1306 réponses à ce sujet

[sickpixie]

wsandista wrote...

Well apparently the Dragon Age audience shrunk with the new direction. So how is the new direction any better?

I believe it shrunk because it was clearly rushed with painfully obvious corner-cutting, a directionless plot, and combat that failed to encourage or reward mastery (though the same is also true of Origins). The condescending marketing may have also had something to do with it, but it didn't seem to affect Origins, so perhaps not.

Both used the same ruleset and engine as BG.

That doesn't make them the same, all three had different goals. Fans of one wouldn't necessarily be fans of the others.

NWN was very much like that. DAO was similar, except for the exploration. Both of those games do very well with the base they appealed to while DA2 did not.

Neverwinter Nights only gave you one AI-controlled henchman, not a party, and it was linear. DAO didn't even try to resemble a simulation, had a lot of cinematics, fully voiced companions, and was linear.

If DA2 turned off that demographic while failing to entice a new demographic, why was it a step in the right direction.

It was an attempt to transition into something better. Hubris-inspired denial aside, I imagine that at least some of them went into it aware that a rushed product would lose a lot of fans and it'd only do well because of the smaller budget. It's a gamble that may or may not pay off with the next one.

[batlin]

Melca36 wrote...

I still want to the hardcores to explain how enemies jumping down from the roof or appearing from the ceiling is innovation.

It....isn't

sickpixie wrote...

I believe it shrunk because it was clearly rushed with painfully obvious corner-cutting, a directionless plot, and combat that failed to encourage or reward mastery (though the same is also true of Origins).

Completely untrue. DA:O was in development for 5 years and had a sizable map and long enough gameplay for any RPG. The plot indeed had a clear direction in that there were sub-plots that all directly related to the metaplot of stopping the Blight, and combat rewarded mastery by not having regenerating health.

The condescending marketing may have also had something to do with it, but it didn't seem to affect Origins, so perhaps not.

DA:O barely had any maketing at all, and when DA2 started getting criticized a lot of Bioware employees got all pissy and one of them (that shall remain nameless) even supported how people could be prevented from playing the game if they criticized the game on these boards. Relative to DA:O, DA2 is hardly an example of positive marketing.

Neverwinter Nights only gave you one AI-controlled henchman, not a party, and it was linear. DAO didn't even try to resemble a simulation, had a lot of cinematics, fully voiced companions, and was linear.

You can make some allowances for earlier games for not having voiced companions or being somewhat linear. Technology just didn't allow for a lot of that back then. Now though? There's no excuse.

It was an attempt to transition into something better. Hubris-inspired denial aside, I imagine that at least some of them went into it aware that a rushed product would lose a lot of fans and it'd only do well because of the smaller budget. It's a gamble that may or may not pay off with the next one.

Are you still trying to argue that DA2 went in the right direction? Because there's no way anyone could realistically look at the finished product of DA2 and think "yeah, this will make a lot of people happy."

[wsandista]

batlin wrote...

Are you still trying to argue that DA2 went in the right direction? Because there's no way anyone could realistically look at the finished product of DA2 and think "yeah, this will make a lot of people happy."

I suppose if you get high.......nope still sucks.

Modifié par wsandista, 14 juin 2012 - 04:22 .

[indyracing]

batlin wrote...

Are you still trying to argue that DA2 went in the right direction? Because there's no way anyone could realistically look at the finished product of DA2 and think "yeah, this will make a lot of people happy."

Didn't read the entire thread, but the last few pages.

I know I enjoyed DAO, and bought DA2 without reading a review.  I won't be buying DA3 without reading multiple user reviews, though.

I didn't find it as bad as many people on these forums (and even made a post about it as I was playing through), and even enjoyed the combat.  The parachuting enemies and reused zones struck me as feeling very much like an underfunded and rushed game  - not something I usually associate with Bioware (though DA2, ToR and ME3 have caused me to drastically alter my opinion of Bioware as a game developer - and not in a good way).  Those 2 aspects made the game very much feel like a non-AAA product.

What I found particuarly disappointing about DA2, however, was the story - especially the last Act and where it went.  It didn't go off the rails as much as I think ME3 did - but it started making less and less sense as soon as Act 3 started.

That - the story - is why I will be particularly cautious about purchasing DA2 (or any future Bioware title), as that's what I've always loved their games for, and since ME1 and DAO they seem to have dropped the ball on creating well thought out and interesting stories.  ME2 was decent, IMO, as a standalone story, but in the context of the entire trilogy doesn't really seem to fit (not to mention the actual last 10 minutes of ME3).  DA2, I thought, was pretty decent in Acts 1 and 2, but Act 3 seemed to have very little to do with the prior two acts, and it felt like the story in Acts 1 and 2 should have been a longer story, while Act 3 really fit as either extended DLC or an actual expansion (and obviously fleshed out qutie a bit if a full expansion).

Probably my biggest complaint about the mechanics of the game (well maybe not quite "mechanics", but A mechanic) was the sudden removal of a key member of my party without an adequate replacement available - specifically one party member who was my only healer suddenly gone.

That was very uncool.

The short of all this is, as a result of DA2 (and ME3 and ToR), I will very much wait until there's a consensus about DA3 (specifically the story, but also the gameplay) and probably just go by that.  There is absolutely no way I would even consider a pre-order - or even purchasing the game in the first week.

[bEVEsthda]

R0vena wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...
...And unlike you, who chose to play so exploited and unimaginative, for whatever reason, - I never even had a choice.

Excuse me? How I am playing, again?

I think there is a lot of possibilities of imaginative combat in DA. ..

Sorry. It seems I might have to make myself more clear? My comment was concerning a certain strain of old critique against old style, strategic combat gameplay elements, which is founded upon the idea that one can exploit resting, reloading etc. And that this fact somehow makes it all useless. This criticism is IMO not at all valid, because the alternative - static fixed combat with mana and regen - is, at the very best, still at least as bad, as the most thoroughly exploited and cheated old-style gameplay. And also because cheaters gonna cheat, why should we care? Apparently they enjoy playing that way. Why else would they do it? If I let them, why can't they let me play it my way? Why does the game have to be ready-cheated for all of us?

I have no idea how you play. It seemed like you were on the way to argue above mentioned case. That was what I responded to. And it has of course nothing to do with DA2 or DA:O, since these games have already - unfortunately - discarded strategic elements.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 14 juin 2012 - 07:53 .

[sickpixie]

batlin wrote...

Completely untrue. DA:O was in development for 5 years and had a sizable map and long enough gameplay for any RPG. The plot indeed had a clear direction in that there were sub-plots that all directly related to the metaplot of stopping the Blight, and combat rewarded mastery by not having regenerating health.

I only meant the same was true for the last item, my mistake for not phrasing that better. And it's true, Origins was criticzed for being a game that could play itself and it certainly did have out-of-combat health/mana regeneration and enough items thrown at you to make resource management trivial. Usually the only reward for mastering the system was making battles go by faster and that's not good enough.

DA:O barely had any maketing at all, and when DA2 started getting criticized a lot of Bioware employees got all pissy and one of them (that shall remain nameless) even supported how people could be prevented from playing the game if they criticized the game on these boards. Relative to DA:O, DA2 is hardly an example of positive marketing.

It was a AAA EA game released in the holiday season, of course it had a ton of marketing. You don't remember the Sex and Violence trailer? Their choice of using a clip from a Marilyn Manson song to end all their trailers?  That caused a lot of board outrage.

You can make some allowances for earlier games for not having voiced companions or being somewhat linear. Technology just didn't allow for a lot of that back then. Now though? There's no excuse.

Full voice over has less to do with technology and more to do with budget. There were nonlinear games released in the 80s; making something linear is a conscious decision.

Are you still trying to argue that DA2 went in the right direction? Because there's no way anyone could realistically look at the finished product of DA2 and think "yeah, this will make a lot of people happy."

As I already mentioned, I'm sure they didn't, but it's still a better direction that will hopefully be improved upon in the next iteration.

[Hurbster]

Blimey - how can any game with such a half-assed cut-down railroaded 3rd act be considered a step forward ?

[Realmzmaster]

Hurbster wrote...

Blimey - how can any game with such a half-assed cut-down railroaded 3rd act be considered a step forward ?

Much like the anti-climatic final act of DAO IMHO.

[TonberryFeye]

Dragon Age II has many faults. I've done two playthroughs and clocked up all the Trophies on it outside the DLC ones (which I will not buy - I don't want to play this game anymore).

For me, just some of its flaws are as follows:
1) Copy-paste environments.
That is lazy. I didn't mind it in DA:O when you re-used generic alleyways for, well, generic alleyways, but it was painfully noticable in DA2 that I was just running through the same slum house, town house, mine, sewer and 'ruin' over and over again.

2) False choice. First time through it wasn't so bad, but on the second run I found myself being beaten over the head with choices I did not want to make.

Part of the problem here is the framework of the game was screwed up. In Origins, you took sides in arguments because you NEED to. You NEED the aid of the Elves, Dwarves, Mages and Men to fight the Darkspawn. Thus, when you're told "the Dwarves won't come without a king" or "The Mages can't come unless the Abominations are slain" then you go in and fix it because you cannot proceed otherwise.

In DA2, 99% of the problems don't matter. 99% of the quests are pointless. When given a choice between sparing a mage or handing them to the Templars, there remains a third option, denied for no good reason - the option to walk away. I am not a Templar. I am not a (Circle) Mage. I am not the Viscount, nor his employee. I am not a Grey Warden trying to recruit men to fight a Blight. I am a Ferelden Refugee trying to make some coin. Your political scuffles don't matter to me unless I decide they matter... and yet if I decide they DON'T matter, I cannot opt out.

This is bad design, plain and simple.

3) Stupid, ugly Darkspawn.
Darkspawn in Origins are aweosome. They look like men who've sold their souls to the Chaos Gods - corrupted from the inside out by unspeakable power that gives them unholy strength. The Hurlocks in particular look like they could take on a small squad alone and win.
Darkspawn in DA2 look like anorexic Goblins who are only dangerous if  you've never held a sword before in your life. Nothing about their design envokes fear. Nothing about them leaves me awestruck. I have no reason to respect them because I'm too busy laughing at how stupid they look.

Darkspawn are meant to be SCARY! Make them scary again - go back to their ORIGINS appearance!

4) We aren't a Grey Warden.
I don't know about the rest of you, but to me Dragon Age is ALL ABOUT THE WARDENS! It's about how they fight a terrible, inoxerable evil. It's about how they sacrifice themselves for the greater good. It's about how their sacrifice often goes understood by those they protect, and how sometimes the people who owe them so much will demonise and betray them.

Moreover, the Grey Wardens are heroes of the finest calibre... or not, as the player decides. They can be Paladins or Blackguards, noble and benevolent or malicious and self-serving. The fact that they often seem to be less than reputable people - outcasts and miscrients who have no place in their societies of origin - only makes the order more appealing to me.

I was seriously disappointed when I discovered Hawke was not a Grey Warden. I don't care how or why, but DA3 MUST BE ABOUT WARDENS! Ideally, I'd like the Hero of Ferelden back, but if we can't play as him/her then find us a new Warden to play as.

5) DA2 isn't about Darkspawn.
Mages vs Templars was a great idea... in Origins. As a subplot, it's a wonderful idea. It shows us more about the world, and lets us decide for ourselves which is right or wrong... or whether we actually care at all. The problem was that by Act 2 of DA2 I was getting impatient and asking "when do I get to fight Darkspawn again?"
The answer, of course, is "never". Instead, we get an endless repeat of Blood Mages, Demons and the Undead. I'm sorry, but is this Dragon Age or Warhammer, I'm starting to confuse the two...

Darkspawn are what make me want to keep playing Dragon Age. I find myself morbidly curious about them - I want to know more and more, yet the more I learn about them the more horrifying they become. The revelation of what the Broodmothers are... that is chilling. It was made that much worse that my first playthrough was as a female Mage. Imagine how she must have felt then when, in Awakening, the Darkspawn captured her...

Short and simple - more Darkspawn. Politicial conflicts are a great idea for something to help break up the acts and give us secondary factors to consider, but a Dragon Age worthy of the name should always be ready to clap its hands and say "have we made a decision? Good! Let's go kill some Darkspawn!"


In conclusion, Dragon Age 2 sucked because it wasn't more of Origins.

[Realmzmaster]

TonberryFeye wrote...

In conclusion, Dragon Age 2 sucked because it wasn't more of Origins.

Thank the maker it was not. Which is the reason why I like DA2.

[Tommyspa]

Did TonberryFeye really just satisfy every aspect of "Its different now it sucks"?

[wsandista]

Tommyspa wrote...

Did TonberryFeye really just satisfy every aspect of "Its different now it sucks"?

Nope, he didn't mention gameplay.

[Fast Jimmy]

I recently sat down and watched Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull.

When the movie came out, I was revolted by it. It was an insult to the memory of Indiana Jones and felt complely wrong and out of place. I was agreed with by many, and this spoke in both reviews as well as sales, compared with the original trilogy.

Sitting down and watching it, I tried to figure out WHY. I mean, it has all the trademark Inidiana Jones characteristics: Treasurr hunting, action scenes (especially while driving or moving quickly), archeological references, tongue-in-cheek humor... it is on paper a prototypical Indiana Jones movie.

So why did it feel so wrong? Aliens. They just do not belong. It is a shock to the minds of the fans who cherished the fine line of the supernatural in the Indiana Jones movies, so taking a sci-fi twist was too much of a detour, too much off the rails of what people had expects.

Granted, even objectively realizing this, I think it the most inferior of the four movies, but I think now that I understand this, it makes it more bearable.

I think that is exactly what happened with DA2. People can be snarky and say 'Fanboy! You just want another DA:O. I don't think that's it. I think a few too many things that people really loved about DA:O wound up getting stripped out, filled in by just a few too many things that felt... wrong.

Ultimately, DA2 followed the formula of a Bioware RPG - romances, quests, conversation options... but it's the things that did not fit, the things that were missing, that made people hate it and led it to be critically and commercially less successful than DA:O.

That's my two cents, anyway.

[wsandista]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I recently sat down and watched Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull.

When the movie came out, I was revolted by it. It was an insult to the memory of Indiana Jones and felt complely wrong and out of place. I was agreed with by many, and this spoke in both reviews as well as sales, compared with the original trilogy.

Sitting down and watching it, I tried to figure out WHY. I mean, it has all the trademark Inidiana Jones characteristics: Treasurr hunting, action scenes (especially while driving or moving quickly), archeological references, tongue-in-cheek humor... it is on paper a prototypical Indiana Jones movie.

So why did it feel so wrong? Aliens. They just do not belong. It is a shock to the minds of the fans who cherished the fine line of the supernatural in the Indiana Jones movies, so taking a sci-fi twist was too much of a detour, too much off the rails of what people had expects.

Granted, even objectively realizing this, I think it the most inferior of the four movies, but I think now that I understand this, it makes it more bearable.

I think that is exactly what happened with DA2. People can be snarky and say 'Fanboy! You just want another DA:O. I don't think that's it. I think a few too many things that people really loved about DA:O wound up getting stripped out, filled in by just a few too many things that felt... wrong.

Ultimately, DA2 followed the formula of a Bioware RPG - romances, quests, conversation options... but it's the things that did not fit, the things that were missing, that made people hate it and led it to be critically and commercially less successful than DA:O.

That's my two cents, anyway.

*Gets up and starts clapping*

Well said sir!

To quote the man running fistfights in TW2 in Flotsam "That was ****ing poetry!"

[Realmzmaster]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I recently sat down and watched Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull.

When the movie came out, I was revolted by it. It was an insult to the memory of Indiana Jones and felt complely wrong and out of place. I was agreed with by many, and this spoke in both reviews as well as sales, compared with the original trilogy.

Sitting down and watching it, I tried to figure out WHY. I mean, it has all the trademark Inidiana Jones characteristics: Treasurr hunting, action scenes (especially while driving or moving quickly), archeological references, tongue-in-cheek humor... it is on paper a prototypical Indiana Jones movie.

So why did it feel so wrong? Aliens. They just do not belong. It is a shock to the minds of the fans who cherished the fine line of the supernatural in the Indiana Jones movies, so taking a sci-fi twist was too much of a detour, too much off the rails of what people had expects.

Granted, even objectively realizing this, I think it the most inferior of the four movies, but I think now that I understand this, it makes it more bearable.

I think that is exactly what happened with DA2. People can be snarky and say 'Fanboy! You just want another DA:O. I don't think that's it. I think a few too many things that people really loved about DA:O wound up getting stripped out, filled in by just a few too many things that felt... wrong.

Ultimately, DA2 followed the formula of a Bioware RPG - romances, quests, conversation options... but it's the things that did not fit, the things that were missing, that made people hate it and led it to be critically and commercially less successful than DA:O.

That's my two cents, anyway.

I guess that is where we differ. Each game to me is a self contained unit that I rarely compare to each other. My primary criteria is did I have fun playing the game and how accessible is the game. I critique the game based on standards that I set for all role playing games. That standard is not a particular game. I check off if the game meets my standards or not and judge from there. Games that rated high on the standards I consider good games. Games that rate low on my standards are not good games. IMHO. Some on that list are ones that many consider great games. I use the same type of standards with movies. So I end up liking movies and games that other do not. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is a movie I like, but other consider it mediocre at best. 

I do not expect people to like what I like and vice versa. I express my opinion on what I like and why. If the developers choose to listen that is fine. If not that is equally fine.  But, YMMV.

[seraphymon]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I recently sat down and watched Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull.

When the movie came out, I was revolted by it. It was an insult to the memory of Indiana Jones and felt complely wrong and out of place. I was agreed with by many, and this spoke in both reviews as well as sales, compared with the original trilogy.

Sitting down and watching it, I tried to figure out WHY. I mean, it has all the trademark Inidiana Jones characteristics: Treasurr hunting, action scenes (especially while driving or moving quickly), archeological references, tongue-in-cheek humor... it is on paper a prototypical Indiana Jones movie.

So why did it feel so wrong? Aliens. They just do not belong. It is a shock to the minds of the fans who cherished the fine line of the supernatural in the Indiana Jones movies, so taking a sci-fi twist was too much of a detour, too much off the rails of what people had expects.

Granted, even objectively realizing this, I think it the most inferior of the four movies, but I think now that I understand this, it makes it more bearable.

I think that is exactly what happened with DA2. People can be snarky and say 'Fanboy! You just want another DA:O. I don't think that's it. I think a few too many things that people really loved about DA:O wound up getting stripped out, filled in by just a few too many things that felt... wrong.

Ultimately, DA2 followed the formula of a Bioware RPG - romances, quests, conversation options... but it's the things that did not fit, the things that were missing, that made people hate it and led it to be critically and commercially less successful than DA:O.

That's my two cents, anyway.

I heard that quote alot about indiana 4. the keyword being aliens  do not belong.... Thats where i feel everyone is completely wrong and stupid. because what does constitute as belogning or not? what is realistic or not in an indiana jones as far as believable? Furthermore  people need to do their research since the whole movie was about the crystal skull and the lore behind it  perhaps dealing with aliens. that does not make it sci fi, it just makes it like anything else that was in an indian jones movie, such as the dead ghosts in raiders, or any other supernatural thing. Theen people complain about him surviving a nuclear explosion in a refrigerator. yes it soo farfetched an unbeliavble but then so was many other moments in the other movies, yet people dont complain.

IMO i liked indiana 4, with my least favorite being 3 because it was just boring until the very end. However the difference between a series such as that and DAO-DA2 is that DA2 does not follow the same storyline, and it doesnt have the same mian character, and it was a low budget rush job.

[Zanallen]

Wait...Aliens don't belong in an Indiana Jones film, but a mystical spirit box that melts faces is just fine? Pfft.

[TEWR]

Zanallen wrote...

Wait...Aliens don't belong in an Indiana Jones film, but a mystical spirit box that melts faces is just fine? Pfft.

That mystical spirit box is more religious then scientific. The Indiana Jones films have basically centered around the supernatural, the occult, and the power of religion. The Ark of the Covenant is, in the films, the wrath of God incarnate.

More or less IIRC. I haven't seen the first 3 Indiana Jones films in a few months now and I've never really watched the entirety of the 4th one, despite knowing what it consists of. There was a marathon playing on USA earlier today, but I missed it.

Anyway, back to what I was saying: Supernatural and Religion in the first 3....

....then aliens came along. And people were a bit.... befuddled by that, for lack of a better word. Hell, my nephew absolutely hates the 4th movie because of the aliens.

EDIT: Bah.... I had this pretty well thought out in relation to DAII when I started typing it, but then my mind immediately forgot what I really wanted to say and now what I'm typing just sounds like meaningless drivel.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 17 juin 2012 - 07:34 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Well, not to get totally off topic, but to further defend my analogy...

It wasn't just aliens, either. You have mind control, you have things like ESP and psuedo psycho stuff like auto-writing and the such. You have Area 51, you have aliens who aren't just from space, but from another dimension, from 'the world between worlds'... all of which are sci-fi concepts.

It's not a matter of it being realistic or not, Indiana Jones has never been that (I mean, a guy's heart gets ripped out a good five minutes before he is sacrificed in ToD), but it's a matter of the SOURCE of the unbelievable. Just like Star Trek shouldn't have religious and supernatural events without a sound scientific reason, Indiana Jones shouldn't have science fiction pieces without a more supernatural reason (like all the electricity generators giving out near the Ark, as it power overwhelms them).

Anyway, to get back to topic, I felt the same way about DA2. The pieces were all there for what made the previous DA game - fighting lots of enemies, having lots of conversations, choosing between three classes, so on and so on... but it lacked the same vibe to it, the same underpinnings, the same philosophy that they were creating a newly revived form of the old school CRPG.

That's how I see it, at least. I didn't want to get sidetracked in a conversation about the Crystal Skull, I just wanted to use it as an analogy.

[TonberryFeye]

wsandista wrote...

Tommyspa wrote...

Did TonberryFeye really just satisfy every aspect of "Its different now it sucks"?

Nope, he didn't mention gameplay.

There's a good reason I didn't mention gameplay... because, in fairness, DA2 was fun to play mechanically. It's just everything else that left me not wanting to do it again.

I think Jimmy is bang on with his assessment and the Indy analogy. To me, thinking on my second playthrough especially, DA2 didn't feel like Dragon Age. It felt more like someone was trying to make a Warhammer game.

See, that's another issue for me. I'm a long-term Warhammer fan, so how I see other Fantasy settings is always going to involve comparing them to Warhammer. In that light, DA2 is god-awful.

The Fade, which is apparently a big deal, is just a PG-13 version of the Warp. DA2's plot feels like a badly done Warhammer plot - "Magic is going to unleash the Chaos Gods and so we need to imprison all the Mages and hen execute them!"

Add to that some generic Tolkien Dwarfs who live in Moria... sorry, the "Deep Roads"... some Elves that can't decide whether they're Tolkien or a racially insensitive dig at the Irish Traveller community, and some Dragons because 'it's not a Fantasy game without Dragons', and there's nothing particularly new or inventive there to my mind.

The Darkspawn and the Grey Wardens were what made Dragon Age stand out. By abandoning them, DA2 became just another generic setting.

Modifié par TonberryFeye, 17 juin 2012 - 09:34 .

[seraphymon]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Well, not to get totally off topic, but to further defend my analogy...

It wasn't just aliens, either. You have mind control, you have things like ESP and psuedo psycho stuff like auto-writing and the such. You have Area 51, you have aliens who aren't just from space, but from another dimension, from 'the world between worlds'... all of which are sci-fi concepts.

It's not a matter of it being realistic or not, Indiana Jones has never been that (I mean, a guy's heart gets ripped out a good five minutes before he is sacrificed in ToD), but it's a matter of the SOURCE of the unbelievable. Just like Star Trek shouldn't have religious and supernatural events without a sound scientific reason, Indiana Jones shouldn't have science fiction pieces without a more supernatural reason (like all the electricity generators giving out near the Ark, as it power overwhelms them).

Anyway, to get back to topic, I felt the same way about DA2. The pieces were all there for what made the previous DA game - fighting lots of enemies, having lots of conversations, choosing between three classes, so on and so on... but it lacked the same vibe to it, the same underpinnings, the same philosophy that they were creating a newly revived form of the old school CRPG.

That's how I see it, at least. I didn't want to get sidetracked in a conversation about the Crystal Skull, I just wanted to use it as an analogy.

Well the thing is  you have to put yourself in that time period, and everything that the crystal skull is is back up by a supernatural phenominom. its not just a sci fi concept.. The source is as a believable as anything else. Wether people believe in aliens or believe in religion artifacts. All the mind control and stuff well that is prolly put there for suspense and more plot control, but its really not as bad as other stuff like the ripping out of the heart.

As for DA2. I tend to not agree that it had all the parts DAO had. Not even close. It had somethings, even though in some parts it lacked as much. BUt then you dont have a cohesive story, you have 3 acts that really dont tie together. you dont have companions equipment customization, you dont have as many options in any aspect. You dont have any meaningful choices really, You dont have varied enviroments, you can count them all one hand pretty much.

Even with all that id argue that theres much more invovled with games then in movies. Movies you just watch. Games you interact. as well as watch.

[LobselVith8]

TonberryFeye wrote...

2) False choice. First time through it wasn't so bad, but on the second run I found myself being beaten over the head with choices I did not want to make.

Part of the problem here is the framework of the game was screwed up. In Origins, you took sides in arguments because you NEED to. You NEED the aid of the Elves, Dwarves, Mages and Men to fight the Darkspawn. Thus, when you're told "the Dwarves won't come without a king" or "The Mages can't come unless the Abominations are slain" then you go in and fix it because you cannot proceed otherwise.

In DA2, 99% of the problems don't matter. 99% of the quests are pointless. When given a choice between sparing a mage or handing them to the Templars, there remains a third option, denied for no good reason - the option to walk away. I am not a Templar. I am not a (Circle) Mage. I am not the Viscount, nor his employee. I am not a Grey Warden trying to recruit men to fight a Blight. I am a Ferelden Refugee trying to make some coin. Your political scuffles don't matter to me unless I decide they matter... and yet if I decide they DON'T matter, I cannot opt out.

This is bad design, plain and simple.

I really didn't understand why the plot railroad had to keep hitting us over the head. There weren't many choices provided in the narrative, and what few were provided often felt like they didn't matter at all. Hawke's passive nature also bothered me. Seeing Hawke stand idly by as someone got murdered right in front of him, or seeing templars and mages as caricatures who have no depth, left me feeling like I wasted my time with Dragon Age II. The pre-made protagonist, with his poorly paraphrased lines and auto-dialogue, also vexed me. Doing nothing about Petrice, never investing the note in Quentin's lair, doing nothing for years when he could have done something, made me resent Hawke's inept personality and passive attitude.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 17 juin 2012 - 12:36 .

[TonberryFeye]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I really didn't understand why the plot railroad had to keep hitting us over the head. There weren't many choices provided in the narrative, and what few were provided often felt like they didn't matter at all. Hawke's passive nature also bothered me. Seeing Hawke stand idly by as someone got murdered right in front of him, or seeing templars and mages as caricatures who have no depth, left me feeling like I wasted my time with Dragon Age II. The pre-made protagonist, with his poorly paraphrased lines and auto-dialogue, also vexed me. Doing nothing about Petrice, never investing the note in Quentin's lair, doing nothing for years when he could have done something, made me resent Hawke's inept personality and passive attitude.

As I've said, the problem DA2 has is a total lack of drive.

Everything you do in Origins is part of a greater goal. It is made clear from a very early point in the game that you must raise an army to fight the Darkspawn. This notion is reinforced throughout. Consider:

The Dalish are fighting the Werewolves. Either can be recruited into the army, but not both.
The Circle of Magi are supposed to give aid, but are royally screwed right now. If you side with the Templars, they will aid you in their place.
The Dwarves lack a king. Either king will support you, however.
Addendum: to get a Dwarf king, you need a Paragon's support. Either Paragon will support you.

All of this links in with the main plot. It is not "Railroading" per se because you were already told you NEED these people, and you're simply being given a chance to vary yhe specifics of the contract.

Hawke in DA2 has no such overriding goal. As such, the railroading is far more clear. I remember playing a forum RP a few years back which was meant to be a 'sandbox', yet my character was forced, against my will, to get involved in a very linear plotline that made absolutely no sense in context to who I was playing. DA2 is this in a nutshell - we're expected to go along with this paper-thin plot because "you have to", whereas in Origins we were given a motive that fit with out characters, and some degree of free reign as to how we achieved our goal.

[wsandista]

TonberryFeye wrote...

There's a good reason I didn't mention gameplay... because, in fairness, DA2 was fun to play mechanically. It's just everything else that left me not wanting to do it again.

Not to me, DA2 was gameplay had no real non-combat gameplay, and combat was too fast to be tactical and really repetitive.

I think Jimmy is bang on with his assessment and the Indy analogy. To me, thinking on my second playthrough especially, DA2 didn't feel like Dragon Age. It felt more like someone was trying to make a Warhammer game.

See, that's another issue for me. I'm a long-term Warhammer fan, so how I see other Fantasy settings is always going to involve comparing them to Warhammer. In that light, DA2 is god-awful.

The Fade, which is apparently a big deal, is just a PG-13 version of the Warp. DA2's plot feels like a badly done Warhammer plot - "Magic is going to unleash the Chaos Gods and so we need to imprison all the Mages and hen execute them!"

Add to that some generic Tolkien Dwarfs who live in Moria... sorry, the "Deep Roads"... some Elves that can't decide whether they're Tolkien or a racially insensitive dig at the Irish Traveller community, and some Dragons because 'it's not a Fantasy game without Dragons', and there's nothing particularly new or inventive there to my mind.

The Darkspawn and the Grey Wardens were what made Dragon Age stand out. By abandoning them, DA2 became just another generic setting.

Agreed, DA should explore the lore which makes it strong and unique, which are Darkspawn. It should also attempt to strengthen the more generic parts, like the Fade or Elf/Dwarf history.

[Wozearly]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

That's how I see it, at least. I didn't want to get sidetracked in a conversation about the Crystal Skull, I just wanted to use it as an analogy.

I think it makes for a good analogy, not least because it was another case where the film was loved by professional critics but received a distinct 'meh' from viewers.

Replicating some of the same styles and themes was expected, but the suspension of disbelief required went up a few notches too far - surviving a nuclear explosion in a fridge, for example. The action sequences were given much greater prominence, with the actual story development being incredibly linear. The use of aliens rather than the supernatural caused an unwelcome break from a series which, up to that point, had avoided sci-fi entirely.

...and attempting to artificially inject emotion with "Oh, by the way Indy, that's your son" on the most dull and uninspiring actor on the set was as false as, I don't know, killing off someone's brother or sister in the first five minutes and having their mother say "I'll never forget you...".