thing.

"Less typical" is not a definition of "innovative".

See, the reason it's typical for fantasy RPGs to involve exploration of the lands, powerful villains, etc, is because of the inherent fantastical nature of the setting. You want to explore a fantasy world because of the natural marvels. Being sequestered in a city is, frankly, boring compared to exploring the unknown in a world where pretty much anything is possible. And epic villains lend scale and ominous-ness to the world in the way politics can't. Because really, if say the Qunari were to take over Kirkwall, it would have much less impact on the world than a Blight would. Because not as much is at stake, we don't care as much.

This is an interesting point. I'd submit that there are some fantasy settings that lend themselves well to political/economical struggle (Bas-Lag, for instance), but THEDragonAgeSetting is not one of them. A stated or unstated goal of the setting was to tell a standard fantasy story, and telling a political story for it highlights the weaknesses of the setting and fails to utilize the setting's strengths.

[DarkAmaranth1966]

I think the problem some have is that they expected DA2 to be an expansion pack for DAO rather than a new game. Had that been EA/Bioware's intent, it would have been sold as an EP, not a new game, which it was. Same for DA3, when it comes out, it will be a new game, not an expansion for the games we already have.

IMO EP = Upgraded, new story, new location SAME Player Character.
New Game = New Story, New graphics, new voices, new locations, NEW Player Character.
DA2 Was a new game, not an EP for DAO.

While both could use some more DLC and improvements, neither is wrong or broken, just different.

[eroeru]

This thread is full of win.

Kudos to Crustybot, bEVEsthda and the OP!

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

DarkAmaranth1966 wrote...

I think the problem some have is that they expected DA2 to be an expansion pack for DAO rather than a new game. 

I think the problem some have is that they expected DA2 to be well-written and have enjoyable gameplay.

[Wulfram]

The thing about the more innovative things it did is that they never really amounted to anything.

Being based in Kirkwall all the time was worthless because Kirkwall never developed a character beyond "unpleasant". And most of the quests were basically standard adventuring quests that could have been transplanted to any other Bioware fantasy RPG with ease.
The framed narrative was almost irrelevant.
The more interesting parts of Meredith's backstory are barely relevant to the plot, and aren't even told to you if you support the Templars
The extended timeframe varies from unimportant to downright nonsensical

So I end up wishing the game had been written as straightforward by-the-numbers cash in from the beginning. Because they would have probably been able to deliver on it in the time frame.

[Meris]

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

This is an interesting point. I'd submit that there are some fantasy settings that lend themselves well to political/economical struggle (Bas-Lag, for instance), but THEDragonAgeSetting is not one of them. A stated or unstated goal of the setting was to tell a standard fantasy story, and telling a political story for it highlights the weaknesses of the setting and fails to utilize the setting's strengths.

Don't be silly. Most of DA:O' story was about social political elements. There's a reason why Loghain and the Archdemon are commonly regarded as antagonists on equal standing and why only 2 of the Origin stories delve deep within the darkspawn menace.

Modifié par Meris, 03 mars 2012 - 05:47 .

[batlin]

Xilizhra wrote...
Not only did we do that in the last game, but I actually found the marvels of this world (well, more like horrors, but still) to be much more interesting and definitive than the ones in the last game, which felt highly generic and shallow.

Frankly I'm at a loss as to what marvels there were in DA2 that we didn't already see in DA:O. The Deeproads? dragons? In Origins we uncovered secrets about the Dalish, fought through the Fade, delved into the tomb of Andraste, found the Anvil of the Void, and even dealt with Dwarven politics (which everyone who praises DA2's story should be giddy about). DA:O's setting was vast, the cultures encountered were greatly different from each other, and every quest felt like you were truly in a new place. Whereas in DA2 the most alien place you ever visit are the couple hallways in the Deeproads. I cannot fathom how anyone can truthfully say they thought Dragon Age 2 had a more interesting settign than DA:O, especially when the setting in DA2 is more or less present in DA:O along with so much more. 

As for the "epic villains" thing... I don't count the Archdemon as a villain, really. We didn't even know the thing was sapient until Darkspawn Chronicles when it had a voice, but it's not a villain so much as a force of nature that can be stabbed. It has a backstory, but no motivation other than "darkspawn corruption makes you rampage," and the backstory has nothing to do with its behavior or current mindset, because the current mindset explicitly trashes all possible past motivations.

Of course you knew the Archdemon was sapient in DA:O...the darkspawn themselves are smart enough to forge weapons and armor and craft ballistas, and Alistair says that some Grey Wardens can understand what the Archdemon is saying in their dreams. Obviously is the Archdemon speaks, it's sapient.

Modifié par batlin, 03 mars 2012 - 05:49 .