1306 réponses à ce sujet

[zyntifox]

Well i can't think of a thing that DA2 did better than DAO. But putting that aside, i can't understand why BioWare would take this kind of risk and change so much from a game that got good reviews (from both pro's and customers) and sales. The rational approach to a sequel to a game that sold well would be to keep everything that was hailed and fix/"innovate" what was considered a flaw. Or am i wrong? Are the sales numbers i've seen of DAO not considered a success by Bioware?

[MissOuJ]

eroeru wrote...

The main question that we should discuss is that of WHICH parts of the game were so-very-significantly-dismaying. I.e. which things to change, and how much.

Agreed, but I still think DA2 went to the right direction with most of the stuff it did. The only thing I like better in DA:O are the environments. Almost everything else in DA2 was an improvement on DA:O, in my opinnion. Also, those discussions exist plenty in the forums already. I was asked a pretty simple question, I gave a pretty simple asnwer, and it has been downhill from there. Maybe it's dumb of me to keep answering, since the conversation isn't clearly going anywhere, but there it is.

And the conversation on the "what went wrong and how we fix it" is pretty much for naught, because the developers have already said they are going to address the most important issues: more plot control for the player (which is fine and good by me, not a deal breaker because linear plots are in general OK with me), more environments (yay!), companion armour (again: very nice, but not a deal breaker) and in general more customisation - or that's what I took away from their PAX panel and the news that wave been circulating around.

The only thing I'm worried about is the talk about changing the combat system - if it becomes more like/just like DA:O, I feel like I'm not gonna be happy. As long as it was functional and even somewhat interesting it wouldn't still be a deal breaker for me, but I would be really disappointed anyway. Having only 1 specialization per character sounds a bit scary, but if it's connected better to the plot (DA:O actually did this better with blood magic, for example: Wynne calls you out on it, but Hawke can run around Kirkwall bleeding and Hemorrhaging all over the place and noone says a thing while blaming everyone else for the exact same thing) I'm all for it. The (possible) multiplayer sounds a bit... ehh... but then again taking on a high dragon with 3 of my PSN buddies sounds like immense fun, but I know for a fact some people are going to have a hissy fit over it, so I won't be heartbroken if they decide not to do it. On the other hand, making it a DLC /expansion could work, so people who don't like/can't play multiplayer won't have to pay for stuff they don't want, which seemed to be the main complaint about ME3's multiplayer.

So, so far, I'm actually rather optimistic about DA3. I know plans change during the development cycle, but all in all, I'm happy with the news I've been hearing. But I know for a fact there are going to be people who will complain about DA3 not being "the true DA2" (ie not a carbon copy of DA:O), and I have to say I'm really baffled by these people. It's like they don't want to see the games evolve at all, which is, again, one of the fool-proof ways to kill a franchise.

I've yet to hear about any completely new big ideas (aside from the multiplayer), which is a shame, because experimenting with new ideas is what I really want to see in my games - not waiting to see symbolic and "artistic" 2D platformer sections like in Madness Returns, but just mixing together DA:O and DA2 will end in tears, and making copies of either games would be a mistake, in my opinnion.

In any case, looking forward to 2014 and what stuff they come up with. All this discussion aside, I've yet to play a bad BioWare game, and I have trust in them.

/my 2 cents

Modifié par MissOuJ, 05 juin 2012 - 03:43 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Cstaf wrote...

Well i can't think of a thing that DA2 did better than DAO. But putting that aside, i can't understand why BioWare would take this kind of risk and change so much from a game that got good reviews (from both pro's and customers) and sales. The rational approach to a sequel to a game that sold well would be to keep everything that was hailed and fix/"innovate" what was considered a flaw. Or am i wrong? Are the sales numbers i've seen of DAO not considered a success by Bioware?

Why BioWare would take the risk?

1. They didn't think DAO was a success or commercial profitable due to DAO's weak intial sale on release date. I could explain that as new IP and weak marketing. Many people didn't know DAO exist. I did know DAO exist eventhough I surf the net regularly for strategy games and mods. I didn't follow up BioWare forum prior to DAO. They change their offical website to BSN. I don't watch TV regularly nor do I waste my time on youtube. It took them 4 months to realize that they were dead wrong.On February 2010 they announced DAO was their three platinum sales.  By that time DA 2 was already on the work 

2. Their commitment to produce yearly product meant they have short development circle and ME 2 proved this can happen. And thus - Mass Effecting Dragon 2. An uproar on the net that prompted me to join BSN to see what the fuss. To my greatest horror, the rage was not some random rants by throlls. It had merit. 

3. BioWare intented to do 180 degree turn becase they have done everything already in the past. The dialogue wheel that become the pain in my ass to roleplay Shepard in ME 2 due to the stupid binary paragon-renegade system was to be implemented in DA 2  The cinematic approach was embraced to give life to JRPG's protagonist and to appeal those interactive cinematic fans who are too lazy to use their brain for imagination and need to be spoon fed everytime, regardless of it's effect on character creation. And to add salt to injury to what's already restricted RPG, they started to intrude my PC's area such as personality, motives, emotion and action .. I could rant forever but what's the point. They're sticking to their direction no matter what.  

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 05 juin 2012 - 03:49 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

MissOuJ wrote...

Also doesn't fix the issue of missing CCC's (and no, Shattering doesn't count),

Why doesn't Shattering count?

Also, what about the other DAO combos?  Paralysis Explosion.  Shockwave.  Entropic Death.  Improved Drain.  Nightmare.  Do they count?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 05 juin 2012 - 04:02 .

[vallore]

MissOuJ wrote...

So again, rationalisations always existed.

Of course they did; that is why I jested about paleo-hippies. The point being that there is a great difference between philosophers, and the rest of the population. The first ask questions and look for answers, the others often don’t. We, Human beings, have a tendency to accept the status quo as “the way things are.”

... 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.

You didn’t saw them? At first, in Denerin you really don’t get much of a chance to interact with local humans, but afterwards we find them everywhere, it is just more a form of milder prejudice than actual full blown racism, but also let’s not forget that the character is a warden, that puts her in a different level. Here’s a few examples:

The quartermaster at the king’s camp, the ash warrior leader at the king’s camp, several characters at Redcliffe, that express implicit doubts about an elf being made a  grey warden, or surprise at an elf wanting to
help them, perhaps more telling is how, at the Moot  the accusations of elves being driven into slavery don’t appear to cause much of a dent to Logain’s  argument. And so on.

Now sure, the game didn't make everyone into a rabid racist, but why should it? I suspect you attribute the city-elves situation as being caused mostly because of it, but I believe otherwise. And let's not forget that the game has limitations about how much it can go into details as such. DA2 also had those problems; for instance the way a mage character was just ignored by templars, despite the fact that we were forced to carry a staff everywhere and often needed to use magic.

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.

True. You are speaking of the original cause for the conflict, but I’m dissociating the original cause, (that no longer exists as a valid reason for the current situation, as far as I’m concerned), from the current reasons for the perpetuity of the situation. Since, personally, I don’t see a fear of the elves being capable of getting all back as being prevalent sentiment among the human population of Ferelden, what cause remains had to be the answer.

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.

There is couple more of more of points I think is relevant to make:

Humans in DAO do present motivation. It just is not an intellectual motivation; is far more akin to a shared awareness of a situation from a particular point of view. Plus, don’t forget that most individuals will not even see themselves as oppressors, and in fact, they aren’t. (Making a need of justification mostly irrelevant for them).They may feel prejudice against elves, but are not really doing anything that the elves themselves do not do against humans, ( by expressing distrust and/or dislike for the other group and stereotyping the other). Now, take the racial prejudice of the equation for a moment and what do we got?

Remember this story from DAO?

An elven maid was forced to share a bed with a nobleman. Later she gives birth to a son but dies while giving birth. The nobleman’s family does takes care of the son, but doesn’t recognize him as an heir of the nobleman and as soon as the kid is old enough, he is sent away to the Chantry. Worse, however, is how they treated the maid’s other daughter, an older elven kid that is sent away from town, with a single golden coin, to fend by herself: an orphan elven girl.

The only thing false here is that the story is not about elves, but humans. The girl was Goldanna, Alistair’s sister. The situation of the city-elves and that of the human poor become remarkably similar. Yet, where are the discussions about classism in the forum?

I dare say that, if there was no classism in Ferelden, my guess is that  racism against elves would have no bite.

The plight of the city-elves is only remarkable because it encompasses all their people, but for the common poor Joe Ferelden, I bet they are not much better themselves, and are equally stuck at the bottom. Social immobilism is likely as prevalent. Interestingly however, there is no need to justify this situation as we, the players, are capable of seeing how the situation is far from fair, and it is implicitly understood as the way things are. Nor do the characters need to express or justify it, as for them it simply “is.”

Now since poverty is not an elven exclusive and social imobilism is likely prevalent among other groups as well, racial prejudice becomes a factor but not the only factor to cause the elven situation. Imo, most of what they suffer is not due to prejudice, (just become associated with it).

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?

I suspect we are not speaking of the same things here.

Here I was speaking about how the mage situation was interesting since it caused an evident dilemma: freedon of the few vs. security of the many, a dilemma city-elves lack.

Mage oppression is debated in the forums because people perceive a dilemma: a conflict of two apparently just goals. Elven oppression does not offer such dilemma, as I guess most would agree elves are just like everybody else and should be treated fairly, without a perceived drawback resulting because of it. Now, how appropriate and effective the Circles are to deal with the mage danger (or how unique that danger really is) is another distinct issue.

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.

Yes, I agree. (Except that I find DAO to offer a far better representation of social problems than DA2). But it was indeed an interesting discussion, and I extend the compliment to your points as well.

[jbrand2002uk]

Cstaf wrote...

Well i can't think of a thing that DA2 did better than DAO. But putting that aside, i can't understand why BioWare would take this kind of risk and change so much from a game that got good reviews (from both pro's and customers) and sales. The rational approach to a sequel to a game that sold well would be to keep everything that was hailed and fix/"innovate" what was considered a flaw. Or am i wrong? Are the sales numbers i've seen of DAO not considered a success by Bioware?

Because each game is a story albeit an interactive one and any good story writer worth their salt does not allow trivial things like public opinion to shape or dictate their "vision" For example would you say to J.K Rowling oh sorry you cant write your Harry Potter books because a poll of book readers reveals that they arnt intrested in storys about witches, wizzards and magic the poll mentioned a few posts above was a survey of 3000 or so gamers if the post is correct if DAO and DA2 sales figures combined are correct then this is a microscopic proportion of the total number of people who bought into the franchise making this wildly innaccurate at best and nowhere does this poll state catagorically that all who where surveyed actually played DA2 themselves rather than reallying on word of mouth.

As for Claims of DAO's superiority because of awards won and good reviews those who use these as "evidence" seem to forget the premise behind this so called "evidence", and that is that its not evidence its a collation of the opinion of a group of individuals and as so many state here time and again opinion is subjective.
Which brings me to the sales figures charts that batlin has been using as "evidence" to his claim that DA2's direction was the wrong one it isnt evidence at all as it does not mention if all those who bought DAO actually tried DA2's demo and decided not to purchase it or if they relied on the opinion of Friends/Magazine Reviews and if the latter its not evidence its heresay because who can say for definate that friends/reviewers didnt form their opinion based on pre existing bias or peer pressure in order to be seen as cool etc.

I can think back to my early school years when many bought a PSone instead of an n64 and when asked why they bought a PSone over an N64 the main answer was "well cos my friend has one" as it turned out the PSone was technologically inferior to the N64 not to mention it was more fragile especially in regards to the media format used, and heck speaking of bias lets call out the title of thios thread :Is it at least accepted that DA2 went the wrong direction?Clearly a heavely Biased pro DAO Title the presupposes DA2 went the wrong direction is fact so clearly no opinion stated by the TC can be considered as objective.The biggest flaw in this thread title is that given the claim that DA2 went the wrong direction is a fact it runs headfirst into its own wall and that is to claim a statement as a fact you need hard concrete evidence to back it up and heres the problem there is no hard concrete evidence to back up this claim everything submitted is a raft of pictures charts and graphs submitted with some clearly biased assumptions and speculation.

[zyntifox]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Cstaf wrote...

Well i can't think of a thing that DA2 did better than DAO. But putting that aside, i can't understand why BioWare would take this kind of risk and change so much from a game that got good reviews (from both pro's and customers) and sales. The rational approach to a sequel to a game that sold well would be to keep everything that was hailed and fix/"innovate" what was considered a flaw. Or am i wrong? Are the sales numbers i've seen of DAO not considered a success by Bioware?

Because each game is a story albeit an interactive one and any good story writer worth their salt does not allow trivial things like public opinion to shape or dictate their "vision" For example would you say to J.K Rowling oh sorry you cant write your Harry Potter books because a poll of book readers reveals that they arnt intrested in storys about witches, wizzards and magic the poll mentioned a few posts above was a survey of 3000 or so gamers if the post is correct if DAO and DA2 sales figures combined are correct then this is a microscopic proportion of the total number of people who bought into the franchise making this wildly innaccurate at best and nowhere does this poll state catagorically that all who where surveyed actually played DA2 themselves rather than reallying on word of mouth.

As for Claims of DAO's superiority because of awards won and good reviews those who use these as "evidence" seem to forget the premise behind this so called "evidence", and that is that its not evidence its a collation of the opinion of a group of individuals and as so many state here time and again opinion is subjective.
Which brings me to the sales figures charts that batlin has been using as "evidence" to his claim that DA2's direction was the wrong one it isnt evidence at all as it does not mention if all those who bought DAO actually tried DA2's demo and decided not to purchase it or if they relied on the opinion of Friends/Magazine Reviews and if the latter its not evidence its heresay because who can say for definate that friends/reviewers didnt form their opinion based on pre existing bias or peer pressure in order to be seen as cool etc.

I can think back to my early school years when many bought a PSone instead of an n64 and when asked why they bought a PSone over an N64 the main answer was "well cos my friend has one" as it turned out the PSone was technologically inferior to the N64 not to mention it was more fragile especially in regards to the media format used, and heck speaking of bias lets call out the title of thios thread :Is it at least accepted that DA2 went the wrong direction?Clearly a heavely Biased pro DAO Title the presupposes DA2 went the wrong direction is fact so clearly no opinion stated by the TC can be considered as objective.The biggest flaw in this thread title is that given the claim that DA2 went the wrong direction is a fact it runs headfirst into its own wall and that is to claim a statement as a fact you need hard concrete evidence to back it up and heres the problem there is no hard concrete evidence to back up this claim everything submitted is a raft of pictures charts and graphs submitted with some clearly biased assumptions and speculation.

No i would never say something like that to J.K Rowling. And that analogy is completely flawed, it should be more like: J.K Rowling wants to continue the Harry Potter franchise by not writing about witches, wizards and magic but instead making the franchise about a galactic empire threaten the planet Klingon.

I don't want to get in the way of Biowares "artistic integrity", all im asking for is some consistency.

*Edit: By the way, i am not so presumptuous to claim that just because i believe they went the wrong way neccesary means that they went the wrong way. And by the way if you want objective analysis of a game, or anything for that matter, you probably should not read forums.

Modifié par Cstaf, 05 juin 2012 - 04:44 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Because each game is a story albeit an interactive one and any good story writer worth their salt does not allow trivial things like public opinion to shape or dictate their "vision" For example would you say to J.K Rowling oh sorry you cant write your Harry Potter books because a poll of book readers reveals that they arnt intrested in storys about witches, wizzards and magic the poll mentioned a few posts above was a survey of 3000 or so gamers if the post is correct if DAO and DA2 sales figures combined are correct then this is a microscopic proportion of the total number of people who bought into the franchise making this wildly innaccurate at best and nowhere does this poll state catagorically that all who where surveyed actually played DA2 themselves rather than reallying on word of mouth.

Although Rowling herself did that.  She was originally going to write with a female protagonist, but didn't think boys would be willing to read a story about a girl, so she changed the main character to a boy.

So much for artistic vision.

[jbrand2002uk]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Because each game is a story albeit an interactive one and any good story writer worth their salt does not allow trivial things like public opinion to shape or dictate their "vision" For example would you say to J.K Rowling oh sorry you cant write your Harry Potter books because a poll of book readers reveals that they arnt intrested in storys about witches, wizzards and magic the poll mentioned a few posts above was a survey of 3000 or so gamers if the post is correct if DAO and DA2 sales figures combined are correct then this is a microscopic proportion of the total number of people who bought into the franchise making this wildly innaccurate at best and nowhere does this poll state catagorically that all who where surveyed actually played DA2 themselves rather than reallying on word of mouth.

Although Rowling herself did that.  She was originally going to write with a female protagonist, but didn't think boys would be willing to read a story about a girl, so she changed the main character to a boy.

So much for artistic vision.

The difference being it was what She decided herself not a change made because of opinion polls etc

[jbrand2002uk]

Cstaf to have the "consistency" that you crave would necessitate a fixed character and pre-determined story which would give consistency but then RPG gamers would give "where's my choice, its not fair i didnt want a railroaded story, I want to make the big decisions not have them forced on my character by the writer"

Its a case of one or the other you cant have both they are a contradiction

[vallore]

Cstaf wrote...

Well i can't think of a thing that DA2 did better than DAO. But putting that aside, i can't understand why BioWare would take this kind of risk and change so much from a game that got good reviews (from both pro's and customers) and sales. The rational approach to a sequel to a game that sold well would be to keep everything that was hailed and fix/"innovate" what was considered a flaw. Or am i wrong? Are the sales numbers i've seen of DAO not considered a success by Bioware?

The need to take risks, to become better and more successful. To make their product more unique, with a distinct brand identity. To keep ahead of the industry by pushing the limits of what they can do and finding new directions to go, that would be my guess.

Did it work?

Well, I personally think not.

[Sylvius the Mad]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Although Rowling herself did that.  She was originally going to write with a female protagonist, but didn't think boys would be willing to read a story about a girl, so she changed the main character to a boy.

So much for artistic vision.

The difference being it was what She decided herself not a change made because of opinion polls etc

What does it matter by which mechanism she came to believe that people wouldn't like her initial idea?

Rowling had a vision.  She comprosmised that vision to cater to her perception of the public's appetites.  That's exactly what you're saying "artists" shouldn't do.

[Sylvius the Mad]

vallore wrote...

The need to take risks, to become better and more successful. To make their product more unique, with a distinct brand identity.

BioWare's brand identity was a strong player agency offered by their games.

[vallore]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

vallore wrote...

The need to take risks, to become better and more successful. To make their product more unique, with a distinct brand identity.

BioWare's brand identity was a strong player agency offered by their games.

True, but not only because of that, their storytelling and characters also play a huge role in that. Still, in that specific point I was making, I speaking of the new art style (possible) intent: a distinct visual feel and identity. One that I personally don’t like and, ironically, actually find less distinct.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I agree that's what they were going for, but I think they misidentified their own core strengths when making that decision.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 05 juin 2012 - 07:06 .

[batlin]

[quote]MissOuJ wrote...

What, with 3 mages and triple Haste? Doubt it.[/quote]

So in other words, "lalalala I'm not listening!"

[quote] Also doesn't fix the issue of missing CCC's (and no, Shattering doesn't count),[/quote]

Uhm, why?

[quote]doesn't change the fact that the combat just plain looks boring,[/quote]



[quote]doesn't change the fact that I enjoy the DA2 story more. End of.[/quote]

Allow me to paraphrase how our debate about the story has gone

You: Here's why I like the story more

Me: Here's reasons why DA:O did all those things better

You: Yeah well I like DA2 better anyway so shove it

[quote]Because explaining in detail how the Kirkwall property law works and questing around finding the right shade of silk for the curtains is so thrilling? Skipping ahead to the more relevant parts is what pacing is about.[/quote]

Are you being facetious?

[quote]Just because you don't like episodic story telling doesn't mean other people won't enjoy it or that it is "objectively bad" way of story structuring.[/quote]

"Brevity is the soul of wit." - William Shakespeare

[quote]I really fail to see how you can consider the strand of events loose. Qunari are important because that's how Hawke got his/her title - Cassandra even alludes she tought Hawke had planned it all out just to end up in a place of power. The mage oppression, which is strongly present in all acts - is really important regarding to the end game events. Have you just skipped half of the side quests and conversation options?[/quote]

Strongly present? Hawke doesn't even bother to do anything about it until the very last act when the s*** hits the fan.Somethign being foreshadowed is not the same thing as something being built up.

[quote]Or, you know, s/he thinks 1) Anders has the situation under control because he's stopped fighting for mage rights after the incident (Anders codex entry Act 3)[/quote]

Which would put Hawke right below Merrill in the naivité competition. One thinks demons can be nice, another thinks a murderous abomination can be nice.

[quote]or 2) s/he doesn't want to put his/her friend/lover/companion in the hands of the Templars who have clearly abused people "in heir care"[/quote]

Turning him over to the templars isn't the only option. How about forcing him to tell you what he's planning, tipping the Chantry off in case he does do something rash, spying on him, etc etc etc

[quote]or 3) doesn't really have time to think about it, since s/he's busy with trying to keep the city falling on its *** any sooner than it needs to. You know, just my two cents.[/quote]

Right, because Hawke is just the pinnacle of proactiveness. S/he's too busy with gathering elfroots for some herbalist to worry about a powerful and unstable mage with a hatred for the chantry.

[quote]"Personal tragedy" in these situations is nowhere near the scale of what Hawke goes through: s/he loses his/her home and sibling pretty much back-to-back right out of the gate (and it's even worse if Hawke a mage because Bethany and s/he are visibly really close), after which s/he is pretty much forced against his/her will to work as either a mercenary or a smuggler just to get his/her family into Kirkwall. After that s/he is faced with even more personal tragedy and hardships, and might just end up exactly as s/he started: a fugitive on the run. The emotional drama surrounding the main character in Origins isn't nearly as strong because you don't even really get to know your family and friends, nor do you spend time with them. I was actually a bit disappointed with my Cousland playthrough because after the first ~3 hours no one mentions your missing, presumed dead brother. I had almost forgotten about him altogether until I saw him in Alistair's coronation after the final battle. I don't feel anywhere near the same about Bryce as I feel about Leandra, nor about Fergus as I feel about Bethany, or even Carver.[/quote]

Really? You forgot about your character's personal tragedy of how Howe betrayed and killed your family and friends? Howe, the guy who works closely with Loghain and who the game cuts back to every time you beat a main quest and who it takes the majority of the game to get to? You forgot about THAT?

[quote]Didn't quote the meaning because I thought you didn't know what it meant, but because I think using that term isn't valid in this case. [/quote]

In that are they the same game? No, that's what i meant by "two games". With ceteris paribus I was referring to the same fans, same target audience, same developers, same series, and so on and so forth. The only true difference between the two is quality and that DA2 had more marketing power behind it.

[quote]Are you telling me DA:O and DA2 were in exactly the same positions, that the fact that DA2 was the sequel of DA:O didn't, in any way, have an effect on who bought DA2?[/quote]

I'm sure it did. And I'm sure it wouldn't have sold nearly as much had it been the first game to come out.

[quote]Are you saying not one person who bought DA2 had any expectations of it (ie. it being like DA:O)? DA:O and DA2 were, in no way, on equal ground when they hit the shelves,[/quote]

You're right, DA2 had way more power behind it because it was the sequel to a game that was well-rated by users and critics alike.

[quote]which I personally think is one of the reasons for the overflowing negativity with some individuals. The fact is, DA2 is not a bad game just because it's not like Origins.[/quote]

No, it's a bad game because the plot is slow-paced and tedious, the graphics are horrible, the environments are cut-and-pasted, the quests are mostly fetch-based and phoned in, the dialogue options are limited, the combat is a buttonmash-fest, no tactical camera, less equipment options for your party, passive main character, small world map, and DLC-galore. It's a bad game that was an obvious cash-grab to fund TOR, another game people are generally disappointed with becasue it to had the mantra of "appealing to a wider audience".

[quote]You do realise that's 1) Metacritic,[/quote]

And?

[quote]and 2) really small sample size?[/quote]

Sacred_Fantasy was kind enough to post this other poll

[quote]Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

We have better sample size. Over 3145 voters
Only 10% or 324 out of 3145 people love DA 2 and find it a great game.

Survey Time

Poll by Frewazhere can be found here  [/quote]

Better?

[quote]Are you saying they're all lying, or are you one of the "ME3" conspiracy theorists who think BioWare/EA pay for reviewers to get favourable scores? Gaming journalism has some serious issues, true, but outright bribery isn't one of them.[/quote]

No, but shameless pandering to publishers so they can keep getting free review copies of games is. This isn't even a problem restricted to video games; ever looked at the reviewer blurbs on a Battleship poster? Same people who give games like DA2 and Duke Nukem Forever 100/100's. And even then, DA2 ranks among professional critics 10 points lower than DA:O's pro critics did, for what that's worth.

[quote]But even if you went around asking every single person who has played both DA2 and DA:O which one was better, you'd still not get an "objective" opinnion on which one is "truly superior", because it is a subjective question where all answers are pretty much equal, and saying my experience is wrong and not equal because I belong in the (dubious) minority is BS.[/quote]

No, no, no, no. I never said you were wrong for liking DA2. I have been saying this whole time that because DA2 is less liked by the public at large, it went the wrong direction. Are there people who liked DA2 more? Yes. But all signs point to them being in the minority.

Modifié par batlin, 05 juin 2012 - 07:46 .

[vallore]

Faerunner wrote...

I'm sorry to be contrary vallore, but I disagree about the elves. Poverty may not be restricted to elves, but it does affect them on a disproportionate level to humans. Humans can be nobles, soldiers, priests, chanters and templars, whereas elves largely aren't allowed to join the nobility, military or Chantry. Humans can get a good break, buy a nice house and possibly earn a decent living if they work hard enough (maybe as a merchant or a modest farm like the Hawkes pre-Blight) whereas elves who try to "reach too high" will often find their homes and businesses on the receiving end of robbery, arson and murder.

Don’t be sorry.

Hmm, I see where you are coming from, but here is the issue: social mobility.

It is an illusion of our time to assume that anyone that works hard enough can make a better life for himself. It is true for some people, and truer in some places than others. But it is not a universal truth everywhere and of every time; and not one that we should expect to prevail in a medieval-like society.

Some humans can be nobles, but becoming one when one’s parents were not, is another much more difficult thing.

I’m not sure if elves are not allowed in the military; in fact I remember my elf masquerading as a member of the guard in two occasions and acting for the guard in others, without that raising an eyebrow of the other guards or of the population, so I will simply assume it is not something most elves would choose to do.

And so on.

Mind you, I’m not saying that racial prejudices don’t play a role in their misfortune; what I’m saying is that while it is the most obvious cause of their misfortune it alone would not cause it, and that the intrinsic social injustice of a medieval-like society is the key component. Elves are at the bottom of society, but are not alone there. Racial prejudice helps to keep them there, and makes it much more harder to get out, but I would expect exceedingly few humans could claw out of the bottom also.

Anyway, what I don't like about the series' direction is that the first game acknowledges and explores some of the social injustices that elves face (or at least the same amount as most other "minority" groups) but the second game largely ignored it. The Magistrate's Order quest sums up what's wrong with elves' portrayal in DA2 in my opinion. A serial killer that has been targetting elven children for months, if not years, and the PC is only a human who can only be emotionally detached from it. The elves' rage is treated as impotent and unimportant. Allowing the serial killer to go free doesn't cause ay long-term repercussions in the elf's community. Family and community are everything to city elves, and putting up with injustice for years culminating in a serial killer of their children almost getting caught but ultimately going free doesn't sow the seeds of civil disobedience? Mage crimes are ZOMG SO IMPORTANT, but elves are "just a background event"?

No.

Well, now I personally would like an elven uprising as a major plot for, say, DA4? (provided we get decent looking elves by then, that is:P) and I’m sure that if Bioware sees sufficient interest that could happen somewhere in the future. Other than that, secondary plots will always receive less attention, with ramifications ignored, I’m afraid; limited resources and story constraints, and all that.

[jbrand2002uk]

actually batlin your indirectly claiming MissOuJ's opinion is BS by claiming that DA2 went the wrong direction because more people liked DAO over DA2 thereby stating that anti DA2 is more valid because of the larger numbers.

You can slice and dice it with as many pictures graphs and spreadsheets and statistics till the cows come home and pigs fly oh and not forgetting hell freezing over at the end its still an opinion having more people supporting it than not agreeing does not make it fact

[jbrand2002uk]

oh and second batlin the improved combat picture you posted is misleading and i suspect purposely so because that is pre patched that issue was fixed along time ago

[batlin]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

actually batlin your indirectly
claiming MissOuJ's opinion is BS by claiming that DA2 went the wrong
direction because more people liked DAO over DA2 thereby stating that
anti DA2 is more valid because of the larger numbers.

You can
slice and dice it with as many pictures graphs and spreadsheets and
statistics till the cows come home and pigs fly oh and not forgetting
hell freezing over at the end its still an opinion having more people
supporting it than not agreeing does not make it fact

So then by what metric do you suggest would be better for determining whether a game went the right or the wrong direction besides general opinion?

jbrand2002uk wrote...

oh and second batlin the improved combat picture you posted is misleading and i suspect purposely so because that is pre patched that issue was fixed along time ago

Modifié par batlin, 05 juin 2012 - 08:43 .

[jbrand2002uk]

@Batlin Lol at the button of Awesome even more inaccurate but so damn funny i bit my tongue.

As for a more reliable metric to judge direction I'd say there isn't one sales charts dont work because they're lacking in any sufficient detail to conclude the reasons for lack of sales, same case with polls 3145 people polled isn't an insignificant number of people however its a tiny number compared to the total sales so its to small to be conclusive one way or another.
The problem is current data collection is merely a collection of individual opinions and as long as opinions are subjective they cant be used as facts one way or another.

the only definitive way to say for sure if a product is a success is if the money earned from sales was greater than the cost of production then its a success if its less well then its a flop

[batlin]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

@Batlin Lol at the button of Awesome even more inaccurate but so damn funny i bit my tongue.

As for a more reliable metric to judge direction I'd say there isn't one sales charts dont work because they're lacking in any sufficient detail to conclude the reasons for lack of sales, same case with polls 3145 people polled isn't an insignificant number of people however its a tiny number compared to the total sales so its to small to be conclusive one way or another.
The problem is current data collection is merely a collection of individual opinions and as long as opinions are subjective they cant be used as facts one way or another.

the only definitive way to say for sure if a product is a success is if the money earned from sales was greater than the cost of production then its a success if its less well then its a flop

So then a game could fail on every measurable level, but if a developer cheaped out on every possible level during production (possibly explaining its horribleness) and they allow the hype of the previous game to drive initial sales for this game up, that to you is a good measure of success?

[jbrand2002uk]

thats the only measure of success free from influence,bias etc yes if total sales revenue is greater than development cost by even $1 then its a success not a good success but till one nonetheless any other measure is as subjective as opinion

[batlin]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

thats the only measure of success free from influence,bias etc yes if total sales revenue is greater than development cost by even $1 then its a success not a good success but till one nonetheless any other measure is as subjective as opinion

I gotta say, that's a pretty crappy measure of success considering they're screwing over their future sales of games in the series, and also whittling away the brand loyalty they've built up and thereby reducing their sales overall by putting out a sub-par product that is only a financial success because they were penny pinchers.

Also, quality is not entirely subjective. For example, if I saw The Godfather Part II and Die Hard playing on TV at the same time, I would watch Die Hard. This isn't because I think Die Hard is a better movie than The Godfather, it's because I like Die Hard more. Godfather has unquestionably better characters, story, pacing, and themes than Die Hard does. Period. I know this, and although I would prefer to watch Die Hard, I'm not blind to the fact that Godfather is factually better.

In the case of DA:O and DA2, not only do I prefer DA:O, DA:O is also factually better.

Modifié par batlin, 05 juin 2012 - 10:00 .