1306 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

Oh I agree with that.

I'm just saying alot of DAO complaints evolved around graphics.

[sickpixie]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

And most of the complaints about DAO were about graphics.

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

Neither matches the fidelity of even the first Mass Effect, which is what I believe a lot of people want.

[Melca36]

Ryzaki wrote...

Oh I agree with that.

I'm just saying alot of DAO complaints evolved around graphics.

I am still waiting for the hardcore DA2 fans to defend this as being improved graphics




Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Modifié par Melca36, 03 juin 2012 - 01:36 .

[robertthebard]

batlin wrote...

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.

So people just didn't buy DA 2 because?  You don't suppose they read the forums, and did exactly what I did, which, as I indicated, I regret doing? 

[robertthebard]

Melca36 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Oh I agree with that.

I'm just saying alot of DAO complaints evolved around graphics.

I am still waiting for the hardcore DA2 fans to defend this as being improved graphics




Uploaded with ImageShack.us

It's funny, are you running DX11, or 9?  None of the stuff from my game looks like that.

[Melca36]

robertthebard wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Oh I agree with that.

I'm just saying alot of DAO complaints evolved around graphics.

I am still waiting for the hardcore DA2 fans to defend this as being improved graphics




Uploaded with ImageShack.us

It's funny, are you running DX11, or 9?  None of the stuff from my game looks like that.

I have a DX11 Machine as well as this old rig. My power supply died otherwise I'd post the same screenshot. There really isnt that much difference. They're still pointy and badly rendered and look lifeless.

That said, I did think the Wounded Coast was beautiful in some areas but I will never consider it a major improvment.

[Realmzmaster]

batlin wrote...

Snip..
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.

I personally think that Skyrim is a poor cosuin to Morrowind which had a superior main story and Oblivion's main story was an abomination. I have played all five TES games including the expansions. I had more fun with Da2 than Oblivion or Skyrim.
I still like DA2 better than DAO by a small margin. I like the story better in DA2 than DAO. The story is DAO was the traditional kill the big baddie. I also like DA2's combat better than DAO which was slower than even BG or NWN. For my money no Bioware is not going in the wrong direction. And if quality translates to sales PST should have been a runaway best seller and it was not. 

I have never based what I enjoy on the sales figures. If I did I would have missed many good and great games. IMHO.

[Sylvius the Mad]

sickpixie wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

And most of the complaints about DAO were about graphics.

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

Neither matches the fidelity of even the first Mass Effect, which is what I believe a lot of people want.

Mass Effect's outdoor areas had terroble graphics.  The textures for the ground on the uncharted worlds was laughable.

I didn't mind, because the uncharted worlds were still a lot of fun for me (I don't need the ground to look good when I drive over it), but I don't see how people could think ME's graphics were any good.

ME's character models were good, but that's where it ends.  Its environments had a very low poly count, as well.  ME's didn't even hve stairs in it.  It had ramps with a texture on them that looked like stairs.

That said, I still insist that the last BioWare game that actually offered a gameplay benefit from its improved visuals was NWN.  Every advancement since then has been a waste of their time and effort.

[Ryzaki]

Melca36 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Oh I agree with that.

I'm just saying alot of DAO complaints evolved around graphics.

I am still waiting for the hardcore DA2 fans to defend this as being improved graphics

*snip*

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Considering these complaints were around when DA2 didn't even come out yet what's supposed to be your point? 

[batlin]

MissOuJ wrote...
"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".

Right, as opposed to DA2 which was just "politically-colored mini-plots and nothing else".

No, build-up should last the entirety of the plot. When was the last time you watched a good movie where there was no antagonist until the last 30 minutes?

Also, the fact that you must sacrifice a grey warden in order to kill the arch demon is another fairly significant twist in regard to the Archdemon plot.

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.

Bullcrap. The vast majority of Act 2 focused squarely on the Qunari and had next to nothing to do with the templar/mage relations. The only buildup for Act 3 came in a couple sidequests, quests that aren't even required of you to accomplish.

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.

And that means what, that the plot is all the more improbable?

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.

I feel like I'm in bizarro world or something, how do you keep citing problems with DA2's plot as examples of how it's good? The fact that Hawke had no direct influence on the game's outcomes (or really anything that happens within the narrative) makes Hawke a weak and passive character. If the templar/mage conflict is so important to Hawke, why does he/she, the Champion of Kirkwall, wait until there's a terrorist attack before trying to actually do anything about it? There was three years in-between Acts 2 and 3, and you mean to tell me it's actually a good thing that Hawke never tried to oust Meredeth, clearly too paranoid and xenophobic for her position? This is just one example of course. See, Hawke commits a far worse crime than the Warden did in this respect. Whereas with the Warden we are forced into action, with Hawke we are forced into inaction.

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.

Again you're ascribing points to Hawke that don't actually exist or are also true for the Warden. No matter how you act as Hawke, you can get through the deeproads, stop the Qunari, and end the fighting in Kirkwall, and those outcomes are constant no matter what, same as the Warden stopping the Blight.

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.

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.

How? How exactly does DA2 frame the question better than DA:O? If anything DA2 just has a narrower scope because it focuses on less examples of social injustice; there was no less time spent on the issue in DA:O. And as for your accusation that DA:O did not explore them deeply enough, I'm going to guess that you did not explore all the dialogue options available and/or read through the codex.

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.

I never told enyone they can't enjoy DA2. I will argue with BS reasons people come up with to say DA2 is somehow better than DA:O.

[batlin]

As for the graphics issue, DA2 had less polygons than DA:O did. The graphics factually got worse in the sequel.

[batlin]

robertthebard wrote...
So people just didn't buy DA 2 because?  You don't suppose they read the forums, and did exactly what I did, which, as I indicated, I regret doing? 

You're using circular logic. People continued to buy DA:O because the first people who bought DA:O loved it and told people how good it was. In DA2's case, there were MORE people who first bought it and they generally hated it, and thanks to that the game's sales dwindled.

You are blaming the people for hating the game rather than the game itself for being a disappointment. If the game truly were good, nowhere near as many people would have ragged on the game online and more people would have continued to buy it.

Are you really so presumptuous to say that the 700,000 people who bought DA2 week 1 were all being disingenuous with their feelings on the game?

[Sinuphro]

ultimately, a demo for da3 is gonna come and questions will be asked and if future consumers dun like the demo and answers to their questions Bioware is screwed. I for one...would wait for the game to hit the bargain bin. Why? because they messed up the dragon age series with dragon age 2 and refused to produce the dlc called exalted marches that was supposed to help with the conclusion of hawke's story.

[batlin]

Sinuphro wrote...

ultimately, a demo for da3 is gonna come and questions will be asked and if future consumers dun like the demo and answers to their questions Bioware is screwed. I for one...would wait for the game to hit the bargain bin. Why? because they messed up the dragon age series with dragon age 2 and refused to produce the dlc called exalted marches that was supposed to help with the conclusion of hawke's story.

Agreed. Unless I hear it's at least as good as DA:O was, it's a rental for me.

As for exalted march, there's no way it'd have turned a profit. I can't blame em for scrapping it.

Modifié par batlin, 03 juin 2012 - 05:34 .

[MissOuJ]

batlin wrote...

Right, as opposed to DA2 which was just "politically-colored mini-plots and nothing else".

No, build-up should last the entirety of the plot. When was the last time you watched a good movie where there was no antagonist until the last 30 minutes?

Umm... DA2 has multiple antagonists over a period of 3 acts. Not that unheard of. And yes, it's easy to forget what you're supposed to achieve in DA:O when you embark on the Xth quest of finding an ally/wondering around the Fade/finding evidence against Loghain. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any build-up to the Archdemon fight, and despite my grievances I actually think that it mostly fits the Heroic Quest narative they have going on. It's a different narrative from DA2's, and I think DA2's narative is just as good, if not better, but in a different way. Also the standard fantasy tropes in DA:O are a bit predictable, which I personally find to be a waste of good IP. Awakenings actually improved upon this (at least as far as I can tell - I'm only ~6h in): I actually can't tll with 100% certainty what's going to happen in the end.

Also, the fact that you must sacrifice a grey warden in order to kill the arch demon is another fairly significant twist in regard to the Archdemon plot.

...And you're given an out as soon as you exit that room. Just like you're given an out in almost all other morally difficult choises in the game: Kill Connor or sacrifice his mother in a ritual to save him? Or you can pop over to the Tower and ask the mages to help. Kill the Dalish clan or the werewolves? Or you can just convince Zathrian not to be a complete a**hole and convince him to end the curse. The only question where there's no out is the Bhalen/Harrowmont question in Ozammar, and even then it's only a morally grey question if you know what happends in the Epiloque. DA2 actually forces you to choose between bad and worse, which is much better story-wise in my opinnion.

The vast majority of Act 2 focused squarely on the Qunari and had next to nothing to do with the templar/mage relations. The only buildup for Act 3 came in a couple sidequests, quests that aren't even required of you to accomplish.

Except for "All That Remains" - that's actually one of the most important quests regarding the Mage-Templar issue from Hawke's point of view. There are also Fenris' and Ander's companion quests, which I'd say are pretty important, but you're right, they aren't required to finish the game - even if Fenris leaves you for good if you don't do his.

I do wish there was more build-up to the end game, but it doesn't change the fact that it is there.

And that means what, that the plot is all the more improbable?

Where on earth would you get that from? No, it means Hawke is a different kind of character. Heroes aren't allowed to fail; Hawke is. It's actually nice to see a narrative where no matter how hard you try you can't save them all.

I feel like I'm in bizarro world or something, how do you keep citing problems with DA2's plot as examples of how it's good? The fact that Hawke had no direct influence on the game's outcomes (or really anything that happens within the narrative) makes Hawke a weak and passive character. If the templar/mage conflict is so important to Hawke, why does he/she, the Champion of Kirkwall, wait until there's a terrorist attack before trying to actually do anything about it? There was three years in-between Acts 2 and 3, and you mean to tell me it's actually a good thing that Hawke never tried to oust Meredeth, clearly too paranoid and xenophobic for her position? This is just one example of course. See, Hawke commits a far worse crime than the Warden did in this respect. Whereas with the Warden we are forced into action, with Hawke we are forced into inaction.

To say that linear plot = passive character is bull. Seriously. If anything, the Warden is a passive character; hardly reacting to anything with more than a shrug. And really, we all know almost all of the Warden's desicions have one - and only one - motivation: the Blight. So, believe it or not, I actually find Hawke to be the more interesting character: s/he has more motivations, more personality, and more reasons to do what s/he does. Less plot control doesn't mean more passive character. True, Hawke's motivations are to some extent up to the player to decide, and if you really don't care for Leandra/Bethany/Carver/any of the companions/Kirkwall in general/any mage rights at all, then I can see how you'd consider Hawke a bland/passive character. But I think the writers and the plot gave me plenty of reasons to care, and if you personally donät agree, there's probably nothing I can do to change your mind, so the discussion is probably for nothing.

And on the issue of the Templar/Mage conflict... Again, I think Act 3 is way too short and most of the background information for it comes in the form of Varric's exposition to Cassandra, which isn't really the way to do it in interactive medium, but to say Hawke just sat on his/her arse and ate bonbons all day when Kirkwall was going to hell isn't really accurate either. The thing the writers are trying to get accross is that the power imbalance has become so enourmous noone could've done anything to resolve the situation peacefully, and Anders took the matter to his own hands to force everyone to act. Meredith would've Annuled the Circle sooner or later - if you talk to the Templars in the Gallows in Act 3 you can hear she's already sent Val Royeaux for the Right. Anders actually gave her an out: he's to blame for the explosion (he makes it very clear) and the Circle had nothing to do with it. If Meredith wants justice, she'd only have to kill him. Instead, she goes for the Annulment. This, again, highlights the existing power imbalance which makes the peaceful resolution of the situation impossible - and I personally think this came accross marvelously. And I say it again, this is one of the reasons I love DA2 so much: the commentary on social issues. These kind of power imbalances exist in the real world as well, and it rases a question who are we supposed to blame when they finally boil over.

How? How exactly does DA2 frame the question better than DA:O? If anything DA2 just has a narrower scope because it focuses on less examples of social injustice; there was no less time spent on the issue in DA:O. And as for your accusation that DA:O did not explore them deeply enough, I'm going to guess that you did not explore all the dialogue options available and/or read through the codex.

I did read the codex and tried to find dialogue options - I still wasn't given a good reason to actually believe it when people said the equivalent of "lol elves thing they're people, how dumb". The only (half-arsed) explanation that we get to the elven oppression is that Tevinters were a**holes and wanted slaves, and then later the Chantry decided to do some proselytising which didn't end up so well for the elves. This is like a discussion on the Inquisition - pretty much everyone is in agreement that it was wrong and bad and something that shouldn't have happened at all. Real racism, prejudice and institutional oppression don't work that way and that's a very, very simplified and shallow way to frame the question of racial/social equality. DA2 did loads and loads better with this: you spend the game fighting both powertripping Templars and pretty damn dangerous mages - Hawke's mother is also killed by a powerful bloodmage, s/he can be a mage him/herself or his/her sister is one, his/her lover might be a mage... You're given a very, very personal reasons to agree/disagree with both sides of the issue.

If DA:O had actually embraced the elven oppression question similarly, you might, for example, lose money/items every time you visit the Alienage because of pick pockets (which you couldn't fight). There's even a pickpocketing minigame built into the game mechanics - why is it not used against the player to highlight the elven oppression which drives them to petty crimes because they can't make a living otherwise? Or why does bringing up Loghain's agreement with Tevinter slavers who only take elves cause outrage? Because if the nobility really thought that the elves "aren't really people" they wouldn't care or made excuses (like Loghain does) about how this is "a sad but neccessary sacrifice to make for the war effort".

So yes, I think DA2 has better dialogue on the issue of institutional oppression than DA:O, which never really gets pass the regular "fantastic racism" trope, which is sad because it still got pretty close.

I never told enyone they can't enjoy DA2. I will argue with BS reasons people come up with to say DA2 is somehow better than DA:O.

I enjoyed the story more. I enjoyed the gameplay more. I enjoyed the playable character more. Wouldn't call those BS excuses.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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

Ohh I assure you, had her as Archer and Ranged both. The dagger incidents still happened. The same with my Archane Warriors - I actually had to stop equipping secondary gear to make it stop, which is a bit counter productive when it comes to AW since I wanted that specialisation to be able to have a mage who could defend herself in melee combat.

I can't say anything about the combat of DA2 on the PC, but if it really was half as broken as DA:O's combat was on the PS3, I can understand the vitriol against it. And really, if you release for multiple platforms you should make sure your controls work for all the platforms.

And about the visual style... Origins on PS3 is most of the time ridiculously ugly - the Brecillian Forrest looks nice, but almost everything else looks bland and the characters look outright scary at times: the Uncanny Valley was stronger in DA:O in my opinnion. I liked the new art style and colour palet, but personally I wouldn't mind something between the two if the PS3/console (haven't played the 360 version, don't know if its the same) related visual issues regarding the DA:O art style were taken care of.

I have to say I loved the voiced protagonist, if only because both Nick Boulton and Jo Wyatt are awesome and I feel DA2 would miss a lot if ther talent wasn't included in the game. I also liked the way the dialogue interface made it clear which options were there to give you more information and which moved the conversation forwards - in my first playthrough I missed a lot of "investigate" options in DA:O because the game wasn't always clear on which options were which. The personality options were a nice touch, but again, more options would always be nice.

Anyway, I have problems with both games, moreso with DA:O, which is why I prefer DA2. I'd still like to see something different for DA3, and all the "let's go back to DA:O!" and "No, it has to be just like DA2!" comments really annoy me because both of those options miss a wonderful opportunity to try out new mechanics, add more features and fix old problems, and that's a fail-proof way to kill a franchise. I'd like to see a mix of old and new, and it really bothers me how people make it sound like DA2 is the worst game ever and any game like it should be burned on a stick and the ashes scattered into the four winds while DA:O is the perfectest RPG game ever - because really?

Modifié par MissOuJ, 03 juin 2012 - 09:28 .

[MissOuJ]

Double post.

Modifié par MissOuJ, 03 juin 2012 - 09:25 .

[pmac_tk421]

As the one who feel that DA2 was a 9/10(and I gave DAO somewhre between and 8-8.5/10)no.

[sickpixie]

Melca36 wrote...

I am still waiting for the hardcore DA2 fans to defend this as being improved graphics

(image)

NPCs
in any given level take up memory, to get an acceptable framerate/avoid
crashes they had to cut corners on the ambient people you're not
supposed to pay much attention to. Origins solved this problem by making
everything look bad. It's not a particularly efficient engine suited
for console hardware.

batlin wrote...

As for the graphics issue, DA2 had less polygons than DA:O did. The graphics factually got worse in the sequel.

On the other hand, they improved the lighting and the colors. Granted the lighting is still bad in places because they were rushed and the color choices are still mostly unpleasant, but at least it isn't so monochromatic anymore.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

[quote]MissOuJ wrote...
Also the standard fantasy tropes in DA:O are a bit predictable, which I personally find to be a waste of good IP. Awakenings actually improved upon this (at least as far as I can tell - I'm only ~6h in): I actually can't tll with 100% certainty what's going to happen in the end.[/quote]
Well... I predicted Hawke will loose all his family members in DA 2 because BioWare loves to kill PC familiy.  I was right. Few minutes later Carver was killed. And it didn't stop there. But what annoy me most was Hawke's carelessness and stupidity. He's too eager to be a popular figure in a city full of Templars, completely disregard he had a sister apostate or being an apostate himself. 

I predicted Isabela will betrayed Hawke just like Zevran betrayed me in Denerim. I was right. I mean common. She's a pirate. What else a pirate will do if not backstabbing?

I predicted a lot of things that proved how useless and pathetatic Hawke was after "All that Remain" quest. And I was right all the way - which made me spit in disgust.  After 6 playthroughs my opinion remain the same because Hawke remain that stupid and useless PC I have ever play. But don't bother. BioWare had adress the issue regarding character agency and player agency with hypothetical DA 3.  So at least now, I can assure myself that I will have greater control over the story and my character compare to BioWare's Hawke and DA 2..


[quote]MissOuJ wrote...

DA2 actually forces you to choose between bad and worse, which is much better story-wise in my opinnion.[/quote]
And where does that leave for neutral diplomatic character? How on earth getting to choose between two extreme sides going to work? What's the point of being neutral diplomatic? You may as well chop every Qunari's head early in ACT 2 if forced to choose between bad and worse is desireable feature.I dislike to be forced to choose between bad and worst. I prefer options to solve a problem in my own way. peacefully and lawfully.
 



[quote]MissOuJ wrote...


Except for "All That Remains" - that's actually one of the most important quests regarding the Mage-Templar issue from Hawke's point of view. [/quote]
Right. It's most important because it clearly show how pathetatic and useless Hawke was. It's all Hawke fault and that stupid mansion. Had he left Kirkwall earlier, "All That Remains" wouldn't had happen. But NO he was so **** with gaining reputation as if he's a warrior/rogue ( despite being an apostate ) or a person with no apostate family. .  


[quote]MissOuJ wrote...

Where on earth would you get that from? No, it means Hawke is a different kind of character. Heroes aren't allowed to fail; Hawke is. It's actually nice to see a narrative where no matter how hard you try you can't save them all.[/quote]
Except Hawke didn't even try. He get caught in action because he was too busy meddling with other people business when he should have stay low all the time to protect his family.  



[quote]MissOuJ wrote...


I actually find Hawke to be the more interesting character: s/he has more motivations,[/quote]
Like to meddle other people bussiness that had nothing to do with him?


[quote]MissOuJ wrote...



more personality, [/quote]
Like generic diplomatic. humorous and agrresive?


[quote]MissOuJ wrote...




and more reasons to do what s/he does. [/quote]
Reason to do what? You mean collecting junk and returning strangers' belongings? or risking your family in crazy place fill with thugs, crazy templars and pathetatic weak bloodmages?


[quote]MissOuJ wrote...





Less plot control doesn't mean more passive character. [/quote]
Yes it does. You are not actively shaping and controling your character. You are letting your nose to be pulled by the plot and be spoon fed to the point of you can't be creative and imaginative.


[quote]MissOuJ wrote...






True, Hawke's motivations are to some extent up to the player to decide, and if you really don't care for Leandra/Bethany/Carver/any of the companions/Kirkwall in general/any mage rights at all, then I can see how you'd consider Hawke a bland/passive character. [/quote]
Because I was supposed to care for the family I hardly know,  I wanted to stay low and not be popular. I wanted to get out from hell and not get a mansion. I don't give a damn about nobilty but Hawke was so obsessive to be recognized. I don't want to meddle with insane mages-templars crisis and not slay them all. I don't want to have trouble with the Qunari and not make them angry. I don't want to play Hawke's story therefore I uninstall DA 2 . Hawke and his story is so ridiculous to imagine and swallow.. 


[quote]MissOuJ wrote...







But I think the writers and the plot gave me plenty of reasons to care, and if you personally donät agree, there's probably nothing I can do to change your mind, so the discussion is probably for nothing.[/quote]
Not to me. If the writers wanted to give me plenty of reasons to care, then they should change drastically a lot of things like introduction, family and companions interaction, dialogue options, choices and consequences and stop messing with my character personality with autodialogues and out of character action between time skip. Just remove frame narrative and third person storytelling. It's the bane that allow so much out-of-character behaviour due to player absence from the game's world, unless it's done in first person perspective like Alpha Protocol, Assasins Creeds and Twilight.

   

[quote]MissOuJ wrote...








And on the issue of the Templar/Mage conflict... Again, I think Act 3 is way too short and most of the background information for it comes in the form of Varric's exposition to Cassandra, which isn't really the way to do it in interactive medium, but to say Hawke just sat on his/her arse and ate bonbons all day when Kirkwall was going to hell isn't really accurate either. The thing the writers are trying to get accross is that the power imbalance has become so enourmous noone could've done anything to resolve the situation peacefully, [/quote]
Exactly! which is why he should have left Kirkwall but NO. He was so stupid and stubborn I wonder what the heck was on his mind.


[quote]MissOuJ wrote...









and Anders took the matter to his own hands to force everyone to act. [/quote]
A terrorist that deserve to die. He owed many innocents lifes - which he regretted but for what? It's too late. Justice must served with his own life.


[quote]MissOuJ wrote...










Meredith would've Annuled the Circle sooner or later - if you talk to the Templars in the Gallows in Act 3 you can hear she's already sent Val Royeaux for the Right. . [/quote]
To annual under whose permission?  The Devine? Right. 


[quote]MissOuJ wrote...











Anders actually gave her an out: he's to blame for the explosion (he makes it very clear) and the Circle had nothing to do with it. [/quote]
The Circle, No. But Anders and Orsino, yes. Both are equality guilty. Orsino is guilty for his involvement in "All That Remain," The circle need to be quaranteened and investigated thoroughly for any bloodmages since the Circle had become the haven of bloodmages. If Meredith was incapable to perform her duty objectively, then Cullen should step up and take over. If both are still incapable then both should be hanged  as a lesson not to mess up with law and order.
 


[quote]MissOuJ wrote...











This, again, highlights the existing power imbalance which makes the peaceful resolution of the situation impossible - and I personally think this came accross marvelously. And I say it again, this is one of the reasons I love DA2 so much: the commentary on social issues. These kind of power imbalances exist in the real world as well, and it rases a question who are we supposed to blame when they finally boil over.[/quote]
An example of Irrational characters meant for cheap drama. The story itself has no relevance at all to my character. Bethany? Oh don't worry, she never been in the Circle. She's with the wardens. Apostate Hawke? Nah, He's an apostate. If he care so much about the mages he had stay in the circle and fight with them instead of running away and turn into an apostate.

 [quote]MissOuJ wrote..
-Snip
[/quote]

I'd want to reponse more but It's getting too long. Just to say that I disagree with everything you said about DA 2 and Hawke.   

[robertthebard]

batlin wrote...

robertthebard wrote...
So people just didn't buy DA 2 because?  You don't suppose they read the forums, and did exactly what I did, which, as I indicated, I regret doing? 

You're using circular logic. People continued to buy DA:O because the first people who bought DA:O loved it and told people how good it was. In DA2's case, there were MORE people who first bought it and they generally hated it, and thanks to that the game's sales dwindled.

You are blaming the people for hating the game rather than the game itself for being a disappointment. If the game truly were good, nowhere near as many people would have ragged on the game online and more people would have continued to buy it.

Are you really so presumptuous to say that the 700,000 people who bought DA2 week 1 were all being disingenuous with their feelings on the game?

I don't think you get it at all.  I don't care if someone likes the game or not, it's not an MMO, and I don't have to read them in global chat going on and on about it while I am trying to play.  Some people liked the new direction, some didn't, and maybe it was more that didn't.  The point to my initial response, as stated again in this quoted response, was that I based my buy or not to buy decision on the forums, and am unhappy that I did, because I enjoy the game, and appreciate the new direction.  There is noting circular about that logic, it is as straight forward as it can get.  My reaction is based on being told in no uncertain terms that my reason, or the logic behind it was BS.

Are you really saying that all 700k people that bought it hated it?  Did you do a poll?  Do you have a link to it?

Modifié par robertthebard, 03 juin 2012 - 01:23 .

[robertthebard]

[quote]Melca36 wrote...
It's funny, are you running DX11, or 9?  None of the stuff from my game looks like that.[/quote]


I have a DX11 Machine as well as this old rig. My power supply died otherwise I'd post the same screenshot. There really isnt that much difference. They're still pointy and badly rendered and look lifeless.

That said, I did think the Wounded Coast was beautiful in some areas but I will never consider it a major improvment.

[/quote]
If you're getting the same results on the DX11 machine, I'd check your settings, once you can.  Initially, the default settings when I ran the autochecker were well below what this machine will run it at.  Not to say you haven't, it's just that, unless there's something hokey about the hardware configuration, I haven't seen anything that compares to that in DA 2.

[eroeru]

^^ The screenshot that was brought out is of a "strolling" NPC. It's the same, graphics-wise, for everybody, no matter how high end.

[jbrand2002uk]

batlin wrote...

robertthebard wrote...
So people just didn't buy DA 2 because?  You don't suppose they read the forums, and did exactly what I did, which, as I indicated, I regret doing? 

You're using circular logic. People continued to buy DA:O because the first people who bought DA:O loved it and told people how good it was. In DA2's case, there were MORE people who first bought it and they generally hated it, and thanks to that the game's sales dwindled.

You are blaming the people for hating the game rather than the game itself for being a disappointment. If the game truly were good, nowhere near as many people would have ragged on the game online and more people would have continued to buy it.

Are you really so presumptuous to say that the 700,000 people who bought DA2 week 1 were all being disingenuous with their feelings on the game?

Batlin the circular logic argument oh jeez how desperate the DAO camp has got to rag DA2 for a railroaded story while praising DAO for an even more railroaded story and as for BS your constant claim that more sales=better quality is the biggest load of BS in the history of the universe Skyrim sold alot of copies and yes I enjoy it.......when it works because its a bug ridden crash happy game much like DAO 

[Rxdiaz]

Everyone has the right to there own opinion, but not there own facts.

There are people who loved DA2. There are people who hated DA2.

I hated it. Total waste of my money. BioWare is a discount bin developer to me now.

But the fact is there were analysts who were predicting 5 million plus sales for DA2. It sold WAY less than DA:O. That's a FACT. DLC was canceled for DA2. FACT.

If this didn't happen because people didn't like the game overall, then I don't know what you believe...

[Ryzaki]

eroeru wrote...

^^ The screenshot that was brought out is of a "strolling" NPC. It's the same, graphics-wise, for everybody, no matter how high end.

Sadly this is the case. I have all settings maxed and I still get that.