1306 réponses à ce sujet

[wsandista]

batlin wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Yeah, my mistake, I see all the praise you're laying out in this thread alone, sorry.  I'll go back to reality now.

I don't praise this game because it isn't worthy of it, same as most everyone else. If the sales figures themselves aren't proof enough that the majority of people were disappointed with this game then your reality is a tad skewed

Dude DA2 fanbros will bend over backwards to justify it's failure.
Reason and facts don't work.

[Tommyspa]

wsandista wrote...

batlin wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Yeah, my mistake, I see all the praise you're laying out in this thread alone, sorry.  I'll go back to reality now.

I don't praise this game because it isn't worthy of it, same as most everyone else. If the sales figures themselves aren't proof enough that the majority of people were disappointed with this game then your reality is a tad skewed

Dude DA2 fanbros will bend over backwards to justify it's failure.
Reason and facts don't work.

Because reason and facts are actually elitist intolerant opinions.

[batlin]

Tommyspa wrote...

wsandista wrote...

batlin wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Yeah, my mistake, I see all the praise you're laying out in this thread alone, sorry.  I'll go back to reality now.

I don't praise this game because it isn't worthy of it, same as most everyone else. If the sales figures themselves aren't proof enough that the majority of people were disappointed with this game then your reality is a tad skewed

Dude DA2 fanbros will bend over backwards to justify it's failure.
Reason and facts don't work.

Because reason and facts are actually elitist intolerant opinions.

Don't forget that the opinions are also "entitled"

Modifié par batlin, 01 juin 2012 - 11:47 .

[wsandista]

Tommyspa wrote...

wsandista wrote...

batlin wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Yeah, my mistake, I see all the praise you're laying out in this thread alone, sorry.  I'll go back to reality now.

I don't praise this game because it isn't worthy of it, same as most everyone else. If the sales figures themselves aren't proof enough that the majority of people were disappointed with this game then your reality is a tad skewed

Dude DA2 fanbros will bend over backwards to justify it's failure.
Reason and facts don't work.

Because reason and facts are actually elitist intolerant opinions.

So DA2 selling less in subsequent weeks than DA is an opinion and not a fact?
The fact that DAO and NWN2 are selling higher than DA2 is just an opinon?

batlin wrote...

Don't forget that the opinions are also "entitled"

Ahh yes, the entitlement argument. Because after spending what amounts to 6-hours of labor on a product and expecting it to be good is entitlement by a bunch of spoiled brats. Why can't we just accepting increasingly substandard products?

Modifié par wsandista, 01 juin 2012 - 11:52 .

[sickpixie]

robertthebard wrote...

I didn't buy it in the first week because I made the mistake of reading the forums first.  It's a mistake because I should already know from MMO experience that the most vocal people on the forums are generally the ones that don't like it, and the ones that do, that may indeed use the forums are generally busy playing it.  Lesson learned, or maybe relearned.  Having purchased the game, and DLC, I can't say I'm disappointed with it.

Thank you hater community for making me miss out on a year and change of fun.

Look on the bright side, you got it for a cheaper price and fully patched. It looks like it definitely wasn't worth it before 1.03.

[Burnouts3s3]

What I think is happening/happened is that the Dragon Age team is trying out a new process of developing games. Remember, DA: O took a much longer time to develop and when the sequel was announced, they made a new method of developing the game under their usual cycle.

I also think the game tried too hard to appeal to newcomers when it's really the fans who will buy the game, so there are a lot of things to consider.

Personally, let's stick with the classics. Staying power will always beat weekly sales in my opinion.

[unreadierLizard]

I feel like I'm the only one who enjoyed DA2. I like the combat changes - 'cause going from combat in DA:O to DA2 was kind of night and day; DA:O's combat seemed a bit too clunky for me and having abilities not fire and the like was very frustrating.

DA2 also had some awesome characters such as Meredith and Orsino; there was a lot more morally grey actions in DA2 then there was in Origins which I really liked.

Of course there were some issues; going back to the same alleyway 6 times in a row was kind of annoying, as well as the abruptness of certain plot points coming to an end with almost no closure, but, still; I enjoyed DA2 almost as much as I did DA:O.

[robertthebard]

Burnouts3s3 wrote...

What I think is happening/happened is that the Dragon Age team is trying out a new process of developing games. Remember, DA: O took a much longer time to develop and when the sequel was announced, they made a new method of developing the game under their usual cycle.

I also think the game tried too hard to appeal to newcomers when it's really the fans who will buy the game, so there are a lot of things to consider.

Personally, let's stick with the classics. Staying power will always beat weekly sales in my opinion.

It will, in an MMO, but not so much in SP games.  Sticking with the same crowd is a good way to limit your customer base, and thereby limit your profits.  I'm not going to buy 2 copies of Origins, one was enough.  Sticking with the classics would leave us playing BG, which some people would appreciate, I know I played it plenty, but eventually they get stale.

I have to laugh at all the fanboy comments.  Heaven forbid somebody disagrees with the haters.  When they do, they are "spoiled brats", or "entitled".  Isn't it funny though, that they seem to believe they are "entitled" to flame and troll people that disagree, simply for disagreeing with them.  I'd imagine that's exactly why the new rules are so prominently laid out at the top of every page.  Even BioWare got tired of it.  The sad part of it is, I'm not a newcomer here, and I'm certainly not a new comer to game forums in general.  This "spoiled brat" played Doom on a 5.5in floppy as shareware.  Isn't it funny that despite that, I found this game enjoyable, and replayable?  A search of BioWare's Legacy forums will find me there too, with NWN's.  That's why I said I should have known better than to base a buy or not to buy decision off the forums.  The responses to my initial post in this thread bear that out.

[Ryzaki]

batlin wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

I didn't buy it in the first week because I made the mistake of reading the forums first.  It's a mistake because I should already know from MMO experience that the most vocal people on the forums are generally the ones that don't like it, and the ones that do, that may indeed use the forums are generally busy playing it.  Lesson learned, or maybe relearned.  Having purchased the game, and DLC, I can't say I'm disappointed with it.

Thank you hater community for making me miss out on a year and change of fun.

This is a horrible misconception that needs to die. No, the people who hate the game are NOT always the most vocal. Want me to prove it? Look at the DA:O board. Compared to DA2, how many topics are there about how much DA:O is bad? Few, if any. If you remember that board when DA:O came out, I saw nothing but praise for it. Same with Mass Effect. By the way, the only complaint you will ever see about Mass Effect 3 is the ending. People do not complain about games for no reason, and people who come to the boards do not do so only to complain.

As someone who was here at that time I call BULLS*** there were plenty of threads about why wasn't it X or why did Y occur. "Why mages so overpowered?  why graphics so ugly? why combat so hard it sucks. Why x why y blah blah blah." There was even whining about the archedemon being a broing antagonist. <_< It wasn't as bad as DA2 not at all. But there sure in hell was criticism.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 juin 2012 - 03:32 .

[robertthebard]

Ryzaki wrote...

batlin wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

I didn't buy it in the first week because I made the mistake of reading the forums first.  It's a mistake because I should already know from MMO experience that the most vocal people on the forums are generally the ones that don't like it, and the ones that do, that may indeed use the forums are generally busy playing it.  Lesson learned, or maybe relearned.  Having purchased the game, and DLC, I can't say I'm disappointed with it.

Thank you hater community for making me miss out on a year and change of fun.

This is a horrible misconception that needs to die. No, the people who hate the game are NOT always the most vocal. Want me to prove it? Look at the DA:O board. Compared to DA2, how many topics are there about how much DA:O is bad? Few, if any. If you remember that board when DA:O came out, I saw nothing but praise for it. Same with Mass Effect. By the way, the only complaint you will ever see about Mass Effect 3 is the ending. People do not complain about games for no reason, and people who come to the boards do not do so only to complain.

As someone who was here at that time I call BULLS*** there were plenty of threads about why wasn't it X or why did Y occur. "Why mages so overpowered?  why graphics so ugly? why combat so hard it sucks. Why x why y blah blah blah." There was even whining about the archedemon being a broing antagonist. <_< It wasn't as bad as DA2 not at all. But there sure in hell was criticism.

Not to mention the fact that I was on the DA O board, frequently, while the game was still new.  After all, it's not like I invented the Kleenex box for Anders, although if I had ever actually modded one, it would be in his clinic every play through.

[seraphymon]

I was on here at the time, and batlin was more correct. I m ean sure there is always gonna be some complaints and critiscims no matter what the game. But generally Take the ratio of love hate of DA2 threads and flip it around and you get DAO.

[MissOuJ]

(Warning: rant + TL;DR incoming)

I don't know. I personally prefer DA2. It might be because I had some serious issues with DA:O - freeze-ups, sticky combat (it's absolutely infuriating on PS3: wanna target that thug right in front of you? LOL NOT AN OPTION! Like it's trolling me...), loads and loads of bugs, ridiculous AI (Liliana, are you spec'd as an archer? Then why are you over there kicking a Revenant in the shins with your daggers when you could do some real damage with Critical Shot/Arrow of Slaying?).

I still enjoyed it, but there where many a rage!quit involved. Also, lack of proper auto-save system in a game with random encounters. When you're a PC gamer tapping F5 quickly isn't really something that'll break you immersion, but moving into the menu every time you enter a new area is really, really enraging (particularly when you have to clear the area second time because in a dungeon 2 doors away an Emissary you didn't notice because of the broken targeting system killed your tank with Curse of Mortality + Swarm). And let's not even talk about the Inventory/Codex system...

DA2 had better, more engaging combat system and I absolutely love the cross-class combos (Shatter is fine and good, but Brittle + upgraded Archer's Lance is just awesome). In addition I actually think DA2 has more interesting story. I know I'm probably in the minority in this one but hear me out. In DA:O, you know what's going to happen in the end. Sure there are a couple curve balls, twists and turns along the way (like the Harrowmond vs. Bhalen question I still don't know the "right" answer to) but in the end, you slay the dragon. Pretty straightforward, and you know it from the start.

In DA2 you discover a story and are right there along the ride with Hawke who is, when it comes down to it, just an ordinary gal/guy in an extraordinary situation that requires him/her to shut up, suck it up and be a hero. You have to do this in DA:O to some extent as well, but I feel like it's much more pronounced in DA2 - Warden didn't really have a chance to say "Screw this, have fun with the Blight, I think I'll just leg it, thanks". Plotwise, Hawke does. S/he just happends to be the metaphorical eye of the hurricane: trouble comes to him/her just as often as s/he goes out looking for it, and I find it a refreshing change from the Chosen One / recruit of the Badass Army tropes.

I also love the way DA2 engages in some serious commentary about power imbalance and social justice issues. I would've liked more discussion on the city elves and their societal oppression, but I absolutely love the way DA2 fraimed the question of personal freedom vs (the perception of - depends on who you ask) collective safety/institutional authority - or, the rights of the few versus the good of the many: the question is, at heart, very much rooted in Utilitarian philosophy and world view.

Sure, the reused dungeons were a bit of a downer and the last fight(s) was(/were) really not what I had in mind, but other than that I enjoyed DA2 a whole lot more than DA:O. Call me weird.

Modifié par MissOuJ, 02 juin 2012 - 08:34 .

[Melca36]

Whats going to be funny to watch is that DA:3 is likely going to be a complete change from both DA:2 and DA:Origins that I can see the hardcore DA:2 lovers complaining the most. LOL

Those who liked both DA:2 and Origins and saw the flaws in both will likely be the most quiet.

[Melca36]

Semhaine wrote...

I have to say that I rather liked the direction that Dragon Age 2 went in. In terms of design originality, it was a lot better than DA:O. Sure, it can be argued that DA2 ended up seeming like it really wanted to be a JRPG, but at least it felt less like a generic dark medieval fantasy. I enjoyed DA2's style more. While Origins is certainly the superior game -- worth its sixty dollar price tag, while I bought the second one for only twenty and felt like that was about what I got out of it -- I think Dragon Age 2 deserves at least a little more credit than what people give it.

The game only sold half of what Origins sold so don't expect DA:3 to be like DA:2.

Origins fans should not expect DA:3 to be like the first game as well.

[robertthebard]

seraphymon wrote...

I was on here at the time, and batlin was more correct. I m ean sure there is always gonna be some complaints and critiscims no matter what the game. But generally Take the ratio of love hate of DA2 threads and flip it around and you get DAO.

Yeah, if you disregard the locked topics of "Spiritual Successor to Baldur's Gate my (edited for television)", or the rest of the rants about gameplay, map lay outs, graphics etc etc etc, and we can't mention the companion hate that went on early, because that would give the lie to the companion rose colored glasses that everybody wears now.  For every Morrigan, YAY thread there was at least one Morrigan Boo thread.  Funny how she's the center of attention now, isn't it?  The same applied to most, if not all of the companions.  I think I was a founding member of the "We Hate Alistair" anti-fan club.

However, allow me to once again address the topic title:  No.  It's obvious by posts since I joined the conversation that it's not accepted by everyone.  Now unless the OP wants to tell me that the entirety of the population that bought the game is represented here, and that we should ignore the people that just read the topic title and said "Oh gee, another troll post" and didn't bother to reply, I'd say it's not as overwhelmng a majority as he/she would like to believe, or would like us to believe.  I think that the people that truly didn't like the game have done what I did with NWN 2 for 5 years, moved on to other things.  I'm quite sure we have the bandwagoners, or approval seekers that still post, but really, when I unistalled NWN 2, and reformatted my HD to get Atari's root kit off my PC, I didn't reinstall it, and I didn't go back to their website to discuss it further, I moved on.

[AkiKishi]

Melca36 wrote...

Whats going to be funny to watch is that DA:3 is likely going to be a complete change from both DA:2 and DA:Origins that I can see the hardcore DA:2 lovers complaining the most. LOL

Those who liked both DA:2 and Origins and saw the flaws in both will likely be the most quiet.

Unless they really do gut it completely it's not going to be too different. By gutting it I mean going something like ME with AI only controlled companions.

[AkiKishi]

batlin wrote...

This is a horrible misconception that needs to die. No, the people who hate the game are NOT always the most vocal. Want me to prove it? Look at the DA:O board. Compared to DA2, how many topics are there about how much DA:O is bad? Few, if any. If you remember that board when DA:O came out, I saw nothing but praise for it. Same with Mass Effect. By the way, the only complaint you will ever see about Mass Effect 3 is the ending. People do not complain about games for no reason, and people who come to the boards do not do so only to complain.

DAO is very unusual in that it's sales actually went up and it carried on selling for a good while. Both DA2 and ME3 follow the same sales model, they sell , then they fall off a cliff. ME3's numbers are better, but then, so was it's advertising budget.

Only games that get really good word of mouth follow DAO's sales curve. The true greats will stay in the charts for months (Skyrim would be one of those). Most games sell on their hype and advertising then disapear without a trace within a month.

[Realmzmaster]

Very few games stay in the sales charts for any considerable amount of time. Even highly rated games have to make their money in the first month or two after that sales fall off drastically. Kingdom of Amalur which many consider a good game sold fairly well in the first two months and then disappeared along with 38 Studios. 38 Studios was hit with a knockout one two punch when the governor of RI doubted it solvency (RI had loaned $75 million to 38 Studios) and an investor pulled out of its next project. The investor was investing $35 million. The studio closed May 24, 2012.

So DAO and Skyrim are not the norm, but the exceptions.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 02 juin 2012 - 08:24 .

[batlin]

PraetorianNova wrote...

I feel like I'm the only one who enjoyed DA2. I like the combat changes - 'cause going from combat in
DA:O to DA2 was kind of night and day; DA:O's combat seemed a bit too clunky for me and having abilities not fire and the like was very frustrating.

DA2 also had some awesome characters such as Meredith and Orsino; there was a lot more morally grey actions in DA2 then there was in Origins which I really liked.

Of course there were some issues; going back to the same alleyway 6 times in a row was kind of annoying, as well as the abruptness of certain plot points coming to an end with almost no closure, but, still; I enjoyed DA2 almost as much as I did DA:O.

Of all the changesto from Origins to DA2, combat was IMO the only thing done better. In Origins you weren't able to attack until your character was the exact correct distance away from your opponent. But one step forward two steps back, they also screwed over the combat royally by having waves of enemy spawns come at you from the sides of the map. Gone were the uniqueenemy placements in Origins that actually made each battle unique in how you tackled them; every combat involves getting the mages to the center of the area and having your DPS wail on the baddies until they stop showing up. It takes a special kind of talent to make combat controls way better, and also make combat boring.

Ryzaki wrote...

Assomeone who was here at that time I call BULLS*** there were plenty of threads about why wasn't it X or why did Y occur. "Why mages so overpowered?  why graphics so ugly? why combat so hard it sucks. Why x why y blah blah blah." There was even whining about the archedemon being
a broing antagonist. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/angry.png[/smilie] It wasn't as bad as DA2 not at all. But there sure in hell was criticism.

There will always be small complaints about a game, but how many complaints did you see about DA:O's story? About the areas? How many complaints were you still seeing on that board a year later?

MissOuJ wrote...

(Warning: rant + TL;DR incoming)

I don't know. I personally prefer DA2. It might be because I had some serious issues with DA:O - freeze-ups, sticky combat (it's absolutely infuriating on PS3: wanna target that thug right in front of you? LOL NOT AN OPTION! Like it's trolling me...), loads and loads of bugs, ridiculous AI (Liliana, are you spec'd as an archer? Then why are you over there kicking a Revenant in the shins with your daggers when you could do some real damage with Critical Shot/Arrow of Slaying?).

IIRC archers will swicth to melee if they can't get far enough away from an enemy

DA2 had better, more engaging combat system and I absolutely love the cross-class combos (Shatter is fine and good, but Brittle + upgraded Archer's Lance is just awesome). In addition I actually think DA2 has more interesting story. I know I'm probably in the minority in this one but hear me out. In DA:O, you know what's going to happen in the end. Sure there are a couple curve balls, twists and turns along the way (like the Harrowmond vs. Bhalen question I still don't know the "right" answer to) but in the end, you slay the dragon. Pretty straightforward, and you know it from the start.

This is what's called "build-up". There were plenty of twists involving slaying the dragon itself, and the fact that you know what you muct do from the beginning and that every action you took was in preparation of killing it makes the fight that much more meaningful. Because you invested so much time and effort into it.

In DA2 you discover a story and are right there along the ride with Hawke who is, when it comes down to it, just an ordinary gal/guy in an extraordinary situation that requires him/her to shut up, suck it up and be a hero. You have to do this in DA:O to some extent as well, but I feel like it's much more pronounced in DA2 - Warden didn't really have a chance to say "Screw this, have fun with the Blight, I think I'll just leg it, thanks". Plotwise, Hawke does. S/he just happends to be the metaphorical eye of the hurricane: trouble comes to him/her just as often as s/he goes out looking for it, and I find it a refreshing change from the Chosen One / recruit of the Badass Army tropes.

The fact that Hawke isn't a chosen one actually makes the story weaker in this sense. If there's nothing special about him/her, there's really no reason frot he Chantry to assert that Hawke is the ONLY ONE who can stop the mage/templar war.

Besides, the Warden is one of three/four "chosen ones". And I don't know where you're getting the idea that with Hawke you can say "screw it" to the saving the world business, I certainly never saw that option.

I also love the way DA2 engages in some serious commentary about power imbalance and social justice issues. I would've liked more discussion on the city elves and their societal oppression, but I absolutely love the way DA2 fraimed the question of personal freedom vs (the perception of - depends on who you ask) collective safety/institutional authority - or, the rights of the few versus the good of the many: the question is, at heart, very much rooted in Utilitarian philosophy and world view.

DA:O did this exact same thing...not just with city elves, but with Dalish elves and the werewolves and the Dwarves and the casteless too.

Sure, the reused dungeons were a bit of a downer and the last fight(s) was(/were) really not what I had in mind, but other than that I enjoyed DA2 as a whole more than DA:O. Call me weird.

Ok. You're weird.

Modifié par batlin, 02 juin 2012 - 08:35 .

[batlin]

robertthebard wrote...
However, allow me to once again addressthe topic title:  No.  It's obvious by posts since I joined the conversation that it's not accepted by everyone.  Now unless the OP wants to tell me that the entirety of the population that bought the game is represented here, and that we should ignore the people that just read the topic title and said "Oh gee, another troll post" and didn't bother to reply, I'd say it's not as overwhelmng a majority as he/she would like to believe, or would like us to believe.  I think that the people that truly didn't like the game have done what I did with NWN 2 for 5 years, moved on to other things.  I'm quite sure we have the bandwagoners, or approval seekers that still post, but really, when I unistalled NWN 2, and reformatted my HD to get Atari's root kit off my PC, I didn't reinstall it, and I didn't go back to their website to discuss it further, I moved on.

First, my question wasn'tposed to the users on this board, it was posed to Bioware. Second, all you have to do is look at the sales figures as proof that the majority of people Did not like this game as much as they did DA:O. If it did go the right direction, the sales would have been greater than DA:O's.

Realmzmaster wrote...

Very few games stay in the sales charts for any considerable amount of time. Even highly rated games have to make their money in the first month or two after that sales fall off drastically. Kingdom of Amalur which many consider a good game sold fairly well in the first two months and then disappeared along with 38 Studios. 38 Studios was hit with a knockout one two punch when the governor of RI doubted it solvency (RI had loaned $75 million to 38 Studios) and an investor pulled out of its next project. The investor was investing $35 million. The studio closed May 24, 2012.

So DAO and Skyrim are not the norm, but the exceptions.

DA:O and Skyrim are exceptions to the rule because they are truly great games. Quality is all that matters for consistently high sales, and DA2 simply is not high enough quality for that.

Modifié par batlin, 02 juin 2012 - 08:59 .

[MissOuJ]

batlin wrote...

MissOuJ wrote...

(Warning: rant + TL;DR incoming)

I don't know. I personally prefer DA2. It might be because I had some serious issues with DA:O - freeze-ups, sticky combat (it's absolutely infuriating on PS3: wanna target that thug right in front of you? LOL NOT AN OPTION! Like it's trolling me...), loads and loads of bugs, ridiculous AI (Liliana, are you spec'd as an archer? Then why are you over there kicking a Revenant in the shins with your daggers when you could do some real damage with Critical Shot/Arrow of Slaying?).

IIRC archers will swicth to melee if they can't get far enough away from an enemy

Yeah, but the Ai shouldn't have them run half way across the map after the immediate thread is dealt with. Daggers against regular darkspawn without dualwielding skill tree = not a disaster. Against pretty much anything else - not so much.

DA2 had better, more engaging combat system and I absolutely love the cross-class combos (Shatter is fine and good, but Brittle + upgraded Archer's Lance is just awesome). In addition I actually think DA2 has more interesting story. I know I'm probably in the minority in this one but hear me out. In DA:O, you know what's going to happen in the end. Sure there are a couple curve balls, twists and turns along the way (like the Harrowmond vs. Bhalen question I still don't know the "right" answer to) but in the end, you slay the dragon. Pretty straightforward, and you know it from the start.

This is what's called "build-up". There were plenty of twists involving slaying the dragon itself, and the fact that you know what you muct do from the beginning and that every action you took was in preparation of killing it makes the fight that much more meaningful. Because you invested so much time and effort into it.

"Build-up" isn't supposed to be 40/50+ hours long. Also having to grind the Deep Roads like DAO was an MMO isn't my definition of "build-up" - it's my definition of "filler". Also the only twists regarding to the Warden & slaying of the Arc Demon were the possible death of the Warden & Morrigan's ritual. You could call Riordan's death the "rase the stakes" moment if you haven't done the dark ritual/don't have Alistair/Loghain with you, but other than that it's "Save the world, have a bit of politically coloured questing in the mean time".

Build-up is when you see the cluster**** that is Kirkwall in DA2 Act 2 when nothing, absolutely nothing goes like it should and you can practically taste the inevitable blow-up. It starts in the act 1 with the Sareebas and the Gatlook, escalates with the theft of the poisonous gas and the murder of the Qunari delegates, and by the time Isabela takes off with the Relic you can be sure this is not going to end well. Say what you want about DA2 story telling, but it was pretty awesome in Act 2. I do wish they'd've been able to carry the Templar-Mage theme a bit more pronounced throughout all the acts like they did with the Qunari, but I still think it's still pretty strong - Anders and Fenris make sure of that.

In DA2 you discover a story and are right there along the ride with Hawke who is, when it comes down to it, just an ordinary gal/guy in an extraordinary situation that requires him/her to shut up, suck it up and be a hero. You have to do this in DA:O to some extent as well, but I feel like it's much more pronounced in DA2 - Warden didn't really have a chance to say "Screw this, have fun with the Blight, I think I'll just leg it, thanks". Plotwise, Hawke does. S/he just happends to be the metaphorical eye of the hurricane: trouble comes to him/her just as often as s/he goes out looking for it, and I find it a refreshing change from the Chosen One / recruit of the Badass Army tropes.

The fact that Hawke isn't a chosen one actually makes the story weaker in this sense. If there's nothing special about him/her, there's really no reason frot he Chantry to assert that Hawke is the ONLY ONE who can stop the mage/templar war.

Besides, the Warden is one of three/four "chosen ones". And I don't know where you're getting the idea that with Hawke you can say "screw it" to the saving the world business, I certainly never saw that option.

Hawke (or more spesificly, the player) can't say "Screw it, I'm outta Kirkwall" but plotwise, he's not bound by the same rules as the Warden. Hawke doesn't, strictly speaking, have any reason to stay in Kirkwall after the Blight is over - the Warden, however, can't really help but save the world. The difference is (to me, at least) that the Warden has to be there, whereas Hawke happends to be there when the events of the game(s) take place.

Cassandra thinks Hawke is the only one who can stop the war because s/he ended up one of the prominent figures of the Kirkwall conflict, like if Warden only got to join the Wardens after s/he killed a high dragon or something - Hawke never had any direct influence/personal involvement in causing the situation. Sure, the lyrium his/her expedition party found drove Meredith mad, and s/he might've (unknowingly) helped Anders out with the bomb, but other than that, Hawke's a pretty much the Joker in the pack.

Also, Hawke is free to act in the situation as s/he pleases just because. In DA:O you can defeat the Blight by being an utilitarian pragmatist, an idealistic do-gooder or just plain a**hole. Your task is still the same: defeat the Blight. I'd argue that in DA2 you actually have more options: uphold the status quo (by siding with the Templars) or become part of a revolution (side with the Mages). But either way, Hawke actually fails to protect his/her family (at least 1 sibling + mother die no matter what), which I would argue is actually one of the greatest tragedies of Hawke's character, and which makes him/her all the more human to me.

I know if my Hawke(s) went to the Gauntlet, they'd meet Malcom who'd tell them not to feel so guilty about their sibling(s)'s and mother's deaths.

I also love the way DA2 engages in some serious commentary about power imbalance and social justice issues. I would've liked more discussion on the city elves and their societal oppression, but I absolutely love the way DA2 fraimed the question of personal freedom vs (the perception of - depends on who you ask) collective safety/institutional authority - or, the rights of the few versus the good of the many: the question is, at heart, very much rooted in Utilitarian philosophy and world view.

DA:O did this exact same thing...not just with city elves, but with Dalish elves and the werewolves and the Dwarves and the casteless too.

Dwarves and the discussion of Caste in that context was very interesting, but one sided - I have yet to see in-depth analysis and heated discussion on how the Elven oppression is actually important and beneficial to Thedas, nor any comments on how the Cast system is not in any way morally ambiguous at all. With Mage/Templar conflict, there's a lot more nuance in the conversation. It's not exactly the same.

The elves (both Dalish and city elves) are pretty much the standard depiction of fantastic racism in the fantasy genre - and not particularly in-depth one at that. The Caste system is commentary on rigid class system and stifled scio-economic mobility - again, not terribly in-depth, but not something we often see in a game (particularly the Dwarven Commoner origin, which is pretty awesome portrayal or culture of poverty) and it's always welcome, but still not the same.

With mages and templars there's a very visible, very well organised system of institutional oppression, which is displayed and examined in depth. We are shown the abuses of power, the dangers and abuses of magic, the system that maybe harms more than it protects, or maybe its just poorly managed. We are, however, presented with really interesting questions - Would I sacrifice the freedom of one for the safety of other? How about the freedom of 100? Or 1000? How about sacrificing their self-esteem, ability to raise a family and become parents, their ability to think and feel? And, in the end - will I sentence to death the innocent to ensure the death of the (ambiguously) guilty?

I don't see many saying the elves are dangerous and so deserve their oppression. Nor do I hear discussion on how the Casteless deserve their fate. I do see people say this about mages. If nothing else, at least DA2 frames the question of social justice and oppression far better than DA:O - or any other game I've played so far.

Anyway - I had many (good, I'd argue) reasons to not like DA:O, but I still did, because despite all of the things that annoyed me about it, it's still got that incredible charm - I'm actually replaying it and just got the Awakening expansion to get some new stuff to do in it aswell. Some people didn't think there was similar charm in DA2, and I can't help but disagree. But what can I say, people enjoy different things. If that makes me weird, so be it. I had fun with DA2, moreso than with DA:O. Doesn't make me a bad gamer, doesn't' make me a "fake RPG'er", doesn't make me a bad BioWare fan - not that you in particular accused me of any of the above. Just makes me a DA2 fan.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Tommyspa wrote...

Because reason and facts are actually elitist intolerant opinions.

What?

Seriously.  What?

[Ryzaki]

There will always be small complaints about a game, but how many complaints did you see about DA:O's story? About the areas? How many complaints were you still seeing on that board a year later?

Plenty actually. From what an a***pull Morrigan's offer was to how sterotypical the plot was.

Not many I admit but DAO was a finished product. I'm not saying it didn't get less criticism than DA2. I'm arguing that it too got criticism. Like every single game in existence. There's no such thing as a universally loved game that gets no criticism.

And most of the complaints about DAO were about graphics.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 juin 2012 - 11:34 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

MissOuJ wrote...

(Warning: rant + TL;DR incoming)

I don't know. I personally prefer DA2. It might be because I had some serious issues with DA:O - freeze-ups, sticky combat (it's absolutely infuriating on PS3: wanna target that thug right in front of you? LOL NOT AN OPTION! Like it's trolling me...), loads and loads of bugs, ridiculous AI (Liliana, are you spec'd as an archer? Then why are you over there kicking a Revenant in the shins with your daggers when you could do some real damage with Critical Shot/Arrow of Slaying?).

DAO did suffer badly in the ports to console, but DA2 suffered as badly in the port to PC.

Both games are apparently better in their native environments.

With Leliana, it sounds like you didn't change her Behaviour setting to Archer.  You can't blame the game for that.

I still enjoyed it, but there where many a rage!quit involved. Also, lack of proper auto-save system in a game with random encounters. When you're a PC gamer tapping F5 quickly isn't really something that'll break you immersion, but moving into the menu every time you enter a new area is really, really enraging (particularly when you have to clear the area second time because in a dungeon 2 doors away an Emissary you didn't notice because of the broken targeting system killed your tank with Curse of Mortality + Swarm). And let's not even talk about the Inventory/Codex system...

As I said, the console versions suffered.  Targetting in DAO was a breeze on the PC, because of the mouse plus the movable tactical camera.

DA2 had better, more engaging combat system and I absolutely love the cross-class combos (Shatter is fine and good, but Brittle + upgraded Archer's Lance is just awesome).

I loathe DA2
s combat system.  It was way too fast, and far shallower than DAO's combat.  There were many fewer functional builds available per class.

In addition I actually think DA2 has more interesting story.

If by story, you mean the narrative written by BiOWare, then I'll agree with you.  DAO's authored narrative was quite simple, and very traditional.  There's a big bad.  Kill it.

DA2's was more interesting both in its content and its structure.

Unfortunately, DA2's dialogue system didn't allow the player to control Hawke's behaviour when he made plot-related decisions.  And the way quests worked meant that Hawke was forced to do things he hadn't agreed to do, and this happened repeatedly throughout the game.

DA2 might have the better authored narrative, but it left almost no room at all for emergent narrative.  DAO wins handily in this regard.  DAO lets the playe craft the Warden's pesonality, and then have him act in accordance with that personality.

The emergent narrative is, I think, the single most important part of a roleplaying game, and DA2 basically didn't have one.

I also love the way DA2 engages in some serious commentary about power imbalance and social justice issues. I would've liked more discussion on the city elves and their societal oppression, but I absolutely love the way DA2 fraimed the question of personal freedom vs (the perception of - depends on who you ask) collective safety/institutional authority - or, the rights of the few versus the good of the many: the question is, at heart, very much rooted in Utilitarian philosophy and world view.

I think the way DA2 presented these were remarkably simplisitic.  Any detailed character design would have an obvious answer to this question.  Either you favour individual freedom over social justice, or you favour the opposite.  Only a character who lacked a coherent world view wouldn't immedaitely know the answer.

Sure, the reused dungeons were a bit of a downer and the last fight(s) was(/were) really not what I had in mind, but other than that I enjoyed DA2 a whole lot more than DA:O. Call me weird.

In my eyes, any roleplaying game that uses DAO's dialogue system is superior to any roleplaying game that uses DA2's dialogue system.

I fully expect DA3 will use neither.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ryzaki wrote...

And most of the complaints about DAO were about graphics.

Which might be true, but it's insane.  DAO had better visuals.