sickpixie wrote...
I'd say it's because they addressed complaints some people had with Origins (player character is a mute emotionless puppet in dialogue cutscenes, cutscenes in general aren't dynamic enough, combat is too slow and uninteresting to watch, art style looks too much like Lord of the Rings, rogues and warriors don't have enough interesting abilities, rogues require too much micromanagement, mage spells have too much phased obsolesence and too many ineffective choices, the beginning is too unforgiving, and so on). Granted not everyone saw these as flaws and some may take issue with how they addressed them, but it's a fair assumption to make that those who'd prefer a carbon copy of Baldur's Gate aren't the majority regardless of how loud they are on the internet.wsandista wrote...
Very well
Some one please answer this: Why is DA2 the right direction? It didn't sell more and wasn't received as well as DAO, but some have refuted those standards as measures of quality. Please explain how a game that preformed worse both commercially and critically then it's predecessor moved in the right direction.
I have asked this question once and will continue to ask it until I get a logical answer.
Addressing complaints doesn't necessarily correlate to a step in the right direction. For every example of a complaint you list, a complaint was made about the changes. Also while I agree that those who want a carbon copy of BG are not a majority, it is also safe to assume that those who thought DA2's concept(not implementation) was superior to DAO's are not a majority either.
hoorayforicecream wrote...
You're overgeneralizing.
How?
Their solution to this was the waves of enemies in encounters. Rather than front-loading all of the challenges in almost every fight, you'd have additional challenges appear all throughout the fight. However, the implementation wasn't very good, because the encounters they built were often repetitive and the spawning broke verisimilitude when you could see enemies appear out of nowhere.
This isn't to say that the concept of wave combat is inherently broken. The Legacy DLC showed us that it is definitely doable in an interesting manner that doesn't necessarily break immersion. Practically all of the comments about Legacy I've read, regardless of what else they thought of Legacy, praised how the wave combat had been "fixed". In my mind, it had never been broken to begin with, it just wasn't implemented well.
The concept of wave combat for EVERY encounter is. There are many situations where "waves" of enemies do not make sense, and add nothing to combat other than more foes to slay. The problem was that wave combat happened in EVERY situation, there was no way to avoid people poping in out of nowhere to attack you. A better solution would have been to better balance the foes, instead of tossing them at the party in intervals.
Compare this to a fundamentally unsound design principle, such as the Detective Vision feature in Batman: Arkham Asylum. In B:AA, Detective Vision is a vision mode where things that aren't immediately apparent become visible to Batman. Enemies, interactive environment objects, clues, etc. all stand out in bright colors, while normal mode they don't. And there's no time limit or penalty for using Detective Vision, aside from seeing the game in odd colors. It is a strictly superior way to play the game (as in you get strictly more information and more options) with no penalty, aside from the fact that it makes the game look kinda ugly. And that's why it's a bad feature - it makes the game's visuals conflict with the gameplay at a fundamental level, and that's a bad thing. They'd have to fundamentally change how the system is designed in order to make the use of Detective Vision a good feature.
Never played Batman games, always preferred the comics when I could get them.
The difference between this and wave-combat is that this is optional. Wave combat is not. The fact that it doesn't interfere with gameplay and is completely optional makes it a much superior feature to a poorly implemented and unavoidable feature like wave-combat.
This is what I mean when I say that DA2 went in the right direction. It focused on several areas that they felt DAO was lacking, and made design improvements to them. The fact that they weren't entirely able to convert doesn't mean that the design principles were fundamentally unsound.
Implementation is EVERYTHING though. Innovation is meaningless when it isn't implemented properly. Wave combat was not an improvement because it was poorly implemented and applied to every situation.
I think wave-combat would only work where the situation allowed it, like with spiders, portals to the fade, and darkspawn bursting from under the ground. Still even in those situations, it would get very boring to focus all of your energy on the "big bad" of the encounter and spend the rest of the time fending off weak-creatures who continue to pop up.
Modifié par wsandista, 08 juin 2012 - 03:00 .
Retour en haut
)?
