1306 réponses à ce sujet

[hoorayforicecream]

sreaction wrote...

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.

EA specifically mentioned DA2 sell-in numbers alongside Dead Space 2, Portal 2, and Crysis 2 in their Q1 FY2012 financial results. This was covered by a variety of gaming news blogs.

[Fast Jimmy]

This whole thread has turned into a DA2 haters and lovers fight, which I don't think lives up to the potential of what the discussion could be. If I had to blame anyone, I'd say it's the DA2 haters, who started the unproductive habit of saying 'there was nothing positive about DA2 at all' which is not true

If anyone has seen my posts (even the one on page 1 in this thread) I am not a DA2 fan and can be a pretty sarcastic and pessimistic poster, myself. However, the point of this thread is not to bash every aspect of DA2 and bemoan its very existence.

The post originally asked 'can we agree that there was something seriously wrong with DA2?'

I think we can. Most supporters who have posted here even mention the rushed development as a factor to making the game not be as good as it could have been. And I think many supporters would agree that the Act 3 story felt disjointed. And I think many people agree that choice that had impact outside of one quest or dialogue was pretty sparse, outside of companion discussion or romance.

Addressing and fixing these problems won't bring the DA series where I want it. In fact, fixing these three things alone would not convince me to consider buying DA3. However, it is a starting point.

I love old school RPGs and their elements. I love choice, and stats, and character control and customization, elements hailed as succesful in DAO. Others love companion interaction and romances and fast paced combat, aspects which DA2 fans in this thread have said they love.

A game can be created that pleases both groups. Dividing ourselves does nothing. We should be looking at what we all agree needs work. As long as Bioware can point at a group of fans and say 'they like our product' and point at another and say 'they just don't like innovation' then the risk of nothing changing is higher. As a united front, we can address more issues and improve more of the core experience than if we appear as thirty different population segments who would all be impossible to please.

Or we could all just hurl insults at each other for the next year or so and cross our fingers for a good DA3.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

JohnEpler wrote...

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.

You're no fun.

(Also: I actually don't think there's anything specific about trolling/sarcasm in the Site Rules, provided that it doesn't insult anyone or isn't spammed all over the forums.)

----

If I were to be serious here, this entire discussion hinges on a misconception and has snow balled into something I'd expect back last April or May. What counts as the "new direction"? That's something that's always stumped me.

Because it paints Dragon Age 2 as something "different" or "innovative" or "unique" and signifies some sort of change either at BioWare or in the RPG genre in general. But it doesn't. It really doesn't.

It's the natural progression of what BioWare has been attempting to do since KotOR. KotOR -> Jade Empire -> Mass Effect 1 -> Dragon Age: Origins ->Mass Effect 2 -> Mass Effect 3 -> Dragon Age 3 (?)

Dragon Age: Origins is the anomaly here, not Dragon Age 2.

If the OP wants to define "new direction" as poorly implementing ideas because of a rushed development time, then sure, it's accepted that DA 2 went in the "wrong direction", because the "right direction" is essentially "make a good game".

At the end of the day, this "direction" of BioWare is something they've always been charging forward with since the beginning.

Away from text and towards cutscenes. Away from a silent protagonists and towards a voiced one. Away from quest design that encouraged multiple approaches based on character build and towards more linear design with unavoidable combat. Away from significant non-combat gameplay and towards flashy combat. Away from blank slates and towards a pre-defined protagonist. Away from big fat character systems which allow you to customize/roleplay your character (skill based, dialog influencing) on all levels and towards ones limited in scope (active abilities in combat).

It's just that in many cases, there's always been something to offset or even "disguise" the general push.

With Dragon Age 2, the only thing new it really brought to the table as an idea was all bi romances. For some, that may be significant, but I doubt most people would really buy into that as genre-defining innovation, or something that would make the game good on it's own.

The framed narrative, voiced protagonist, disposition systems, character driven narrative, factional conflicts, the flashier combat system, all that is dependent on the game being made and isn't a new idea or "thing" per se. Besides, they had been done before, better. By other studios or by BioWare themselves.

Now, you may think Dragon Age 2 is the best game ever, or the worst game ever, that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. People's tastes are different and they value different aspects of games for different reasons.

But regardless of how you feel, BioWare's not suddenly going to go "oh, we've just realised that since KotOR we've been going about things all wrong! Thank you for enlightening us, BSN!"

The best that can be done is to argue for what specifically you like and argue why you think it should be included for the next game. Not these pot shots which essentially amount to "DA:O sucks, DA 2 rocks!" and "DA 2 sucks, DA:O rocks!"

I mean, what the hell does Twilight have to do with making Dragon Age 3 a better RPG?

Modifié par CrustyBot, 04 mars 2012 - 02:29 .

[Estherra Drack]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Whether Bioware have accepted that DA2 went into the wrong direction, is something that would/should be very hard to discern, simply from how companies think they have to behave, by PR perspective, in situations like these.

I don't think this question will be fully answered until DA3 is released.

My own view is that already DA:O went about 50 degrees off into the wrong direction. It should have been much more like Baldur's Gate. More strategic tie-ins. More affinity to simulation than some simple, formulaic console-platformer-gameplay paradigm. DA:O was still the most enjoyable game to come from Bioware since the mentioned BG. My opinion of DA2, is that many changes from DA:O were despicable, many of them game-breaking, so yes, definitely "wrong direction".

Bioware can recognize that their concept wasn't as successful as they had convinced themselves it would be, and that many "old fans" were disgruntled, without admitting or accepting that the new direction was a mistake. They can reason that they only have to fix a few things, improve some things, add some new things, and then they will regain the favor of their "old fans".

Personally, I cannot say in advance that I won't find such a game enjoyable enough. Certainly, it's possible for a game to contain features which I find very unattractive, and still entertain me enough. It wouldn't be the game I really want, but I cannot say in advance that it wouldn't be "good enough". It might be.
But from the outset, a concept like the "best of DA2 and DA:O" is scary. What is "the best of DA2"? There is nothing.

What is very worrying is that some "flaws" of DA2 (like reused environments) have got a lot of attention. My greatest fear is that Bioware concludes that they just have to fix those and add polish. This is why I have repeatedly tried to warn about listening only to those complaints which DA2-defenders/fans agree with. Surely, it seems logical enough that such actions won't fix anything at all, with the issues DA2 had with the DA2-haters. Which is really the main problem DA2 had.
Yet, I cannot read in anything between the lines, of whatever feedback we have got from Bioware, that hints that Bioware is doing anything but just that: Listening only to the complaints DA2-fans agree with, and still listening to whatever "vision" originally caused the DA2 disaster. They may feel they have no choice. That they have to use ready assets developed for DA2.
 
It's as if the mediocre market performance of every game that goes in this general direction (there are others, like KoA, and soon ME3) means nothing. And as if the spectacular market performance of games which don't, like TES and Witcher, also means nothing.
 
As if someone thinks it's just flukes, that he knows better. The real quality of the game is how "kewl" and "fun" it's supposed to be perceived as? All we gamers want is compartmentalized, simplistic, spectacular combat so we can feel awesome, and then be told a story on the side? And no chance, ever, of frustration? ...And gaudy colors, and leveling up, as some kind of dutiful formality, which never changes anything about the gameplay's character? Is that it?

Dragon Age 2 the second example of Groupthink…

I quoted you because after reading what your wrote it made me remember thinking that DA2 was a perfect example of groupthink, and I also enjoyed what you wrote. Now off to the ME3 boards for me.

[DarkHod]

My issue with DAII was two things.

An unfocused, small story which played more like a series of sketches that didn't recall the depth and complexity of the BioWare games we all love. Instead we played an uninspiring 'revolution' story that ignored all the hanging plot threads from the game it was meant to be the sequel to.

The whole game took place in one small city, that never changed! This lack of scope was sold to me before release as 'an opportunity to see a city evolve over a period of time'. Even after a small war broke out the city still looked exactly the same. Repetitive locations were dull.

I read that BioWare are looking for 'exceptional environmental artists' to work on DA3. This is already an improvement as they only seemed to have one guy working on DAII.

I don't like being negative about a company who's games I have loved since KotOR. But I hope they take the slap in the face they got for DAII and learn to never again try and give us a rushed sequel made in a year and a half.

And stop trying to dumb down the RPG elements to appeal to the CoD generation. If you want to make a game they'll play then go and make an FPS. But stop trying to please two groups and pleasing neither.

[devSin]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

sreaction wrote...

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.

EA specifically mentioned DA2 sell-in numbers alongside Dead Space 2, Portal 2, and Crysis 2 in their Q1 FY2012 financial results. This was covered by a variety of gaming news blogs.

GRayg also stated unequivocally that DA2 was commercially successful.

It can be debated what exactly they meant by that statement, but it was stated as fact.

Modifié par devSin, 04 mars 2012 - 02:57 .

[Maria Caliban]

CrustyBot wrote...

I mean, what the hell does Twilight have to do with making Dragon Age 3 a better RPG?

Since I'm the one that brought up Twilight...

1. I'm not interested in 'making DA3 a better RPG.' If you want to make DA3 a better RPG, have at it, but my posts don't exist to further your desires.

2. I get tired of argumentum ad populum that gets brought up, especially since it's often combined with the idea that DA 2 was more mainstream. I don't care if everyone in the world save me preferred DA:O to DA 2, being enjoyed by many people is not a reflection of quality, but popularity.

[addiction21]

CrustyBot wrote...

But regardless of how you feel, BioWare's not suddenly going to go "oh, we've just realised that since KotOR we've been going about things all wrong! Thank you for enlightening us, BSN!"

Yes.

I did read everything else but I couldnt sum my thoughts up in a better way.

"BioWare sold out the pc fans with DA2."
Ni they did it with KoToR. Console first with maybe the most friendly D&D rule set I have encountered. For BG I had to get a friend out of the D&D club to tutor me for that game.
BW has been going casual friendly for a long time.
Jade Empire
SOnic Chronicles (screw you if your on a console or PC)
Mass Effect. At that time they sold out to Microsoft to make a Xbox exclusive. Yes it did get ported to PC and was a broken game.

DA2 dud not meet with my expectaions of a BioWare game. I am not going to use the "It was okay for a game but bad because it was a sequel" excuse. It did not meet the polish and shine I expect from BioWare.

Shattered Steel, MDK2, BG, BG2, KoToR, ME1, 2, and DAO. All games I think are great. Jade Empire was not my cup of tea but I saw the polish. Sonic I never played. DA2 I enjoyed but its not one I think I will enjoy far into the future.

In the long run its not what they make, its how they make it.

[DarkHod]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

The Devs have more or less said DA2 is really just a set up for DA3 a bridging game if you will,take it for what it is regardless the combat in DA2 at least didnt feel like a drag 

I wish they'd given it a 'bridging' price then because I paid for a full game. <_<

[HiroVoid]

devSin wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

sreaction wrote...

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.

EA specifically mentioned DA2 sell-in numbers alongside Dead Space 2, Portal 2, and Crysis 2 in their Q1 FY2012 financial results. This was covered by a variety of gaming news blogs.

GRayg also stated unequivocally that DA2 was commercially successful.

It can be debated what exactly they meant by that statement, but it was stated as fact.

I would assume 'commercial success' would mean it made enough money to cover its costs, and net a decent profit.  I believe that's the case though it didn't sell as much or was as loved as the developers and publisher hoped it would be.

[devSin]

HiroVoid wrote...

I believe that's the case though it didn't sell as much or was as loved as the developers and publisher hoped it would be.

We would assume so, but the same could probably be said of Origins, since there was apparently some motivation to change it (and if not for greater success, then for what reason?).

We also don't know whether the self-funded Origins ever even paid for itself (not that it matters, all the capital that TOR was hoarding).

[Estherra Drack]

Xilizhra wrote...

I seriously doubt that the stuff about the Maker is literally true.

Ok, so...huh?

So were at that stage were the comic guy goes. "That was an imaginary story dreamed up by Jimmy Olsen after Supergirl's horse Comet kicked him in the head. It never really happened." Just so we're clear.

Modifié par Estherra Drack, 04 mars 2012 - 05:06 .

[Monica83]

Dragon age 2 did huge mistakes in terms of story...

The character choices are not relevant.. Thing are costantly forced to happen...It's also have a huge lack of coherence.....

Kirkwall is supposed to be a city in a strong templar control.. At the beginning Bethany was scared to go there... But... Look for be a city under templar control there are blood mages benhind all corner!!!

Choices from the pervious game are not all considered...For example if in dragon age origins Leliana dies you meet her in dragon age 2 and she explain if she was dead.. "The maker..bla bla"..

She also become a sort of church ninja kinda strange because in origins she explain well she believe in the maker but her vision is different from the one of the chantry...

Dragon age 2 is full of a thing in that way..

Personally: My warden ended the game wandering with Leliana.. And i hate when someone ruins the story builded with my character in order to force to character to come back..

The graphic is cartoonish with an huge lack of details:

Empty huge areas whitout any charisma..Recycled areas in a cartoonish look that ruin immersion for me... Bad models on NPC:Just look the elves or the clownspawn..

Static classes with teleport moves and explonding body..Say bye to the more serious combat animation in order to bring new fast and ridicolus anims in order for desperately looking cool..

And...

If i am a blood mage and i toggle blood mage in front of templars they should be able to SEE ME..and ATTACK ME....

[nicethugbert]

No it is not accepted that DA2 went in the wrong direction. DA2 has faster action than DA:O and I like fast action a lot.

[FedericoV]

@CrustyBot: interesting post as allways. Just want to add two points:

1) Bioware has decided to put all the eggs in one basket. The Cinematic/Action/Streamlined RPG-light genre that you can start to envision since KotOR. As you correctly say, DA2 is the result of a process that tried to assimilate the BG/DA:O model to the general trend of Bioware games after the NWN period, with mixed result due to different causes (time/money constraints and general design contradictions).

Off course, it's a legitimate artistic and commercial direction. Artistic because Bioware seems sincerely taken in the improvement of film-like aestethics and narratives in their games. Commercial because the rpg-heavy model is nearly impossible to implement correctly on the consolle medium (I firmly believe that it's impossible to develop a classical party based RPG with a gamepad as default controller: infact, DA2 still plays better on the PC imho and it allways be the case for the DA franchise untill the games are party based). Since consolle dominates the market, it's natural that Bioware develop games with those platforms in mind.

Having said all of that: is it wise to conform all your products to one artistic/design model? Is it wise to leave all your own history behind when there are a lot of evidences pointing out that the old model is still very profitable?

RPG will allways cather to a niche of players. Is it wise to market the gamers outside that niche with ALL your franchises when your old and faithfull niche of gamers is still willing to pay good money for games that follow the old development model? Bioware has to realize that sooner or later someone will be able to market their old and chore fanbase successfully. It's just a matter of time because there is money to be made there (just look at the hype surrounding the new baldursgate.com website).

2) That's more subjective, I admit, but there is even a worrying trend about the quality of their late games. One of the most evident negative element of DA2 for me was the lack of connection between the different elements of the game (gameplay, art and story). In some places you could even sense that disconnect in one single element (especially the story: comes to mind the transition from chapter to chapter or Orsino turning Cthulhu at the end of the game but the list could be longer). See the RPS review for reference.

I believe that these "disconnect" can be translated as a general lack of overall polish and work to smooth the edges (polish was allways considered one of Bioware's trademark). Even Mass Effect 2 suffered on some levels from a lack of overall polish between the different elements of the game (even if there it was masked by the improvements on the gameplay and cinematic side). If you put the disaster called Awakenings and the rumors about ME3 on the picture, it becomes nearly a trend.

So, I ask myself: is that cinematic model too resource intensive? Is it stretching Bioware too thin? Is it an efficient development model in terms of return of investment? I mean, with the money spend on ME3 you could develop five BG2 (I guess, I do not have access to the actual figures).

But at the end the answer is the same as point 1: is it wise to go in that direction for all your franchises?

Modifié par FedericoV, 04 mars 2012 - 03:58 .

[eroeru]

Nice post as always, CrustyBot...

But it saddened me with the truth that both Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age Origins were an anomaly.

May really be that it's best not to take much interest in this Bioware anymore - as far as I'm concerned.

[zyntifox]

FedericoV wrote...

@CrustyBot: interesting post as allways. Just want to add two points:

1) Bioware has decided to put all the eggs in one basket. The Cinematic/Action/Streamlined RPG-light genre that you can start to envision since KotOR. As you correctly say, DA2 is the result of a process that tried to assimilate the BG/DA:O model to the general trend of Bioware games after the NWN period, with mixed result due to different causes (time/money constraints and general design contradictions).

Off course, it's a legitimate artistic and commercial direction. Artistic because Bioware seems sincerely taken in the improvement of film-like aestethics in their games. Commercial because the rpg-heavy model is nearly impossible to implement correctly on the consolle medium (I firmly believe that it's impossible to develop a classical party based RPG with a gamepad as default controller: infact, DA2 still plays better on the PC imho and it allways be the case for the DA franchise untill the games are party based).

Having said all of that: is it wise to conform all your products to one artistic/design model? Is it wise to leave all your own history behind when there are a lot of evidences pointing out that the old model is still very profitable?

RPG will allways cather to a niche of players. Is it wise to market the gamers outside that niche with ALL your franchises when your old and faithfull niche of gamers is still willing to pay good money for games that follow the old development model? Bioware has to realize that sooner or later someone will be able to market their old and chore fanbase successfully. It's just a matter of time because there is money to be made there (just look at the hype surrounding the new baldursgate.com website).

2) That's more subjective, I admit, but there is even a worrying trend about the quality of their late games. One of the most evident negative element of DA2 for me was the lack of connection between the different elements of the game (gameplay, art and story). In some places you could even sense that disconnect in one single element (especially the story: comes to mind the transition from chapter to chapter or Orsino turning Cthulhu at the end but the list could be longer). See the RPS review for reference.

I believe that these "disconnect" can be translated as a general lack of overall polish and work (polish was allways considered one of Bioware's trademark). Even Mass Effect 2 suffered on some levels from a lack of overall polish between the different elements of the game (even if there it was masked by the improvements on the gameplay and cinematic side). If you put the disaster called Awakenings and the rumors about ME3 on the picture, it becomes nearly a trend.

So, I ask myself: is that cinematic model too resource intensive? Is it stretching Bioware too thin? Is it an efficient development model in terms of return of investment? I mean, with the money spend on ME3 you could develop five BG2 (I guess, I do not have access to the actual figures).

But at the end the answer is the same as point 1: is it wise to go in that direction for all your franchises?

Now i must respectfully disagree with this notion that PC gamer has, not saying you are one, that you can't have a classic RPG on console. I played Dragon Age: Origins on my PS3 and i thought it worked perfectly, now you might not consider DA:O a classic RPG but i do (my definition of classic RPG might be way of though ).

Edit: Forgot to say cudos to Crustybot for an excellent post, as usual.

Modifié par Cstaf, 04 mars 2012 - 03:16 .

[FedericoV]

Cstaf wrote...

Now i must respectfully disagree with this notion that PC gamer has, not saying you are one, that you can't have a classic RPG on console. I played Dragon Age: Origins on my PS3 and i thought it worked perfectly, now you might not consider DA:O a classic RPG but i do (my definition of classic RPG might be way of though ).

I'm mostly a PC gamer. But I own a PS3 too and I play most consolle ports with an Xbox pad on my PC. The games I enjoyed most last year are Red Dead Redemption, Shadow of the Colossus HD remake and Limbo (3 consolle games at the end even if I played Limbo on the PC). So, I'm open minded and I'm not in favour of the "superior PC gamers race" agenda .

While I respect your view, I just believe that no matter how good DA:O is on the consolle, it will allways seem a compromise if compared to the superior PC version. You can develop a good party-based game for consolle (even an awesome one if you go turn based like some J-RPG) but I still believe that the controller scheme of the PC is more suited to those kind of games (especially for games that follow the BG model).

The gamepad is perfect to controll one charachter under every aspect, especially in a "brawler" game (I mean, you can argue in favour of K/M if you put guns in to the picture). But it becames a limitation when it comes to controll organically a party of charachter with pause&play semi turn-based gameplay. Not to mention the limitation to camera angles due to the inferior hardware: you cannot have a good party based game without some sort of ISO view, imho.

It does not mean that you cannot have an awesome game experience with DA:O on the consolle (even because there is not only combat to the game). Just that you would have a better and more enjoyable experience on the PC and that the controller scheme of DA:O and DA2 for consolle look like a compromise. I mean, you can carve a lovely hole on the wall using a screwdriver but a drill will allways be a better tool. I hope I made my case clear.

Infact, I believe that if Bioware is serious about assimilating DA to the cinematic/action model Crusty was speaking about on the consolle platform, they have three options:

- Removing party based gameplay alltogether and going in the Kingdoms of Alamur direction. Laidlaw hinted the possibility on the forum some weeks previous to DA2 hitting the market and imho it was just the ****storm that followed its publication that changed the devs mind.
- Going turn based. Yes, turn-based. For the consolle, it's easier to play a turn based party-based game than a real time one.
- Reinventing the wheel: during combat you should not controll just one charachter at a time. You should have at least the option to controll the whole party as a single entity with your gamepad, issuing "party" orders. I don't know how (otherwise I would be a game designer) and I imagine it would be pretty difficult  to balance but at the same time it would be interesting (never seen before in a videogame as far as I can tell).

Modifié par FedericoV, 04 mars 2012 - 03:39 .

[batlin]

CrustyBot wrote...

If I were to be serious here, this entire discussion hinges on a misconception and has snow balled into something I'd expect back last April or May. What counts as the "new direction"? That's something that's always stumped me.

Because it paints Dragon Age 2 as something "different" or "innovative" or "unique" and signifies some sort of change either at BioWare or in the RPG genre in general. But it doesn't. It really doesn't.

It's the natural progression of what BioWare has been attempting to do since KotOR. KotOR -> Jade Empire -> Mass Effect 1 -> Dragon Age: Origins ->Mass Effect 2 -> Mass Effect 3 -> Dragon Age 3 (?)

Dragon Age: Origins is the anomaly here, not Dragon Age 2.

If the OP wants to define "new direction" as poorly implementing ideas because of a rushed development time, then sure, it's accepted that DA 2 went in the "wrong direction", because the "right direction" is essentially "make a good game".

At the end of the day, this "direction" of BioWare is something they've always been charging forward with since the beginning.

Away from text and towards cutscenes. Away from a silent protagonists and towards a voiced one. Away from quest design that encouraged multiple approaches based on character build and towards more linear design with unavoidable combat. Away from significant non-combat gameplay and towards flashy combat. Away from blank slates and towards a pre-defined protagonist. Away from big fat character systems which allow you to customize/roleplay your character (skill based, dialog influencing) on all levels and towards ones limited in scope (active abilities in combat).

It's just that in many cases, there's always been something to offset or even "disguise" the general push.

With Dragon Age 2, the only thing new it really brought to the table as an idea was all bi romances. For some, that may be significant, but I doubt most people would really buy into that as genre-defining innovation, or something that would make the game good on it's own.

The framed narrative, voiced protagonist, disposition systems, character driven narrative, factional conflicts, the flashier combat system, all that is dependent on the game being made and isn't a new idea or "thing" per se. Besides, they had been done before, better. By other studios or by BioWare themselves.

Now, you may think Dragon Age 2 is the best game ever, or the worst game ever, that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. People's tastes are different and they value different aspects of games for different reasons.

But regardless of how you feel, BioWare's not suddenly going to go "oh, we've just realised that since KotOR we've been going about things all wrong! Thank you for enlightening us, BSN!"

The best that can be done is to argue for what specifically you like and argue why you think it should be included for the next game. Not these pot shots which essentially amount to "DA:O sucks, DA 2 rocks!" and "DA 2 sucks, DA:O rocks!"

I mean, what the hell does Twilight have to do with making Dragon Age 3 a better RPG?

What, so because BioWare has two different series they must therefore be akin to each other in style and gameplay?

Why? What is the problem with having two wholly different series, exactly? It certainly wasn't a problem when they released DA:O after releasing Mass Effect.

Besides, the way they implemented it in DA2 was not successful. At all. You can blame the short development cycle, but what would more time have accomplished? Made the environments more varied? Added a couple more hours of story? It wouldn't have changed the fundamental flaws with the game. The camera is too close and restrictive to get a good view of the battlefield. Equipment and spell restrictions tie your hands together with party selection. You're restricted to one city and one city only. The graphics are worse. The acts are insular and lacking in scale. There's really nothing time could have solved to make this game anything other than a disappontment compared to DA:O, and the sales proved that. The majority of it's sales were thanks to preorders and first-week buys. DA:O however managed to keep selling well because it's a legitimately good game. DA2's sales plummeted because it is not.

Modifié par batlin, 04 mars 2012 - 03:39 .

[zyntifox]

FedericoV wrote...

Cstaf wrote...

Now i must respectfully disagree with this notion that PC gamer has, not saying you are one, that you can't have a classic RPG on console. I played Dragon Age: Origins on my PS3 and i thought it worked perfectly, now you might not consider DA:O a classic RPG but i do (my definition of classic RPG might be way of though ).

I'm mostly a PC gamer. But I own a PS3 too and I play most consolle ports with an Xbox pad on my PC. The games I enjoyed most last year are Red Dead Redemption, Shadow of the Colossus HD remake and Limbo (3 consolle games at the end even if I played Limbo on the PC). So, I'm open minded and I'm not in favour of the "superior PC gamers race" agenda .

While I respect your view, I just believe that no matter how good DA:O is on the consolle, it will allways seem a compromise if compared to the superior PC version. You can develop a good party-based game for consolle (even an awesome one if you go turn based like some J-RPG) but I still believe that the controller scheme of the PC is more suited to those kind of games (especially for games that follow the BG model).

The gamepad is perfect to controll one charachter under every aspect, especially in a "brawler" game (I mean, you can argue in favour of K/M if you put guns in to the picture). But it becames a limitation when it comes to controll organically a party of charachter with pause&play semi turn-based gameplay. Not to mention the limitation to camera angles due to the inferior hardware: you cannot have a good party based game without some sort of ISO view, imho.

It does not mean that you cannot have an awesome game experience with DA:O on the consolle. Just that you would have a real better experience on the PC. I hope I made my case clear.

Infact, I believe that if Bioware is serious about assimilating DA to the cinematic/action model Crusty was speaking about on the consolle platform, they have three options:

- Removing party based gameplay alltogether and going in the Kingdoms of Alamur direction. Laidlaw hinted the possibility on the forum some weeks previous to DA2 hitting the market and imho it was just the ****storm that followed its publication that changed the devs mind.
- Going turn based. Yes, turn-based. For the consolle, it's easier to play a turn based party-based game than a real time one.
- Reinventing the wheel: during combat you should not controll just one charachter at a time. You should have at least the option to controll the whole party as a single entity with your gamepad, issuing "party" orders. I don't know how (otherwise I would be a game designer) and I imagine it would be pretty difficult  to balance but at the same time it would be interesting (never seen before in a videogame as far as I can tell).

Now i had no problems pausing and issuing commands on my PS3 but you are right that it would have been nice with a button for a tactical view sometimes. I use to be a PC gamer back in early 2000,  i only played games like Baldurs Gate 1/2 and Neverwinter Nights but then i got MACified and stopped playing games altogether.

[upsettingshorts]

CrustyBot wrote...

If I were to be serious here, this entire discussion hinges on a misconception and has snow balled into something I'd expect back last April or May. What counts as the "new direction"? That's something that's always stumped me.

Because it paints Dragon Age 2 as something "different" or "innovative" or "unique" and signifies some sort of change either at BioWare or in the RPG genre in general. But it doesn't. It really doesn't.

It's the natural progression of what BioWare has been attempting to do since KotOR. KotOR -> Jade Empire -> Mass Effect 1 -> Dragon Age: Origins ->Mass Effect 2 -> Mass Effect 3 -> Dragon Age 3 (?)

Dragon Age: Origins is the anomaly here, not Dragon Age 2.

If the OP wants to define "new direction" as poorly implementing ideas because of a rushed development time, then sure, it's accepted that DA 2 went in the "wrong direction", because the "right direction" is essentially "make a good game".

At the end of the day, this "direction" of BioWare is something they've always been charging forward with since the beginning.

Away from text and towards cutscenes. Away from a silent protagonists and towards a voiced one. Away from quest design that encouraged multiple approaches based on character build and towards more linear design with unavoidable combat. Away from significant non-combat gameplay and towards flashy combat. Away from blank slates and towards a pre-defined protagonist. Away from big fat character systems which allow you to customize/roleplay your character (skill based, dialog influencing) on all levels and towards ones limited in scope (active abilities in combat).

It's just that in many cases, there's always been something to offset or even "disguise" the general push.

With Dragon Age 2, the only thing new it really brought to the table as an idea was all bi romances. For some, that may be significant, but I doubt most people would really buy into that as genre-defining innovation, or something that would make the game good on it's own.

The framed narrative, voiced protagonist, disposition systems, character driven narrative, factional conflicts, the flashier combat system, all that is dependent on the game being made and isn't a new idea or "thing" per se. Besides, they had been done before, better. By other studios or by BioWare themselves.

Now, you may think Dragon Age 2 is the best game ever, or the worst game ever, that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. People's tastes are different and they value different aspects of games for different reasons.

But regardless of how you feel, BioWare's not suddenly going to go "oh, we've just realised that since KotOR we've been going about things all wrong! Thank you for enlightening us, BSN!"

The best that can be done is to argue for what specifically you like and argue why you think it should be included for the next game. Not these pot shots which essentially amount to "DA:O sucks, DA 2 rocks!" and "DA 2 sucks, DA:O rocks!"

I mean, what the hell does Twilight have to do with making Dragon Age 3 a better RPG?

Yeah, pretty much this.

[JeeWeeJ]

Well, I do not agree that BG 1+2, Planescape, NWN and DA:O were anomalies. Far from it! I always liked to think that Bioware had two different "tracks" of games they made. More action (or console?) oriented RPGs like KOTOR, Jade Empire and ME1 and 2, and classical PC oriented RPGs like the ones I listed earlier. I say this because from BG1 to DA:O, the core elements of companions, inventory management, story complexity etc were kept more or less the same.

Not saying that the other type of games were bad, far from it! Almost all of them are classics in their own right. But as someone above me said, it looks like Bioware has decided to kill the cassical track and focus on the action oriented games.

But these tracks have to very different kinds of fans whose expectations clash on multiple fronts. And Bioware indeed tried to mix these two groups together...and we saw (and still see) the results.

Bioware has always catered to a certain niche in the RPG market with their classical RPGs and every single one was a blockbuster and they all had this unique Bioware touch to them. A few non-Bioware games came close to them, but none really equalled them. So I just don´t understand why Bioware has decided that this had to change. (except from the usual speculations like "more money on the consoles", "EA bossing around" blah blah blah)

Modifié par JeeWeeJ, 04 mars 2012 - 03:48 .