1306 réponses à ce sujet

[Darth Death]

AlexXIV wrote...

Tbh I really think those vocal 'I love DA2' people are probably all about romances. Kind of funny how one relatively small portion of content can mean everything to some people. That said, yes, it is commonly accepted that they went too far, if not in the wrong direction. Of course if you expect that everyone here one the forums agrees on anything then you could not be more wrong, so yes, there will be alot of people defending DA2 to the last breath. But I think you don't need to be a genius or the most unbiased person in the world if you just look at the plain facts and know that DA2 suffered from a rushed development because obviously somehow there was not enough time/money to polish the game like a sequel of DA:O deserved.

You know, I think you're on to something. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the reason. 

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

Barrendall111 wrote...

Hmm...I understand your point of view, but Hawke wasn't a man on some wild world shattering mission.  He was just a guy trying to get himself and his family by in the world.  This is just a story of one man's (or woman's) life as told by a friend or a companion and how he or she's actions affected the history of Kirkwall.  It's more of a journal that you play out rather some linear mission.

So was Recettear, but it managed to have an overarching goal and an entertaining narrative.

[Maria Caliban]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Twilight had qualities that appealed to the masses. Namely, a romance between a young teenager (The target audience) and a hot vampire sparkly stud.

DAO didn't have any qualities that could be considered mainstream. At all.

The PC is one of a handful of people who can SAVE THE WORLD from an ANCIENT, MINDLESS EVIL, they do so with a handful of LOVABLE MISFITS including a SEXY COMPANION.

No, nothing mainstream about that. Certainly a fresh and original plot.

[Tsuga C]

Maria strikes again! Good show!

Just out of curiosity, Gibb_Shepard, how did you come to that conclusion?

[HiroVoid]

I'm pretty sure he was talking mechanics-wise instead of story-wise.

[upsettingshorts]

In a word, OP: No.

[HiroVoid]

Ultimately, I'd say it depends on how DA3 sells. If it sells better and continued the path DA2 took, no. If it continues the path, and it sells badly, yes. If it does something different again and sells better, yes. If it does something different and still sells badly, maybe.

Modifié par HiroVoid, 03 mars 2012 - 09:29 .

[Persephone]

Maria Caliban wrote...

batlin wrote...

Is it at least accepted that DA2 went the wrong direction?

Accepted by whom?

BioWare? They've agreed that they made mistakes. Not so much that they went the wrong direction as they misstepped while going the right way.

HiroVoid wrote...

Then, Mr. Crustybot, how come Origins was praised with multiple awards and glowing praise while Dragon Age II became near the top on many site's and reviewer's list of most disappointing games?

Why did Twilight get a multimillion dollar movie series while the Orphan's Tales lingers in obscurity?

Oh yeah, people suck.

What she said. :O

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

Persephone wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

Then, Mr. Crustybot, how come Origins was praised with multiple awards and glowing praise while Dragon Age II became near the top on many site's and reviewer's list of most disappointing games?

I like how people think Crusty was being serious with that post.

[Zanallen]

HiroVoid wrote...

I'm pretty sure he was talking mechanics-wise instead of story-wise.

Mechanics-wise, it is a poor version of KotOR with mage combos.

[Persephone]

AlexXIV wrote...

Tbh I really think those vocal 'I love DA2' people are probably all about romances.

And the vocal "I love DAO" people are probably all about taking the crown as Cous Cous.

Wait, no. That's a generalization and completely untrue. My mistake.<_<

Modifié par Persephone, 03 mars 2012 - 09:52 .

[Morroian]

AlexXIV wrote...

Tbh I really think those vocal 'I love DA2' people are probably all about romances. 

 
You would be wrong, you know what they say about making assumptions.......

AlexXIV wrote...

But I think you don't need to be a genius or the most unbiased person in the world if you just look at the plain facts and know that DA2 suffered from a rushed development because obviously somehow there was not enough time/money to polish the game like a sequel of DA:O deserved.

As someone who like DA2 I agree with that.

Jerrybnsn wrote...

DarkAmaranth1966 wrote...

 lower sales for DA2 may have been because those who bought and did not like DAO didn't buy DA2 at all.

Considering that DA2 had roughly seven hundred thousand pre-orders, it shows that Dragon Age Origins was very well liked.  

No it just shows that some who liked it were fanatical in their like.

Modifié par Morroian, 03 mars 2012 - 09:55 .

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

Morroian wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

DarkAmaranth1966 wrote...

 lower sales for DA2 may have been because those who bought and did not like DAO didn't buy DA2 at all.

Considering that DA2 had roughly seven hundred thousand pre-orders, it shows that Dragon Age Origins was very well liked.  

No it just shows that some who liked it were fanatical in their like.

Or maybe they just liked the game, and bought the sequel before word-of-mouth got around.

[John Epler]

Look, if you're not planning on engaging in discussion in an intellectually honest fashion, don't post. Trolling is against the rules, and I'm highly inclined to regard some of the snarky sarcasm in this thread as such. This isn't your private soap box, it's a public discussion forum and as such I expect posts that are actually about, you know... discussion.

I'm giving it a pass, because I believe there's some good discussion happening in this thread, but I'm rather tired of people who seem to post in order to score points in some bizarre forum game, the rules of which only they are privy to. Again, let's highlight the 'discussion' part of discussion forum. Hold whatever opinion you'd like, so long as you're willing to discuss it in an honest and straightforward fashion.

[sreaction]

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

Or maybe they just liked the game, and bought the sequel before word-of-mouth got around.

I am inclined to agree with this line of thought. Word of mouth equals: good professional reviews, good fan reviews as well as the opposite etc. I saw the  OPs numbers, but I ve never seen an official EA sales statement.or an official declaration of success of failure. I have always wondered what the final,official, conclusion on DAII is.

Modifié par sreaction, 03 mars 2012 - 10:59 .

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

Jasmine96 wrote...
I think Bioware understands what people mostly didn't like about DA2

Yeah, this is probably true. If nothing else, the sales figures speak for themselves. Plus, IMO 90% of DA2 could have been much better given adequate development time, and there's no indication that DA3 is or will be a rushed project in the same way that DA2 was.

[HiroVoid]

Well, since we're talking about steps.

DA:O was marketed, and hyped up for being a spiritual successor for Baldur's Gate. With Baldur's Gate being so famous and DA:O looking to be a CRPG like you don't get these days, it attracted a crowd for people who've been waiting for a new game like that. Can you say the same thing for DA2?

For a recent example, I'll show Double Fine's latest kickstarter project.

http://www.kickstart...-fine-adventure

It's about funding enough money directly from customers who've been wanting to play an adventure for a long time now, and you just don't find any of those anymore. While I would attribute a certain amount of funds to Tim Schaefer also being a very trusted figure in the gaming community, I'd also attribute it on a lot of people simply wanting an adventure game after believing there'd probably not be any more.

DA2 may not necessarily be a step in the wrong direction, but it was certainly a step in a different direction that attracted so many people to DAO in the first place.

Modifié par HiroVoid, 03 mars 2012 - 11:18 .

[Barrendall]

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

Barrendall111 wrote...

Hmm...I understand your point of view, but Hawke wasn't a man on some wild world shattering mission.  He was just a guy trying to get himself and his family by in the world.  This is just a story of one man's (or woman's) life as told by a friend or a companion and how he or she's actions affected the history of Kirkwall.  It's more of a journal that you play out rather some linear mission.

So was Recettear, but it managed to have an overarching goal and an entertaining narrative.

I've never played Recettear or whatever it's called so I can't compare but I can say "To each their own". Different people enjoy different things and I liked DAII for the most part. "shrug"

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

Barrendall111 wrote...

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

Barrendall111 wrote...

Hmm...I understand your point of view, but Hawke wasn't a man on some wild world shattering mission.  He was just a guy trying to get himself and his family by in the world.  This is just a story of one man's (or woman's) life as told by a friend or a companion and how he or she's actions affected the history of Kirkwall.  It's more of a journal that you play out rather some linear mission.

So was Recettear, but it managed to have an overarching goal and an entertaining narrative.

I've never played Recettear or whatever it's called so I can't compare but I can say "To each their own". Different people enjoy different things and I liked DAII for the most part. "shrug"

It's basically an RPG about running an item shop. Assuming Dragon Age 2 tried to be slice-of-life, Recettear's a good model of how something like that can be done without coming off as directionless or unfocused.

[Tryynity]

batlin wrote...

I mean, selling half as many copies in the first 10 weeks as DA:O is pretty telling. And half of those copies were bought in only the first week, likely due to fans of DA:O not knowing what they were getting. Yeah, there are those that prefer DA2 over DA:O but it's pretty obvious these people are in the minority.

Last I heard, Bioware is getting inspiration from Skyrim for DA3. Has there been any other news of what they'll do with it? Because taking pages out of Bethesda's book would definitely be a good thing for DA.

I would say it was fans buying before the mass disappointment became publicised as much as it was.

That said, I still bought DA2 despite knowing all the good and bad, simply because I wanted to meet Fenris  

lame perhaps for some, but funnily enough the thing I dislike most about SKYRIM is the same I disliked about DA2 - lack of relationship/romance RPG aspect.

Why do I like RPG so much, because I like movies but its not enough to just sit and watch I want to be inside and to really make my day I want to be able to romance the character I fall for.

I dont care about UBER weapons, achievements (although they are nice) etc - I want entertainment the most.

Despite my intial dislike/disappointment with SKYRIM I am still playing and being inspired by it.  I believe it has set a new mark in the gaming industry in regard to game development.

If BIOWARE and BETHESDA joined forces they would be unbeatable IMO at least for my kind of gamer.

Bioware drawing inspiration from Skyrim is a good thing and makes me excited to think they took notice.

I honestly think Bioware/Dragon Age will take extra care to win back the fans they may have potentially lost, I cant truly believe though they are lost.  I think they would be if Bioware went and did the same again with DA3 as DA2  that displeased the most.  Trouble is I cant see people agreeing to what went wrong. 

If I was to tell the things I want changed
- It would be better romance/companion relationships, character customisation and more content=hrs worth of  play.

The story was great, the cinematics/graphics (I got over the elves and now actually like them for the most part) was great, the combat was good.  I didnt mind the recycled areas too much as long as it doesnt rip of gameplay time, but I would like more map areas to explore.

How many people would say BOO to that.... what they need to do is this - .....

Modifié par Tryynity, 04 mars 2012 - 12:04 .

[bEVEsthda]

Jasmine96 wrote...

I actually really like DA2, I know where the criticism comes from but that doesn't mean people should be rude about it,
I think Bioware understands what people mostly didn't like about DA2 and are planning to use the best from both games in the future
So I have full faith they'll make Dragon Age 3 a great game

Well that's my opinion at least

You serve well to highlight my main concern. Just like your follow-up poster who thinks the main problem with DA2 was that it was rushed.


People who like DA2 thinks Bioware will make the right changes and make DA3 a great game.
People who disliked DA2 have no such confidence. What does this say?

Why would fixing the things which those who liked DA2 can agree to see as flaws in DA2, fix this game for those who dislike or even hate DA2?
And doesn't it appear natural that this might be exactly the mission that  DA3 should accomplish? (This is not *identical* to the need - which is to sell well - but close enough).
 
If those things were really that important, wouldn't those who like DA2 have disliked DA2?

I don't have any faith in that DA3 will be a great game. I hope so, but I haven't really seen or heard any evidence that leads me to believe so.

I have no problem with DA2 being "rushed", for instance. (There's not really much significant evidence of it being so either). Take the reused environments for example. That's a kinda hideous feature in a game, but it never really annoyed me. I of course didn't like the game, so maybe that was why I couldn't be bothered. But I immediately recognized that it was a way to make the game longer, despite limited resources. And I applaud that brave, self-sacrificing decision. I'd like to think that if I had liked DA2, I had been grateful for it. Because, frankly, in a choice between a too short game still not featuring any more locations, and a game featuring reused environments, - well, reused environments is the better choice.

What I'm at odds with, about DA2, is not a sample of flaws which anyone can recognize and complain about (and which all games have to some extent). What makes me dislike DA2 is the "new direction" itself. It turns DA into a different kind of game. This other kind of game now have two new properties: 1) It no longer provides the gaming experience that I expect or want from a RPG game. 2) It now features many elements which I find myself inclined to hold in contempt.

It's possible that Bioware can fix 1) by adding features. It's possible that this together with other new features makes the game so likable that I can look away from 2). But aren't the very goals of "the new direction" at odds with this?

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 04 mars 2012 - 12:09 .

[HiroVoid]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Jasmine96 wrote...

I actually really like DA2, I know where the criticism comes from but that doesn't mean people should be rude about it,
I think Bioware understands what people mostly didn't like about DA2 and are planning to use the best from both games in the future
So I have full faith they'll make Dragon Age 3 a great game

Well that's my opinion at least

People who like DA2 thinks Bioware will make the right changes and make DA3 a great game.
People who disliked DA2 have no such confidence. What does this say?

I think you hit it on the head here.  People who already like DA2 think Bioware'll make the right changes because they haven't been disappointed to think so yet.  Those who disliked DA2 don't expect them to make the right changes because the Dragon Age franchise is already in a direction that most people don't really care to at least pay top dollar for if any at all.  I'm not saying a lot of people only dislike DA2 because it isn't DAO, but I would say that still has a good bit to do with it since it's no longer the type of game that said person would put above paying for compared to other games in the market.  I think if DA3 can still be an excellent game in its own right though, good word of mouth could end up doing wonders for its sales.

[nightscrawl]

Cstaf wrote...

So... Moral of the story is marketing people are evil?
Being an economist/mathmetician that only validates my theory i've been building from six years at the university working beside them.

I think the moral of that particular story is not that they are evil, but that if marketing people don't "get" your product, whatever it is, if they don't find anything of value in it themselves, how can they be expected to market it effectively?

[Gibb_Shepard]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Twilight had qualities that appealed to the masses. Namely, a romance between a young teenager (The target audience) and a hot vampire sparkly stud.

DAO didn't have any qualities that could be considered mainstream. At all.

The PC is one of a handful of people who can SAVE THE WORLD from an ANCIENT, MINDLESS EVIL, they do so with a handful of LOVABLE MISFITS including a SEXY COMPANION.

No, nothing mainstream about that. Certainly a fresh and original plot.

I love it how you cut out the main point of my post.

"Oh, yeah he's got a point. I'm just gonna cut out that part and focus on one sentence. That'll make me seem smart!"

DA2 made every stride to make itself more mainstream. It went for a far more "Twighlight" appeal than it's predecessor. You can't deny that, even the devs said it was one of their main focuses. So, as previously stated, your comparison falls flat on it's face, in a patch of gravel. 

And, last i checked, cliche didn't mean mainstream.