1306 réponses à ce sujet

[Reznore57]

I think the city elves are very interesting and i'd like to see their history change a bit...but I don't think we can compare them to mages as far as rebellion goes.
There 's something like 14 circles (not sure ) mages have ways to communicate pretty quickly ( with a magic stone) and mages have fraternities and leader.Beside they have no much need for weapon and have healers.
City elves are stuck in their alienage with no way to communicate , no weapons , no armor , are not trained in fighting techniques .The only way for them to rebel is to find an ally (like the qunari , maybe the mages who knows?, dalish...) if there's a civil war going on maybe they could build up a rebellion in the shadow.But they probably gonna have real problem as far as logistic goes.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MissOuJ wrote...

The DA:O boards don't have anywhere near the same amount of discussion on the Mage-Templar issue. Sure, there was some discussion on Keili (who prays the maker to "lift this curse from her" in the Tower chappel in the Mage origin) and Jowain, but I haven't seen anyone write hundreds of pages of comments on how Jowain's treatment is indicative of the oppression of the Chantry and this is why he was justified in his use of blood magic/working with Loghain to poison Arl Eamon. Elven oppression and mage oppression get roughly the same amount of screen time (for a lack of better term) in DA:O, and neither is really handled properly to spark the sort of discussion DA2 did - and yes, I consider that indicative of how well the subject was addressed.

I simply disagree with you that DAO didn't produce a similar reaction.  There were mountains of arguments about the oppression of mages and whether it was justified or justifiable.

I'm strongly of the opinion that the issue cannot be resolved in Thedas without one side utterly destroying the other.

Moreover, there's little about the mage-templar conflict that's analogous to the real world.  Mages are fundamentally different from non-mages.  Non-mages have legimate reasons to fear mages, and mages have legitimate reasons to see themselves as superior to non-mages.

The elven oppression is much more relevant to real-world issues, but (as you point out) neither game handles it terrible well.  Though I would argue that DAO handles it better, as you do actually get to see some mistreatment of elves.

In addition, the discussion is very different. In DA2 boards there are still people who believe Anders is a terrorist or a magister in the making (as one blogger in Tumblr put it) and that siding with the Templars and killing a bunch of innocent mages who had nothing to do with Anders' plan and everything to do with Meredith's (and Cullen's) internalised conceptions of mages as dangerous abominations is the right thing to do.

Both justifiable positions.  Anders pretty clearly is a terrorist.  He works outside the law using violent means to overthrow the established government.  Lots of people are terrorists.  Some of them go on to win and be viewed as heroes, but that doesn't change that they used terrorist tactics.  The Rebels in Star Wars are terrorists.  Nelson Mandela was a terrorist.  There's no value judgment there - it just tells us about what sorts of tactics were used and their position relative the established government.

And if the mages are a threat to the common good, then keeping them down is justifiable if you value the common good above individual rights.  When I was a student, I knew a young woman who supported the actions of the Chinese government at Tianenmen Square because the protestors' actions "threatened society", and she held that society was more important than the welfare of any particular people within it.

Again, that's what DA2 did, that's what DA:O lacks, and this is why I consider DA2 to be the better game in this aspect.

Both games do it with mages, and neither game does it with elves.  I fail to see how that makes DA2 better.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 04 juin 2012 - 05:06 .

[vallore]

Faerunner wrote...



In DAO, both mages AND city elves were treated as unfortunate events that had no end in sight. Anyone who tried to make things better just made things worse (for themselves and their kind) and it was treated like both mage towers and alienages were here to stay for centuries to come, with change coming slowly and messily, if at all. Then DA2 comes out and suddenly the Circle is a travesty that can be overthrown within a few years but alienage opression is just a petty, unimportant background event that's still here to stay? I call bs!

Well, I would be surprised if an elven rebellion did not play a major role in a future game, with Dalish and City-elves marching under one banner; I just would not expect it for the next game. Besides, an elven rebellion deserves the spotlight when it finally happens, without having to share it with another major event, so I’m in no hurry.

[MissOuJ]

vallore wrote...

Slavery: If you go back even further, before Christianity introduced a more humanist approach, (and a need for justification about such matters), roman slavery didn’t even need such excuse. Slaves were property, period. As I recall, there was no need to justify it, it simply were the way of things. Sure some “liberals” of the time may have censured it, but I suspect they were seen as “paleo-hippies” by the rest…

If you study the texts of, let's say Plato and Aristotle, you'll find that the discussion on ethics and morality of slavery did indeed happen. Even the older parts of the Bible which deal with slavery and owning slaves have myths justificating slavery - there's actually one of the most absurd justifications/myths about the commencement of slavery in the Bible: look up the Curse of Canaan. Seriously. Also note the lovely inclusion of racism in the tale and its later interpretations.

So again, rationalisations always existed.

vallore wrote...
But actually Vaughain does. He thinks elves are little better than animals, fit to be used as he pleases and he say so as much. That’s his reason. He isn’t trying to be evil, it’s worse: he is a psychopath.

... but racist people aren't always psycopaths. When institutional racism is in effect, everyone can be racist and buy into racist presumptions just because the system reinforces them. So were are these "casual racists" in Denerim/Ferelden/Thedas? We hardly ever see them. Also, most NPC's treat you the same no matter what race you are - like Wade and Herren for example.

vallore wrote...
Clarifying myself: what you see lacking in DAO is not complete lack of rationalization, is just lack of a need for justification. But that is because; there is no need for it when prejudice is accepted as natural.

That would make sense, if people in general did treat you differently all the time - question your status, call you names, try to speak to Alistair/other party members over you - but they don't. There are a few individuals in the game that are supposed to come off as "racist" (like Vaughain and that one chap in Lotherin, if I remember correctly), and without in-depth information on how the elven oppression actually works in DA universe, I feel it is left lacking. In DA2, the system (and its abuses) are more throughoutly explained, and we see anti-/pro-mage rethoric all the time. To be fair, it is central points of DA2 and it gets more screentime than the elven oppression in DA:O, but since it is a big part of at least one origin story I feel like it could have been handled better.

vallore wrote...
Personally, I don’t think benefit is the main reason. I find it secondary at best. The elven situation is rather a relic kept by inertia and reinforced constantly by the vicious cycle I’ve referred.

Can't really agree with that. I believe (and this is all pretty much speculation on my behalf) that the humans were afraid of the Elves when they had superior technology, longer lifespan and strong sence of personal worth. If they gained all of it back, I believe they could quite easily compete with humans - or so humans, at least, think. The history of Thedas says elves wanted to be left alone - in Arlathan and in the Dales both. I also don't believe the city elves could bo any significant damage to humans (because they lack the power to do so) for any "vicious cycle" to really exist. Humans oppress, elves grit their teeth and bear it because that's the only thing they really can do. But again, because the lore/codex/in-game conversations don't really give any particular reasons, this is all pretty much up to the player's individual opinnion/head-canon, so it is highly subjective.

vallore wrote...
But why should they?

The city-elven oppression was never meant to be the drive force of the main plot. It was, as I said, something to be felt, (as a background). How the player feels about it is actually secondary. There was no need to go there.

However, DA2 strives to make the issue of mage oppression vs security a central theme, and such requires a different treatment. They couldn’t afford to not have the characters explain their position.

Agreed: mage oppression is one of the big questions plotwise so it should get more attention in DA2, but for me it still doesn't explain the lack of motivation for humans in DA:O. The mage question gets about the same amount of screentime (if not less) in DA:O as the question of elven oppression and that's given multiple reasons: Wynne says it's because mages need to be protected from the superstitious common folk just as much as they need to be protected from themselves, Cullen says because mages are pretty much universally dangerous, Morrigan says it's because mages are weak and allow it. Obviously it's not vital to the plot to know these things, but I'm curious and in general interested in the issues of social justice, so in this regard I'd obviously favour the game which gave me more profound understanding on how certain oppression works in this particular universe. So again, this is subjective - but then again, so are all options.

vallore wrote...
Interestingly enough, Dalish elves are given a completely different approach to the problem: there the main character is invited to explain to the clan’s children the “party line,” and the motives for distrust and resentment is a recurring feature. And human characters are lately confronted with this same resentment and it’s causes. Why is that? Why the difference?

Because of the different situation both groups live. One experiences, (feels), new oppression on a daily bases, another needs to keep it alive, by remembering their causes.

That's actually one point which Merrill makes if you rival her in DA2 - the Dalish always thought they were "the last true elves", which makes them resentful of both city elves and humans, and it neatly encaptures the "divide and conquer" tactic oppressors use to discourage different minorities from ganging together to defeat their oppressors. And as far as I'm concerned, the Dalish anger and distrust are perfectly justified.

vallore wrote...
Connor could be anyone’s son, hence it is much more easy to empathize with his plight, (for a human born and raised in Thedas perspective) than to empathize with the plight of a group “you” grew knowing it “could not be trusted” and that is seen simply as “different” from the start. One, the mage, becomes the “other,” but the elf was always the “other.”

Being physically different makes calling elven humanity into question easier than with mages, but it still doesn't explain the reasoning behind it. Just abstracts would do for me. Fear? Resentment? Where does this come from? Oppression, such as it is, isn't born from nothing, and I just want to know where its roots lie. With mages, we know: the religion (mages are pretty much accused of the Blights), the superstitions, and the hyperpoles. With elves, we do not.

vallore wrote...
City-elves are oppressed, and they are mostly powerless. Unlike mages.

Those later, while oppressed, are certainly not powerless and can cause terrible suffering if they so choose, (and are so "allowed"). Imo, that is why it was used as one of the main themes of DA2, and why the city-elves predicament was not: one offers an evident dilemma, the other does not.

Can't really agree with this either. All beings possess the ability to do harm and cause suffering, or like Anders said "It doesn't take a mage for someone to be a vicious killer" - a Warden of the city elf origin is a good example of this. The you have people like Zevran whose background actually drove him into the business of killing, quite literally. Both of these oppressed people lack legal agency, which would actually help matters - if Cicle mages were actually allowed to inherit a title, start a family and own land after their education is complete Isolde might not have been so desperate as to keep Connor's "condition" a secret and had sought proper education for her son knowing it was temporary and wouldn't turn his whole world upside down, maybe Redcliffe's population hadn't endured such aggressive trimming. Also, if Connor had been posessed in the Circle, we all know how that would've ended. Did he really deserve to die?

Also, it is made clear throughout the series demons can (and will) possess non-mages and even animals and trees (the sylvans, Wiggums and the creepy Haven cat, plus the Templar during the Broken Circle quest) - so aren't everyone at risk? Fenris himself gets seduced by a pride demon (and later blames Hawke for it) after railing against demon worshiping mages for at least a full act. And this doesn't even include all the evils non-mages do while not under the influence of a demon: Ser Alrik, Rendon Howe, Loghain... Lack of freedom doesn't make magic or mages more safe - the opposite, in fact. Nor does lack of freedom make the city elves "less dangerous" - again, I'd argue the opposite. Lack of freedom and legal recognition leaves just one form of agency, and that is criminality and often violence - that isn't safe for anyone.

Anyway, most of these issues are very subjective, and I can't really say anything more except that I (personally) enjoyed the discussion and representation of institutional oppression in DA2, and thought DA:O was a bit lacking in that particular aspect. Maybe it's because I'm personally interested in social justice issues and politically active regarding similar (real life) issues. It's of course finctional and not fully comparable with real life situations, but the structure and retoric are there, and they're very similar.

Anyway, you make really good points, which are most probably just as valid for you as mine are valid for me, but I am not convinced - and neither are you, probably by my points - so maybe we just have to agree to disagee.

batlin wrote...
No, but I gotta say the reasons you've presented DA2 as being a superior
story and having a better protagonist are generally BS. You constantly
show double-standards between the games by praising some element's
existence in DA2 and then ignoring how it is also an element in DA:O.

I've never said I have "presented reasons" why DA2 is in any way superior - I answered a question "is it accepted that DA2 was a step to the wrong direction" with "No" by listing reasons why I personally enjoyed DA2 more. Completely, absolutely, 100% subjective.

Want to know about my DA:O gaming experience? Combat and UI that were all but broken: I had to more often than not to have my mage spam AOI spells like Cone of Cold and Shock just to hit the enemies in front of me that I couldn't target because of the *****y UI. For a "tactical" RPG that's kinda bad. Technical difficulties like sound dropping off, freeze-ups, messed up dialogue assignment. Had fun with the story most of the time, even though it was pretty generic. Loved the characters, and the world of Thedas and Ferelden. Would love the final battle if the god**** UI didn't bug up on me half the time. Some of the visuals are just plain ugly on the PS3 - why? I don't know. I still enjoy DA:O despite these flaws and don't think it's such a bad game - I know my experience with it is subjective and, for example, all the PC gamers who didn't have those problems who think this game is the best since sliced bread are welcome to their opinnions. I, personally, find it hard to agree, for reasons which should be understandable, and definitedly not BS.

And my DA2 experience? Had so much fun with stuff like CCCs and Force Mage in particular it's probably illegal. I was able to set up ambushes in choke points because now I actually had the ability to move my party exactly where I wanted them, in stead of just running my PC around the corner and hoping the rest of my party members followed. So my DA2 experience was actually more tactical than the DA:O playthrough, imagine that. Characters were less Uncanny Valley-ish, probably because of the new art style. Can't really zoom in close to count the pixels and compare them with DA:O, but for me, DA2 actually looked better. Liked the unconventional story and the fact that "the big twist" actually surprised me, as well as the social commentary for the reasons I have already explained above. Liked the characters, some more than others: I didn't really find Merrill all that interesting, but fell in love with Anders, Aveline and Bethany, and I like them more than any of the Origins companions - except for Morrigan, maybe, but it's a close call. Love my canon Warden and Hawke equally for different reasons. Was annoyed by the lackluster final boss battle(s), repeat dungeons (and, in one memorable occasion, a repeat boss battle <_<), Kirkwall twins and triplets and the all-but-endless waves of baddies that'd jump my party from the rooftops - but in contrast with the problems I had in DA:O, that's rather minor.

So yeah. These are (once more) my reasons for liking DA2 better than DA:O, and they're definitedly not universal, but neither are they BS.

Modifié par MissOuJ, 04 juin 2012 - 07:28 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

MissOuJ wrote...

If you study the texts of, let's say Plato and Aristotle, you'll find that the discussion on ethics and morality of slavery did indeed happen. Even the older parts of the Bible which deal with slavery and owning slaves have myths justificating slavery - there's actually one of the most absurd justifications/myths about the commencement of slavery in the Bible: look up the Curse of Canaan. Seriously. Also note the lovely inclusion of racism in the tale and its later interpretations.

So again, rationalisations always existed.

That the pre-eminent philosophers of the period discussed the reasons behind the way things were is not evidence that people generally did.

The Vikings kept slaves.  They didn't need to justify it.  They'd won the slaves in battle.

... but racist people aren't always psycopaths.

Neither was Vaughn.  Vaughn simply didn't see the elves as people.  They were animals.

The line between people and animals is drawn in different places for different people.  That doesn't make them psychopaths.

People who disagree with you aren't necessarily psychopaths.

vallore wrote...
But why should they?

The city-elven oppression was never meant to be the drive force of the main plot. It was, as I said, something to be felt, (as a background). How the player feels about it is actually secondary. There was no need to go there.

I will say that that I think DAO failed the player quite badly by presenting elven oppression and a thing, but then not supporting it as a motivation for action through most of the game.  If the PC's primary concern is elven oppression, DAO doesn't really work.

DA2 also doesn't work if this is the case.  But DA2 also doesn't work if Mage oppression is Hawke's primary concern.  Hawke is still forced to do business with Meredith, for example.

MissOuJ wrote...

Can't really agree with this either. All beings possess the ability to do harm and cause suffering, or like Anders said "It doesn't take a mage for someone to be a vicious killer" - a Warden of the city elf origin is a good example of this.

Anders is horribly biased in this.  Yes, anyone can be a vicious killer, but non-mages are far less likely to become weapons of mass destruction involuntarily.  Mages are timebombs.  Non-mages have every reason to view them with fear.

Anders is kidding himself.  Mages aren't being oppressed for no reason.  He needs either to accept that mages are danger to others and need to be managed, or he should assert that mages are supoerior to non-mages and should dominate them.  I don't see a justifiable middle ground.

Elves, on the other hand, are oppressed because they can be.  Whether that's right or wrong is immaterial - it doesn't change the nature of the oppression.

Also, if Connor had been posessed in the Circle, we all know how that would've ended. Did he really deserve to die?

Is the concept of desert even meaningful?

Anyway, most of these issues are very subjective, and I can't really say anything more except that I (personally) enjoyed the discussion and representation of institutional oppression in DA2, and thought DA:O was a bit lacking in that particular aspect. Maybe it's because I'm personally interested in social justice issues and politically active regarding similar (real life) issues.

I find myself compelled to respond because I see social justice as an instrument used primarily to encourage groupthink.

But this has driften too far from the topic.

Fundamentally, I disliked DA2 because it did not allow me anything like the same degree of control of Hawke's personality that DAO allowed over the Warden's.  I could design a detailed and complete personality for the Warden and there were only a few places where the game would object to that.  But DA2 threw up a huge stop sign in very single dialogue event that said "Oh no you don't" and corrected me.  DA2 repeatedly (literally hundreds of times in a single playthrough) has Hawke behave in a character-breaking way.

That's not acceptable.

I recognise that DAO's combat was badly broken on consoles.  The lack of a move-to-point command was an appalling oversight.  But on PCs I think it worked very well, and DA2's considerably less so.  Plus, losing the non-combat stealth mechanic, plus the ability to initiate combat  by casting offensive spells in advance was a huge blow against DA2.

[batlin]

[quote]sickpixie wrote...

Yes? The first picture is a blurry,
brown mess. The second picture gives Hurlocks two colors (as opposed to
just one that also happens to be brown) and has better lightmaps.
Neither picture is particularly good for a comparison.
[/quote]

Are you kidding? The DA2 hurlocks look like they're made out of playdough. The first is "brown" because the lighting has a red tint. That changes nothing.

[quote]robertthebard wrote...

Actually, Duncan doesn't take just anyone to be a Warden.  Why does the Dwarf Commoner get into the Wardens?  Just because Duncan is in Orzammar?  Then why doesn't the Noble origin play out anyway, since that's why you say you're chosen.  The commoner wins that duel, that I can't remember the name of now, geez I hate being old.  Duncan is looking for exceptional people, not every day Joes.  You are chosen exactly because you were a better fighter than others, or, had other talents, such as Daveth.  But let's quote Wynne:  "You should be proud, Duncan is not a man that is easily impressed".  The Warden impresses Duncan, which is how they get recruited.  Recruitment doesn't guarantee you'll survive the Joining, and our own Joining shows us that.  So those that survive are indeed exceptional, except maybe Anders, and I think that was a pity survive...[/quote]

Again you show a double standard between Hawke and the Warden. Why is it that is the Warden proves he's a good fighter (which iirc is only in the dwarf origins) and becomes a grey warden he's "destined to face the Blight" but when Hawke proves he's a good fighter and becomes the Champion of Kirkwall (which is the reason he's in the positions to do what he does after act 1) he's still just "Johnny on the spot"?


[quote]This isn't Hawke forced into inaction as much as forcing Hawke to pick sides, in a situation where, as with the Warden killing the Archdemon, there can be no walking away.  There are no good choices there, and walking away might have been one, depending on whether you're a mage or not, and whether or not you like your sibling at all.  This is what gets some people, I'd imagine, because they can't "save the day", and they aren't intended to.[/quote]

The only reason Hawke isn't "intended" to save everyone is because the writers demand it. As Sebastian said, it's very clear neither side is entirely right, yet you can NEVER take actions that could actually prevent a war. Awakenings, for all its shortcomings, handled its no-win scenario FAR better than DA2 does. In Awakenings, you have limited resources and you must protect Vigil's Keep, Amaranthine, and its farms and trading routes. There's no way you can entirely protect them all, even in the best possible outcome. This works because there is no way to save absolutely everyone because you simply don't have the resources to do it, whereas in DA2 there would be a way to save everyone if only you weren't railroaded into choosing between black and white. Killing Meredeth is not the best way to resolve the conflict. If Hawke were to rally the people against Meredeth in the, oh, six whole years he had between the acts and have her ousted then the grip on the mages could be loosened and tensions would ease. But oh, silly me, we can't have that because the writers need a big shocking twist at the end of the game!

[quote]How much money is enough?  Should Bill Gates have stopped after the first million?  Does anyone ever say:  "I have enough money, I'm not going to make any more", or do they keep their investments going?[/quote]

I'm not exactly sure what game you were playing, but making money ceases to be a plot point after you get through the deeproads. Yes, there are quests that exist to make money in later acts, but DA:O had these too with the Chanters' boards.

[quoe]had Act II not started with you being summoned to the viscount's office.  You are in the unique position of the Arishok knowing your name, even though, as the arishok will tell you, he had no interest in knowing it initially.  While he does question the motivation, he does note that you have improved your lot, while the Qunari have not, and he respects that.  This is why he pays you the courtesy of explaining what happened, and why.[/quote]

So you're saying that had Hawke not been motivated by money the Arishok would not have known his name initially? And your point is what, that a checkov's gun exists in the game? 

[quote]At this point in the story, everything you have done previously was selfishly motivated.[/quote]

And there's that double standard again. The human noble's motivation was revenge on Howe, the city elf's motivation was escape from the alienage, the dalish elf's is his/her own survival from the taint, the dwarf commoner him/herself has a MUCH better motivation than hawke in the money department, because if he did not earn enough money Beraht would have killed him. The dwarf commoner also joins the grey wardens because the only alternatives are death or exile.

I'm not saying that a character having selfish motivations makes that character better than a character that does not. I am saying that your assertion that you like Hawke more than the Warden because Hawke was motivated by selfishness is complete bull. The Warden in multiple incarnations goes from a self-serving nobody to a hero same as Hawke does.

[quote]Unlike the Warden, who is uniquely qualified to deal with their unique Protaganist, Hawke was just in the right place at the right time.  There was no ritual to make sure Hawke could beat the Arishok, or even get to where he/she has the chance, it's just luck.[/quote]

First, the word you're looking for is "antagonist". A "protagonist" is the good guy. Second, The Warden is only uniquely qualified to killing the Archdemon. If you noticed, there's quite a bit more enemies to fight before you get to that point. And, again, the Warden was indeed at the right place at the right time. He was at the right place at the right time when Duncan recruited him. He was at the right place at the right time when Ostagar fell. You are imagining qualities of Hawke that also exist for the Warden, only for some reason your bias is blinding you from it.

[quote]Hawke can be chosen to lead the assault not because he/she is uniquely qualified, but because he/she is doing it to protect Kirkwall, which makes sense at this point, since if he had any investments, they would be tied there.  Hawke now has something to lose if the Qunari win, unlike the mage/templars, who would willingly throw the other into the fray, which they both do with you anyway.  Isn't it convenient that no matter how it plays out, they don't show up until the Arishok is dead, and they had far less to contend with, that we see, than you did.  Both are probably secretly hoping you get killed, and they can come in and mop up, giving their faction the "popular vote" in their ongoing conflict.[/quote]

Stop bringing supposition into this. They didn't show up because it would have been way less cinematic to have Hawke plus a ton of other people pummel the Arishok into pulp.

[quote]Which brings us to that conflict.  I asked earlier, probably in this very quoted post, which I removed to prevent megawall of text, how one person was going to stop something that's been brewing for centuries.  The conflict, while more exaggerated in Kirkwall, isn't limited to Kirkwall.[/quote]

No, but since the entire game is squarely focused on Kirkwall the fact that the problem is more far-reaching doesn't excuse Hawke's blatant passiveness in allowing it to continue in the city.

[quote]TL;DR:  Hawke is the hometown boy that made good.  The Warden is the hometown boy that got chosen for a purpose, and has to fulfill it on his/her own, despite that not being the original intent when recruited.  In other words, Hawke wasn't chosen to save Kirkwall, and can't prevent what's coming, while the Warden has a set antagonist, and can stop the spread of the Blight.[/quote]

You're acting like the Warden is some sort of chosen one who was prophesized to end the Blight by a bunch of old wizened dudes centuries ago. No, he isn't. He is one of MANY people who has he unique ability to kill an Archdemon for good so long as he's there when the Archdemon dies. It's because of the very thing you like to praise Hawke for that you ignore the Warden for doing: the Warden being in the right place at the right time made him one of the three last ones in Ferelden with said ability.

[quote]These two scenarios are different, and can't play out the same way, compared to eachother.  Neither is bad based on that, different directions, with different archetypes of hero.  That some don't find one or the other appealing is fine.  This does not, however, mean that one is inherently worse than the other,[/quote]

You're right. Hawke not being specially qualified to do everything he did does not makes him worse than the Warden. What does make him worse than the Warden is that Hawke is passive and reactionary.

[quote]and people that were vocal, in one medium or another about disliking it did indeed affect sales.  This last was my initial point, and the only reason I have kept coming back.  People didn't not like it w/out knowing anything about it, therefore they couldn't just not buy it because they didn't like it, there was a reason, which you allude to:  bad press.  For myself, I have already listed my regret for buying into the bad press to not even try the game, for while I didn't find it to be any where near perfect, I did find it fun.[/quote]

The concept of word-of-mouth has been around ever since the concept of buying and selling existed. People don't like something, they'll tell other people whther it's good or bad, and it will affect those people's decision to buy. Are there people who probably would have liked the game but didn't buy it because someone said it's bad? Of course, but no more than, say, people who bought DA2 purely because they liked DA:O so much, aka those initial 700k sales.

Modifié par batlin, 04 juin 2012 - 08:31 .

[batlin]

MissOuJ wrote...

I've never said I have "presented reasons" why DA2 is in any way superior - I answered a question "is it accepted that DA2 was a step to the wrong direction" with "No" by listing reasons why I personally enjoyed DA2 more. Completely, absolutely, 100% subjective.

Ok, so we're just going to ignore our debates about the lack of an antagonist in DA2 until late in the game and how in Awakenings you learn about the antagonist early on as well, how DA:O does not always give you an out, how Hawke is forced into inaction in situations that are obviously going to turn out for the worst, how All That Remains has next to nothing to do with the mages vs. templars, how there's little buildup to act 3, how even though the Archdemon metaplot in DA:O is constant there is no shortage of subplots within the world that are no less deep than acts 1 or 2 in DA2, how Hawke just sits around for 6 years while a very obvious tyrannical ruler is tightening her grip on the city, how elves are NOT considered second-class citizens "just because", and how the Warden has no less personal investment in mage oppression than Hawke would? Are we pretending how that your point this whole time that it's all subjective for whether DA2 went the wrong direction? Ok, I'll play.

Here's the sales numbers for DA:O vs. DA2



DA2 went the wrong direction. The same fanbase buying less of one than another does, in fact, prove that less people liked it than the original. So tell me: What evidence do you have to prove that it IS subjective other than your say so?

Want to know about my DA:O gaming experience? Combat and UI that were all but broken: I had to more often than not to have my mage spam AOI spells like Cone of Cold and Shock just to hit the enemies in front of me that I couldn't target because of the *****y UI. For a "tactical" RPG that's kinda bad. Technical difficulties like sound dropping off, freeze-ups, messed up dialogue assignment. Had fun with the story most of the time, even though it was pretty generic. Loved the characters, and the world of Thedas and Ferelden. Would love the final battle if the god**** UI didn't bug up on me half the time.

You should've got it on PC it sounds like. Plus IIRC they patched DA:O pretty early on to fix targeting, so it sounds like you played the game once soon after it came out then never touched it again. It would explain your hazy memory of DA:O.

Some of the visuals are just plain ugly on the PS3 - why? I don't know. I still enjoy DA:O despite these flaws and don't think it's such a bad game - I know my experience with it is subjective and, for example, all the PC gamers who didn't have those problems who think this game is the best since sliced bread are welcome to their opinnions. I, personally, find it hard to agree, for reasons which should be understandable, and definitedly not BS.

DA2 was built on consoles and had less polygons than DA:O. I'm not sure what you're referring to in DA:O as bad visuals when compared to DA2, but DA2 factually has worse graphics than DA:O.

And my DA2 experience? Had so much fun with stuff like CCCs and Force Mage in particular it's probably illegal. I was able to set up ambushes in choke points because now I actually had the ability to move my party exactly where I wanted them, in stead of just running my PC around the corner and hoping the rest of my party members followed.

I'll agree combat was more fluid in DA2, but unfortunately the encounters are all samey and generic. DA:O had unique enemy placement and environmental factors; DA2 would always just put you in a wide area and have enemies swarm you from the edges of the map.

So my DA2 experience was actually more tactical than the DA:O playthrough, imagine that. Characters were less Uncanny Valley-ish, probably because of the new art style. Can't really zoom in close to count the pixels and compare them with DA:O, but for me, DA2 actually looked better. Liked the unconventional story and the fact that "the big twist" actually surprised me, as well as the social commentary for the reasons I have already explained above. Liked the characters, some more than others: I didn't really find Merrill all that interesting, but fell in love with Anders, Aveline and Bethany, and I like them more than any of the Origins companions - except for Morrigan, maybe, but it's a close call. Love my canon Warden and Hawke equally for different reasons. Was annoyed by the lackluster final boss battle(s), repeat dungeons (and, in one memorable occasion, a repeat boss battle <_<), Kirkwall twins and triplets and the all-but-endless waves of baddies that'd jump my party from the rooftops - but in contrast with the problems I had in DA:O, that's rather minor.

If combat control and visuals are all it takes for you to enjoy one game over another, then you will prefer DA:O on the PC over DA2. Better zoom controls, optional isometric view, easily-selectable targets, movement of party members is a breeze, and you can boost up the graphics as high as you want. Well, it looks like I just proved that yes, you too think DA2 went the wrong dirction. Thanks for your support!

Modifié par batlin, 04 juin 2012 - 09:37 .

[robertthebard]

batlin wrote...

MissOuJ wrote...

I've never said I have "presented reasons" why DA2 is in any way superior - I answered a question "is it accepted that DA2 was a step to the wrong direction" with "No" by listing reasons why I personally enjoyed DA2 more. Completely, absolutely, 100% subjective.

Ok, so we're just going to ignore our debates about the lack of an antagonist in DA2 until late in the game and how in Awakenings you learn about the antagonist early on as well, how DA:O does not always give you an out, how Hawke is forced into inaction in situations that are obviously going to turn out for the worst, how All That Remains has next to nothing to do with the mages vs. templars, how there's little buildup to act 3, how even though the Archdemon metaplot in DA:O is constant there is no shortage of subplots within the world that are no less deep than acts 1 or 2 in DA2, how Hawke just sits around for 6 years while a very obvious tyrannical ruler is tightening her grip on the city, how elves are NOT considered second-class citizens "just because", and how the Warden has no less personal investment in mage oppression than Hawke would? Are we pretending how that your point this whole time that it's all subjective for whether DA2 went the wrong direction? Ok, I'll play.

Here's the sales numbers for DA:O vs. DA2



DA2 went the wrong direction. The same fanbase buying less of one than another does, in fact, prove that less people liked it than the original. So tell me: What evidence do you have to prove that it IS subjective other than your say so?

What this shows me, and anyone caring to look, is that DA2 sold less copies.  It does not show why it sold less copies.  All I see are sales numbers, that's it.  There is no "exit survey" to show why somebody didn't buy it.  Although you alluded to it earlier, bad press.  Now where does bad press come from?  People that bought it, didn't like it, and were very vocal?  So somebody reading these forums, or reviews, or both wouldn't decide to not buy it based on that?  Or maybe, and this is funny to me, since you've been railing against it since I posted it, bad press is exactly why people didn't buy it.  So reading stuff about the game on these forums may indeed have been an influencing factor, despite the claim that it's not?

Regarding our other conversation, did you even play Origins?  I suppose that fighting your way into, or out of the Arl's estate had nothing to do with getting recruited?  I suppose that fighting your way through the darkspawn to get to Duncan in both the Dalish and Dwarf Noble origins had nothing to do with being recruited, and we know in the HN origin that Duncan already had his eye on you, and yet you still fight your way through Howe's men to get to your father.  So you'll have to excuse me while I try to figure out exactly what game you're referencing, since we obviously didn't play the same one.  Wynne's comment isn't reserved for the dwarf commoner either.

[Melca36]

MissOuJ wrote...



Want to know about my DA:O gaming experience? Combat and UI that were all but broken: I had to more often than not to have my mage spam AOI spells like Cone of Cold and Shock just to hit the enemies in front of me that I couldn't target because of the *****y UI. For a "tactical" RPG that's kinda bad. Technical difficulties like sound dropping off, freeze-ups, messed up dialogue assignment. Had fun with the story most of the time, even though it was pretty generic. Loved the characters, and the world of Thedas and Ferelden. Would love the final battle if the god**** UI didn't bug up on me half the time. Some of the visuals are just plain ugly on the PS3 - why? I don't know. I still enjoy DA:O despite these flaws and don't think it's such a bad game - I know my experience with it is subjective and, for example, all the PC gamers who didn't have those problems who think this game is the best since sliced bread are welcome to their opinnions. I, personally, find it hard to agree, for reasons which should be understandable, and definitedly not BS.

And my DA2 experience? Had so much fun with stuff like CCCs and Force Mage in particular it's probably illegal. I was able to set up ambushes in choke points because now I actually had the ability to move my party exactly where I wanted them, in stead of just running my PC around the corner and hoping the rest of my party members followed. So my DA2 experience was actually more tactical than the DA:O playthrough, imagine that. Characters were less Uncanny Valley-ish, probably because of the new art style. Can't really zoom in close to count the pixels and compare them with DA:O, but for me, DA2 actually looked better. Liked the unconventional story and the fact that "the big twist" actually surprised me, as well as the social commentary for the reasons I have already explained above. Liked the characters, some more than others: I didn't really find Merrill all that interesting, but fell in love with Anders, Aveline and Bethany, and I like them more than any of the Origins companions - except for Morrigan, maybe, but it's a close call. Love my canon Warden and Hawke equally for different reasons. Was annoyed by the lackluster final boss battle(s), repeat dungeons (and, in one memorable occasion, a repeat boss battle <_<), Kirkwall twins and triplets and the all-but-endless waves of baddies that'd jump my party from the rooftops - but in contrast with the problems I had in DA:O, that's rather minor.

So yeah. These are (once more) my reasons for liking DA2 better than DA:O, and they're definitedly not universal, but neither are they BS.

Hope you realize the developer have already said the combat for the next game would NOT be the same as DA:2s.

They
said the speed will remain but it would be less stylized and have some
elements from Origins return like tactics.  Its not going to be hack and
slash like it was for DA:2.   I agree it was fun but after the 5th
playthrough, it gets tedious.

Modifié par Melca36, 04 juin 2012 - 09:40 .

[sickpixie]

hussey 92 wrote...

The DA2 Hurlocks look like henchmen you'd see in an anime series

They're actually henchmen from He-Man and the Masters of the Universe:

[batlin]

robertthebard wrote...
What this shows me, and anyone caring to look, is that DA2 sold less copies.  It does not show why it sold less copies.  All I see are sales numbers, that's it.

In marketing, less sales means people did not like your product or there wasn't enough exposure for the product. Since DA2 had way more marketing behind it than DA:O, there's only one explanation left.

There is no "exit survey" to show why somebody didn't buy it.  Although you alluded to it earlier, bad press.  Now where does bad press come from?  People that bought it, didn't like it, and were very vocal?  So somebody reading these forums, or reviews, or both wouldn't decide to not buy it based on that?  Or maybe, and this is funny to me, since you've been railing against it since I posted it, bad press is exactly why people didn't buy it.  So reading stuff about the game on these forums may indeed have been an influencing factor, despite the claim that it's not?

I did say that yeah, there are people who would have bought the game had it not been for the bad press which could explain why it didn't sell as much as it did. BUT considering there is also a faction of people who bought the game week 1 thanks to how much they liked DA:O and wound up hating DA2, like myself, those sales factors at LEAST even out. So no, the fact of the matter is that Dragon Age 2 sold less because it is not a good enough product. Unless you can provide me with evidence otherwise, you have no argument.

Regarding our other conversation, did you even play Origins?  I suppose that fighting your way into, or out of the Arl's estate had nothing to do with getting recruited?  I suppose that fighting your way through the darkspawn to get to Duncan in both the Dalish and Dwarf Noble origins had nothing to do with being recruited, and we know in the HN origin that Duncan already had his eye on you, and yet you still fight your way through Howe's men to get to your father.  So you'll have to excuse me while I try to figure out exactly what game you're referencing, since we obviously didn't play the same one.  Wynne's comment isn't reserved for the dwarf commoner either.

And Hawke fighting through the Deeproads had nothing to do with people trusting and admiring him enough to be the Champion of Kirkwall?

This is the thrid time I've had an exchange with you were you ignore all other arguments in favor of one or a couple. Can I just assume you agree with me on the ones you ignored?

Yeah, there are a couple of DA:O's origins that do not match Hawke's "average guy who wound up being a hero" backstory. What of it? Do you think they're weaker because of it? Is the fact that with Hawke you do not even get the CHOICE of your backstory make Hawke better somehow? Frankly it looks like you're grasping at straws now. I've proven that there are a good amount of options to be the kind of hero in DA:O that Hawke is, albeit way more proactive than Hawke. Unless you want to try and prove me wrong there, I think we're done.

Modifié par batlin, 04 juin 2012 - 09:48 .

[robertthebard]

batlin wrote...

robertthebard wrote...
What this shows me, and anyone caring to look, is that DA2 sold less copies.  It does not show why it sold less copies.  All I see are sales numbers, that's it.

In marketing, less sales means people did not like your product or there wasn't enough exposure for the product. Since DA2 had way more marketing behind it than DA:O, there's only one explanation left.

There is no "exit survey" to show why somebody didn't buy it.  Although you alluded to it earlier, bad press.  Now where does bad press come from?  People that bought it, didn't like it, and were very vocal?  So somebody reading these forums, or reviews, or both wouldn't decide to not buy it based on that?  Or maybe, and this is funny to me, since you've been railing against it since I posted it, bad press is exactly why people didn't buy it.  So reading stuff about the game on these forums may indeed have been an influencing factor, despite the claim that it's not?

I did say that yeah, there are people who would have bought the game had it not been for the bad press which could explain why it didn't sell as much as it did. BUT considering there is also a faction of people who bought the game week 1 thanks to how much they liked DA:O and wound up hating DA2, like myself, those sales factors at LEAST even out. So no, the fact of the matter is that Dragon Age 2 sold less because it is not a good enough product. Unless you can provide me with evidence otherwise, you have no argument.

Regarding our other conversation, did you even play Origins?  I suppose that fighting your way into, or out of the Arl's estate had nothing to do with getting recruited?  I suppose that fighting your way through the darkspawn to get to Duncan in both the Dalish and Dwarf Noble origins had nothing to do with being recruited, and we know in the HN origin that Duncan already had his eye on you, and yet you still fight your way through Howe's men to get to your father.  So you'll have to excuse me while I try to figure out exactly what game you're referencing, since we obviously didn't play the same one.  Wynne's comment isn't reserved for the dwarf commoner either.

This is the thrid time I've had an exchange with you were you ignore all other arguments in favor of one or a couple. Can I just assume you agree with me on the ones you ignored?

Yeah, there are a couple of DA:O's origins that do not match Hawke's "average guy who wound up being a hero" backstory. What of it? Do you think they're weaker because of it? Is the fact that with Hawke you do not even get the CHOICE of your backstory make Hawke better somehow? Frankly it looks like you're grasping at straws now. I've proven that there are a good amount of options to be the kind of hero in DA:O that Hawke is, albeit way more proactive than Hawke. Unless you want to try and prove me wrong there, I think we're done.

By definition, people that already bought the game can't unbuy it.  So that faction, you included, are people that contributed to the sales it had.  If you can't see the inherent contradiction there, then yes, we are done.

If you can't show me an origin where you aren't a cut above your fellows to demonstrate that you aren't the "Chosen One" archetype hero for Origins, then yes, we are done there as well.  After all, Duncan is looking for exceptional people, not specifically criminals.  Otherwise, we would only have 2 origins to play, dwarf commoner and City Elf.  If you play warrior for HN, you just won the last tourney, and if you're a rogue, you fight your way through Howe's men, which you do in either origin, to get to Duncan, somehow managing to survive.  In DN, you fight your way through the Deep Roads to get to Duncan, In DC, you win the tourney, despite the fact that you're not supposed to be competing in it, seeing as you're Casteless.  In CE, you fight your way into, or out of the Arl's estate after the events of your wedding.  In the MO, you fight your way through the Tower's defences to destroy Jowan's phylactery, with or w/out the knowledge of the First Enchanter.  In the DO, you fight your way to the Eluvian, and somehow manage to survive the taint despite what it may have done to Tamlen, and then fight your way through the darkspawn to get back to it to meet Duncan.   In which of these scenarios are you not the chosen one?  I don't think I left any out.

[MissOuJ]

batlin wrote...

You should've got it on PC it sounds like. Plus IIRC they patched DA:O pretty early on to fix targeting, so it sounds like you played the game once soon after it came out then never touched it again. It would explain your hazy memory of DA:O.

Because when a game is released on the console you're not supposed to play in on the console because only PC gamers are true gamers! Got it! Also a fact: all people are able to afford a decent gaming PC, have the money to upgrade it regularly, don't actually require anything else from their PC (because using your PC for working is just waisting it, right?), and if all else fails, are able to invest to two PC's: one for gaming and the other one for the boring stuff. Am I right?

Telling me that DA:O, which was released on multiple platforms, is only playable on one of them isn't actually a point to its favour, now is it?

I actually just finished my first playthrough of Awakening, so my memory is still pretty damn fresh, and the problems are still there, and I'd think I already have all the patches - I shouldn't be able to install DLC otherwise. Trying to find and target the lone Emissary in the sea of darkspawn in a narrow Deep Roads corridor is still just as big a nightmare as ever. Have you played DA:O on the consoles? Do you know how the targeting works in it? Basically, you pray the camera angle pleases the invisible gods of UI and mash the arrow buttons and hope the said Emissary is even an option when the camera is at this or that particular angle. Seriously, it's pretty frustrating when sometimes you can see an enemy that you can't target, and sometimes they just aren't rendered on-screen until they've put a Mass Paralysis on 3/4th's of your party. I actually found the high dragon fights easier than many of the regular encounters because at least then the bloody UI didn't have me targeting the lone Genloch in the corner when the dragon was chewing on my face.

Telling me "but it's better on PC!" isn't really a good excuse: it was released on PS3, it should be enjoyable to play on PS3, and my gaming experience as a console gamer should be (and is) just as valid as anyone else's.

batlin wrote...
DA2 was built on consoles and had less polygons than DA:O. I'm not sure what you're referring to in DA:O as bad visuals when compared to DA2, but DA2 factually has worse graphics than DA:O.

I'm not saying it had better graphics or more polygons or better meshes or whatever, I'm saying it looked better than DA:O. Trust me, there's a difference. You can post graphics and screenshots all you want, but it means nothing because I can't crank my DA:O graphics as high as I'd like, and what I have to make do is nice at best and ugly/disturbing at worst - like this time when Justice activated his Fade Warrior sustained mode and suddenly lost all texture from his eyes, and how I could see the "teeth/jaws" of the ghosts in the Gauntlet on the Ashes quest. DA2 was an improvement in that regard - I don't know if it was the new art style or what, but it just plain looked better.

batlin wrote...
If combat control and visuals are all it takes for you to enjoy one game over another, then you will prefer DA:O over DA2. Better zoom controls, optional isometric view, easily-selectable targets, movement of party members is a breeze, and you can boost up the graphics as high as you want.

How about no because I'm not a PC gamer, nor should I be forced to play a game that was released on the PS3 on a PC to actually enjoy said game! Seriously. This is not a difficult concept. It's like me saying all DA2 players who had PC specific problems should just "get ovet it" and play it on a "proper platform".

Also, combat controls and visuals aren't the only things I care about. I really, honestly enjoyed DA2's plot more. I also enjoyed its combat more - more specialisations would've been nice, sure, but the combat in DA2 was much more fluid (you said as much yourself) and in general just more fun and energetic. So that's 1/5 for DA:O (I'm giving it environments because although Mark of the Assassin made some improvements I think I still like the Brecillian Forrest best out of all DA locations).

So nope. Sorry.

Also, you can post as many graphics as you want about the sales - I don't need my overall opinnion of the game to be validated by how well it sold, nor did I at any point claim anything about DA:O or DA2 sales. My subjective opinnion is that DA2 is better, and if you claim to be factually and objectively correct in saying DA:O was better because you happened to play it in the platform where the problems I had weren't an issue, that's BS.

Modifié par MissOuJ, 04 juin 2012 - 10:15 .

[MissOuJ]

Melca36 wrote...

Hope you realize the developer have already said the combat for the next game would NOT be the same as DA:2s.

They said the speed will remain but it would be less stylized and have some elements from Origins return like tactics. Its not going to be hack and slash like it was for DA:2. I agree it was fun but after the 5th playthrough, it gets tedious.

Well, too bad. I'll have to check out the demo then when it comes out and see for myself if it's something I can get into or if they have changed it too much to my tastes. I still play DA:O, however, even with all the issues I'm having that I mentioned, because I just plain love the IP, so I probably wouldn't boycott, but I would be very dissapointed, nevertheless.

[batlin]

robertthebard wrote...

By definition, people that already bought the game can't unbuy it.  So that faction, you included, are people that contributed to the sales it had.  If you can't see the inherent contradiction there, then yes, we are done.

How is that in any way a contradiction? You say sales were lowered because of bad press. I say sales were hightened because of people who bought it based on how much they liked Origins. At best, these two factors cancel each other out and what we're left with is DA2 simply did not sell as well as Origins because most people think it's not as good of a game.

If you can't show me an origin where you aren't a cut above your fellows to demonstrate that you aren't the "Chosen One" archetype hero for Origins, then yes, we are done there as well.  After all, Duncan is looking for exceptional people, not specifically criminals.  Otherwise, we would only have 2 origins to play, dwarf commoner and City Elf.  If you play warrior for HN, you just won the last tourney, and if you're a rogue, you fight your way through Howe's men, which you do in either origin, to get to Duncan, somehow managing to survive.  In DN, you fight your way through the Deep Roads to get to Duncan, In DC, you win the tourney, despite the fact that you're not supposed to be competing in it, seeing as you're Casteless.  In CE, you fight your way into, or out of the Arl's estate after the events of your wedding.  In the MO, you fight your way through the Tower's defences to destroy Jowan's phylactery, with or w/out the knowledge of the First Enchanter.  In the DO, you fight your way to the Eluvian, and somehow manage to survive the taint despite what it may have done to Tamlen, and then fight your way through the darkspawn to get back to it to meet Duncan.   In which of these scenarios are you not the chosen one?  I don't think I left any out.

So you you, the Warden being a chosen one is purely based on him being a cut above the rest? Ok, how is that different than Hawke being a cut above the rest; the entire reason he becomes the Champion of Kirkwall?

Also no, Duncan does not recruit people based only on how well they fight. He recruited Daveth because he was a good pickpocket. That's hardly "chosen one" material now, is it?

Modifié par batlin, 04 juin 2012 - 10:31 .

[robertthebard]

batlin wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

By definition, people that already bought the game can't unbuy it.  So that faction, you included, are people that contributed to the sales it had.  If you can't see the inherent contradiction there, then yes, we are done.

How is that in any way a contradiction? You say sales were lowered because of bad press. I say sales were hightened because of people who bought it based on how much they liked Origins. At best, these two factors cancel each other out and what we're left with is DA2 simply did not sell as well as Origins because most people think it's not as good of a game.

If you can't show me an origin where you aren't a cut above your fellows to demonstrate that you aren't the "Chosen One" archetype hero for Origins, then yes, we are done there as well.  After all, Duncan is looking for exceptional people, not specifically criminals.  Otherwise, we would only have 2 origins to play, dwarf commoner and City Elf.  If you play warrior for HN, you just won the last tourney, and if you're a rogue, you fight your way through Howe's men, which you do in either origin, to get to Duncan, somehow managing to survive.  In DN, you fight your way through the Deep Roads to get to Duncan, In DC, you win the tourney, despite the fact that you're not supposed to be competing in it, seeing as you're Casteless.  In CE, you fight your way into, or out of the Arl's estate after the events of your wedding.  In the MO, you fight your way through the Tower's defences to destroy Jowan's phylactery, with or w/out the knowledge of the First Enchanter.  In the DO, you fight your way to the Eluvian, and somehow manage to survive the taint despite what it may have done to Tamlen, and then fight your way through the darkspawn to get back to it to meet Duncan.   In which of these scenarios are you not the chosen one?  I don't think I left any out.

So you you, the Warden being a chosen one is purely based on him being a cut above the rest? Ok, how is that different than Hawke being a cut above the rest; the entire reason he becomes the Champion of Kirkwall?

Yeah, we really are done.

Edit to fix quote tags.

Modifié par robertthebard, 04 juin 2012 - 10:31 .

[batlin]

robertthebard wrote...

batlin wrote...

So you you, the Warden being a chosen one is purely based on him being a cut above the rest? Ok, how is that different than Hawke being a cut above the rest; the entire reason he becomes the Champion of Kirkwall?

Yeah, we really are done.

Interesting how you can't answer a simple question, eh? And how you continue to ignore my points? But fine, take your ball and go home.

Ultimately the Warden and Hawke's stories are the same. The only difference is that while the Warden is proactively solving problems, Hawke sits around for years until they explode.

Modifié par batlin, 04 juin 2012 - 10:35 .

[batlin]

MissOuJ wrote...

Because when a game is released on the console you're not supposed to play in on the console because only PC gamers are true gamers! Got it! Also a fact: all people are able to afford a decent gaming PC, have the money to upgrade it regularly, don't actually require anything else from their PC (because using your PC for working is just waisting it, right?), and if all else fails, are able to invest to two PC's: one for gaming and the other one for the boring stuff. Am I right?

Telling me that DA:O, which was released on multiple platforms, is only playable on one of them isn't actually a point to its favour, now is it?

I actually just finished my first playthrough of Awakening, so my memory is still pretty damn fresh, and the problems are still there, and I'd think I already have all the patches - I shouldn't be able to install DLC otherwise. Trying to find and target the lone Emissary in the sea of darkspawn in a narrow Deep Roads corridor is still just as big a nightmare as ever. Have you played DA:O on the consoles? Do you know how the targeting works in it? Basically, you pray the camera angle pleases the invisible gods of UI and mash the arrow buttons and hope the said Emissary is even an option when the camera is at this or that particular angle. Seriously, it's pretty frustrating when sometimes you can see an enemy that you can't target, and sometimes they just aren't rendered on-screen until they've put a Mass Paralysis on 3/4th's of your party. I actually found the high dragon fights easier than many of the regular encounters because at least then the bloody UI didn't have me targeting the lone Genloch in the corner when the dragon was chewing on my face.

Telling me "but it's better on PC!" isn't really a good excuse: it was released on PS3, it should be enjoyable to play on PS3, and my gaming experience as a console gamer should be (and is) just as valid as anyone else's.

I'm positive you're exaggerating. The first time I played DA:O it was on the 360 and I had minimal problems targeting enemies. You know you can always pause the action and zero-in on any character, right? Targeting, even on consoles, is a non-issue. I don;t know how you can justify your problem unless you refused to pause the acion and/or use the tactical menu.

I'm not saying it had better graphics or more polygons or better meshes or whatever, I'm saying it looked better than DA:O. Trust me, there's a difference. You can post graphics and screenshots all you want, but it means nothing because I can't crank my DA:O graphics as high as I'd like, and what I have to make do is nice at best and ugly/disturbing at worst - like this time when Justice activated his Fade Warrior sustained mode and suddenly lost all texture from his eyes, and how I could see the "teeth/jaws" of the ghosts in the Gauntlet on the Ashes quest. DA2 was an improvement in that regard - I don't know if it was the new art style or what, but it just plain looked better.

I can't argue against "It looks better to me", but I can say that, in my opinion, this



Looks better than this

How about no because I'm not a PC gamer, nor should I be forced to play a game that was released on the PS3 on a PC to actually enjoy said game! Seriously. This is not a difficult concept. It's like me saying all DA2 players who had PC specific problems should just "get ovet it" and play it on a "proper platform".

That's fine, and I agree that you shouldn't have to settle for less (even though consoles are effectively 8 year-old PCs) just because you don't have a PC, however my POINT is that, given the reason you claim you prefer DA2 over DA:O, you would prefer the PC version of DA:O way more than you do any version of DA2.

Also, combat controls and visuals aren't the only things I care about. I really, honestly enjoyed DA2's plot more.

You blatantly ignored all my points against your assertion for why DA2's plot is better than DA:O's. If you want to keep arguing that, refer back to my last post about those.

Also, you can post as many graphics as you want about the sales - I don't need my overall opinnion of the game to be validated by how well it sold, nor did I at any point claim anything about DA:O or DA2 sales. My subjective opinnion is that DA2 is better, and if you claim to be factually and objectively correct in saying DA:O was better because you happened to play it in the platform where the problems I had weren't an issue, that's BS.

The sales graph is not meant to convince you or anybody whether they should or shouldn't like the game. It's meant to prove exactly one thing: Most people preferred DA:O over DA2. And unless you or anyone can prove otherwise, as a metric of whether DA2 went the right direction, it shows that it did not.

Modifié par batlin, 04 juin 2012 - 10:49 .

[whykikyouwhy]

batlin wrote...
The sales graph is not meant to convince you or anybody whether they should or shouldn't like the game. It's meant to prove exactly one thing: Most people preferred DA:O over DA2. And unless you or anyone can prove otherwise, as a metric of whether DA2 went the right direction, it shows that it did not.

I would think that a "sales" graph would show that people purchased one game more than the other, not that people preferred one game more than the other. I'm sure a good chunk of the sales for DA:O occurred a few years back, before DA2 was released, so you can't exactly measure an at-time-of-purchase preference between the two (where the buyer stood in front of a shelf that had both games on display).

Also, preference, as far as liking or caring for one thing over another, can be measured after a game is purchased and played, when a person has something to make a comparison with. I'm not so certain your graph is measuring preference.

[batlin]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

I would think that a "sales" graph would show that people purchased one game more than the other, not that people preferred one game more than the other. I'm sure a good chunk of the sales for DA:O occurred a few years back, before DA2 was released, so you can't exactly measure an at-time-of-purchase preference between the two (where the buyer stood in front of a shelf that had both games on display).

Also, preference, as far as liking or caring for one thing over another, can be measured after a game is purchased and played, when a person has something to make a comparison with. I'm not so certain your graph is measuring preference.

Sales are a traditionally accurate way to measure public acceptance of a product. This is business 101. As for a graph showing how many purchased one but not the other, I doubt such a graph can exist unless the biggest game distributors banded together and surveyed all the customers who bought either game from them.

[whykikyouwhy]

batlin wrote...

Sales are a traditionally accurate way to measure public acceptance of a product. This is business 101. As for a graph showing how many purchased one but not the other, I doubt such a graph can exist unless the biggest game distributors banded together and surveyed all the customers who bought either game from them.

But you used the word "preferred." Again, preference of one game over the other is something that can be measued after a person has played both games to some capacity. It would be unfair for someone to say "I prefer DA:O to DA2" when that person has not played DA2. No research has been done. The only things that might be accurate or applicable in that scenario could be "I preferred the DA:O trailer to DA2's" or "I prefer the box art of DA:O to DA2." In which case, a person is not really talking about the game itself - the gameplay, mechanics, characters, quests, etc. And I don't see how someone can fairly say that they prefer one thing over the other if he/she has not at least tried both.

[jbrand2002uk]

Batlin I may be wrong on this but what robert seems to be alluding to as the difference between The Warden and Hawke is that the Warden's respect is granted to him/her from others automatically on account that he's a Grey Warden unless of course you paranoid like Loghain and think they're working for the Orlesians to take back Ferelden.

Hawke on the other hand has to earn his/her respect the hard way its not given by default and that what makes Hawke a more regular hero and then there's Hawke title granted by the Arishok basalit aan or similar given to Hawke because he earned it so its says quite alot that Hawke is respected immensely by the one person in the city that is hardest to please and cares nothing for money or social class

[Sylvius the Mad]

batlin wrote...

I can't argue against "It looks better to me", but I can say that, in my opinion, this



Looks better than this

I agree completely, but I want everyone to look at the skin textures on those two models.  DA2 Alistair - like all the DA2 characters - had perfectly matte skin.  There was no sheen at all.  That's a move away from realism.  That's a move toward cell-shading.

People look more like the Alistair in DAO.

Second, look at the armour.  DAO Alistair's armour has fine shoulder seams.  That's delicate hammer work, and it looks more like real armour.  DA2's Alistair is wearing 3/4" steel plates on his shoulders.  No one would wear those.  Those are laughably heavy.