410 réponses à ce sujet

[Thori]

You know. Back on Dragon Age wiki, we've been discussing future of DA, and most of us agreed that as long as Laidlaw is lead designer, DA is going into the mud. Exactly because of that EA policy ( which Laidlaw supports 200%) to make every game playable by anyone and make it more mainstream, is why we see so many changes in Bioware games. Combat system preview hanged on YouTube prior to DA2 release proved that theory. Laidlaw's fascination with DMC, which he openly showed in one of his interviews transformed medieval combat of DAO into unreal, sickening primitive G.I. Joe. And since Laidlaw is trying with all his guts to eradicate Brent Knowles's influence and plans for DA, i believe there is no hope for DA3.

[Melca36]

Thori wrote...

Bah... even among those who think similar to me, I find myself standing out. Am I the only one who finds combat system of DA2 disgusting and totally unrealistic?

They already said combat would not be the same in DA:3

It will still be faster than Origins but it wont be as over the top as it is in DA:2

[Mr Fixit]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

See, Mr. Fixit?

You know what they say. Promašio si ceo fudbal

[Elhanan]

Thori wrote...

You know. Back on Dragon Age wiki, we've been discussing future of DA, and most of us agreed that as long as Laidlaw is lead designer, DA is going into the mud. Exactly because of that EA policy ( which Laidlaw supports 200%) to make every game playable by anyone and make it more mainstream, is why we see so many changes in Bioware games. Combat system preview hanged on YouTube prior to DA2 release proved that theory. Laidlaw's fascination with DMC, which he openly showed in one of his interviews transformed medieval combat of DAO into unreal, sickening primitive G.I. Joe. And since Laidlaw is trying with all his guts to eradicate Brent Knowles's influence and plans for DA, i believe there is no hope for DA3.

No; I don't know, and doubt you speak for the rest of them. But maybe that is just me.....

[Elhanan]

seraphymon wrote...

Wether or not hate is valid depends. In DA2 i think it is justified in its hate. At least those with a resonable excuse. otherwise no way to make it better. There is such a thing as failures. In movies songs, anything. there is always going to be someone out there who likes it. Im willing to bet superman 64 has someone out there.

Your not the only one. While i dont find its disgusting. I do find it too over the top, and more unrealistic than DAO, and much less strategic. Even dull. The flash fades away quickly, when aside from mages, your stuck 60% of the time just auto attacking, or switching to another character just to do something.

Constructive crit does not have to equate to hate; it can be simply criticism.

I prefer the freedom of class design in DAO, and hope it returns; maybe with even less restrictions. But I also hold that the new Spell and Talent trees are better, as is the full VO.

Perhaps if more simply ignored metacritic and like review sites, and stopped looking for their name on critiques, things might improve for all.

[seraphymon]

Elhanan wrote...

seraphymon wrote...

Wether or not hate is valid depends. In DA2 i think it is justified in its hate. At least those with a resonable excuse. otherwise no way to make it better. There is such a thing as failures. In movies songs, anything. there is always going to be someone out there who likes it. Im willing to bet superman 64 has someone out there.

Your not the only one. While i dont find its disgusting. I do find it too over the top, and more unrealistic than DAO, and much less strategic. Even dull. The flash fades away quickly, when aside from mages, your stuck 60% of the time just auto attacking, or switching to another character just to do something.

Constructive crit does not have to equate to hate; it can be simply criticism.

I prefer the freedom of class design in DAO, and hope it returns; maybe with even less restrictions. But I also hold that the new Spell and Talent trees are better, as is the full VO.

Perhaps if more simply ignored metacritic and like review sites, and stopped looking for their name on critiques, things might improve for all.

Really to me constructive crit is just a general polite way of saying what you hate. The degree oh which ones dislikes something varies, but only when feedback is given, can people choose to or not tone down their hatred and present it in a way thats called constructive crit. That doesnt mean that hate doesnt exist, or make it any less valid.

The spell and talent trees, In theory i thought it would be better, but it still has the same problems they accused DAO of having. Sometimes it was even worse for certain trees. I also like the idea of upgrades, but my main concern is that there isnt enough striking abilities, and too long of cooldowns for the pace DA2 was.

and i would hope for no more VO. not against it, in many games it works best. but i feel it just doesnt belong in DA, no matter how good the VA is. I know they have already decided to go with it, still.

[Elhanan]

seraphymon wrote...

Really to me constructive crit is just a general polite way of saying what you hate. The degree oh which ones dislikes something varies, but only when feedback is given, can people choose to or not tone down their hatred and present it in a way thats called constructive crit. That doesnt mean that hate doesnt exist, or make it any less valid.

The spell and talent trees, In theory i thought it would be better, but it still has the same problems they accused DAO of having. Sometimes it was even worse for certain trees. I also like the idea of upgrades, but my main concern is that there isnt enough striking abilities, and too long of cooldowns for the pace DA2 was.

and i would hope for no more VO. not against it, in many games it works best. but i feel it just doesnt belong in DA, no matter how good the VA is. I know they have already decided to go with it, still.

You have the right to be wrong....

As for as mechanics, neither game was perfect; hope improvemets continue to be seen in DA3. As for Full VO, am a full convert if Bioware wishes to spend the zots, wish to avoid the Cone of Silence again.

[seraphymon]

Elhanan wrote...

seraphymon wrote...

Really to me constructive crit is just a general polite way of saying what you hate. The degree oh which ones dislikes something varies, but only when feedback is given, can people choose to or not tone down their hatred and present it in a way thats called constructive crit. That doesnt mean that hate doesnt exist, or make it any less valid.

The spell and talent trees, In theory i thought it would be better, but it still has the same problems they accused DAO of having. Sometimes it was even worse for certain trees. I also like the idea of upgrades, but my main concern is that there isnt enough striking abilities, and too long of cooldowns for the pace DA2 was.

and i would hope for no more VO. not against it, in many games it works best. but i feel it just doesnt belong in DA, no matter how good the VA is. I know they have already decided to go with it, still.

You have the right to be wrong....

As for as mechanics, neither game was perfect; hope improvemets continue to be seen in DA3. As for Full VO, am a full convert if Bioware wishes to spend the zots, wish to avoid the Cone of Silence again.

Its not some of right or wrong, it just is what it is.

Honestly i have low hopes for the future.

[Thori]

Melca36 wrote...

Thori wrote...

Bah... even among those who think similar to me, I find myself standing out. Am I the only one who finds combat system of DA2 disgusting and totally unrealistic?

They already said combat would not be the same in DA:3

It will still be faster than Origins but it wont be as over the top as it is in DA:2

Well, I remember them saying how Mark of the Assassin will be "somewhat" of introduction to new combat system. But I saw no difference. Just new rogue skills and that's all. It still was too ... bombastic... so to say in lack of  a better word. Rogues jump around like they are Teleporters from X-men, make enemies explode by pinching them. Warriors go swinging 2h sword with 1 hand and trying to swipe enemies off their feet, yet they don't fall down, somehow, no matter how hard they swing. Mages spin their staves like they are doing some hooloo dance with themselves, cast fireballs in the middle of their allies and then get knocked unconcious by a small rock thrown by enemy. And everywhere explosions, galons of blood( like they are killing cows, not humans:blink:) , auras outshine whole scene so you can't even see who you are fighting. Only tank warriors seem to know what they are doing and are doing it right. All in all.... IT'S A MESS!!! I'd take primitive combat from DAO over this one any time!

[Malanu]

seraphymon wrote...
Really to me constructive crit is just a general polite way of saying what you hate.

Constructive criticism is saying what you don't like with a way to posibly improve the issue.Constructive Criticism, "The game lacked the roundness of being able to play as the different races of Thedas." Criticism, "I hated being stuck as human." Which do you think the devs will take more seriously?

[Thori]

Elhanan wrote...

Thori wrote...

You know. Back on Dragon Age wiki, we've been discussing future of DA, and most of us agreed that as long as Laidlaw is lead designer, DA is going into the mud. Exactly because of that EA policy ( which Laidlaw supports 200%) to make every game playable by anyone and make it more mainstream, is why we see so many changes in Bioware games. Combat system preview hanged on YouTube prior to DA2 release proved that theory. Laidlaw's fascination with DMC, which he openly showed in one of his interviews transformed medieval combat of DAO into unreal, sickening primitive G.I. Joe. And since Laidlaw is trying with all his guts to eradicate Brent Knowles's influence and plans for DA, i believe there is no hope for DA3.

No; I don't know, and doubt you speak for the rest of them. But maybe that is just me.....

I should've put comma after that "You know", not full stop. Sorry. My mistake.
And truly, DA2/Laidlaw lovers are minority there. Maybe that makes our judgement somewhat invalid, since the other side don't speak much. But I will hate Laidlaw for the rest of my life. I played BW games for story. Good game mechanics was just a bonus. Even with this crappy mechanics, repetitive enviroments and tons of other negativities in DA2, if only they did story right I would love it! But, no. As soon as Gaider writes something good, Laidlaw takes it, wipes his ass with it and force DG to write something more suitable to his moronic needs. Shame really.<_<

[Firky]

^ Baseless (which is irrelevant, anyway) abuse against designer? (edit: to clarity - you're calling someone's behaviour "moronic" based on no proof, just conjecture.) Of course, if you have proof of the assertions of "trying to eradicate influence" or "force to write something more suitable", I'd love to see it. Post it.

On point. I'm super cRPG old school. The original Ultima variety. Making games accessible to a wider audience is not the problem. It's how they do it.

And, this is where it comes back to opinion, DA2 had some noble aims. Nightmare was freaking hard for me, for example, whereas surely casual was impossible to fail for anyone. Difficulty was a bit screwed up, with lack of FF on hard, for example, but surely the overall scope was right? To encompass a range of interests and styles?

People play for the story, the combat or the RPG. Everyone has different expectations.

PS. If you can't see combat tweaks in the DLC .... My probably only real complaint about DA2 combat was that melee enemies were too easy to dodge. Legacy fixed that right up by giving melee enemies several attacks. Encounter design was more "strategic" in terms of early planning. Etc.

Modifié par Firky, 14 mars 2012 - 12:43 .

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Pasquale1234 wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Some might agree with my reasons, others might disagree. There isn't much point in debating the issue when it comes down to how the game makes people feel.[/quote]

Valid point, but I think - or at least hope - that sharing our concerns in this forum might help BioWare understand why DA2 wasn't as well received as it might have been, and help them make a better game next time.

At least, that's why I'm here. [/quote]

Fair point, Pasquale1234.

[quote]EtherealWriterRedux wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

People have their reasons, and not all of them are the same.

What you see as flaws may not be the only things in the game are seen as flaws. Dragon Age II divided people. Some people like it, and some people hated it. For me, I fall into the latter group. The two story DLCs only affirmed that. Why did I hate the game? I didn't like the the terrible dichotomy of the mages and templars (with both sides being little more than caricatures), a passive protagonist, no rise to power, really bad paraphrasing, choices having no meaning, and being invited to create my own protagonist - only to discover that the protagonist already pre-defined. The two story DLCs that were released continued the trend of a passive Hawke, and choices being meaningless when it produces the same conclusion.

Some might agree with my reasons, others might disagree. There isn't much point in debating the issue when it comes down to how the game makes people feel.[/quote]

First off, good to see you back on the forums. You've been gone for.... a week? Two? [/quote]

Thanks for the kind words. I think the last time I was here was towards the end of January. Celebrated my birthday on the 8th of February. Came back here a few days ago this month.

[quote]EtherealWriterRedux wrote...

Second, I disagree with how you think there isn't much point in debating the issue. If we debate the issue of how the games make us feel, we can understand the viewpoints of the other side better. Maybe even convert them. [/quote]

You have a good point.

[quote]EtherealWriterRedux wrote...

Third, I've been re-examining choices made in DAO. If your issue is the pre-determined outcome, then wouldn't you have an issue with the origin stories? [/quote]

It's the pre-determined outcome for the entire narrative, not a portion of the story. In Dragon Age II, I don't feel like my ethnically Antivan Hawke changed anything significant, especially given how passive he was throughout the story, while in Origins, I feel as though my culturally Ferelden Surana Warden had a fundamental impact on several societies, and the Magi boon he requested is something that should have significant weight when he has requested the ruler of a nation to emancipate his people, regardless of the official response from the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars.

The fact that Legacy and MoTA railroad Hawke into the same ending as well doesn't really inspire much confidence in me.

[quote]EtherealWriterRedux wrote...

No matter what I do, Trian dies. But I can make choices that change how he dies, even if I can't voice my suspicion of Bhelen at the same time. The outcome is still the same, but the general path is different. This is the case for Legacy. You make a choice, it leads to a different path, and in the end it leads to the same outcome. [/quote]

In Orzammar, my ethnically Antivan Surana Warden can choose to spare the Anvil or destroy it, and he can choose the new ruler of Orzammar and decide the future of the dwarves in one of the last surviving Great Thaigs in existance. In Legacy, my Hawke makes a choice that doesn't really change anything, since both endings lead to virtually the same outcome, with my Champion doing nothing, as usual. I don't feel that's much of a choice, when it feels superficially different - which is precisely the problem I had with the "two" endings to Dragon Age II that are virtually identical to one another.

[quote]EtherealWriterRedux wrote...

Now from a roleplaying perspective, I understand you felt the need to have your Hawke try and fight Larius in the end. You wanted him to take a proactive stance, even if I disagree that your Hawke couldn't adequately say that something was off in that scenario. [/quote]

I wanted my Hawke to be more like Merrill - intelligent and pro-active. For all the talk about how Merrill is dealing with culture shock (as a Dalish elf in a human city - dealing with a society and non-elven culture she knows next to nothing about), at least she's actively doing something to try to improve the plight of her people. All my Hawke does is squander all of his opportunities.

[quote]EtherealWriterRedux wrote...

But this is a no-spoiler thread, so I don't want to turn this into a Legacy debate. [/quote]

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree, then.

[quote]EtherealWriterRedux wrote...

My point is though that choice did matter in Legacy. The outcome -- someone's fate -- was virtually the same but choice did matter. [/quote]

IMHO, it's the same ending either way. How does choice matter when both choices are virtually identical to each other? That's not a criticism you can make about the conclusion to Origins with the different Wardens - for instance, the Dwarven Warden asking for human aid for Orzammar in reclaiming the lost thaigs isn't the same as the City Elf Warden asking for his (or her) people to finally get proper representation in the Alienage.

[quote]EtherealWriterRedux wrote...

MotA OTOH is a case where choice doesn't matter. And that's something I will always lament.

==============================================================================

And before anyone says anything in an attempt to use my post against me, DAII does not get a pass using the reasoning I have stated in my post to Lob. The paths are not sufficiently different for me to say choice matters.[/quote]

Regardless of whether we agree or disagree, I always enjoy speaking with you, Ethereal, and I respect your point of view, even if it differs from my own.

[TEWR]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Thanks for the kind words. I think the last time I was here was towards the end of January. Celebrated my birthday on the 8th of February. Came back here a few days ago this month.

Happy very belated birthday then!

. In Legacy, my Hawke makes a choice that doesn't really change anything, since both endings lead to virtually the same outcome, with my Champion doing nothing, as usual. I don't feel that's much of a choice, when it feels superficially different - which is precisely the problem I had with the "two" endings to Dragon Age II that are virtually identical to one another.

Actually, that's a good point. I never thought of it like that. I'm still fine with the ending of Legacy though, because at least when I pick a side they don't betray me for no reason.

I wanted my Hawke to be more like Merrill - intelligent and pro-active. For all the talk about how Merrill is dealing with culture shock (as a Dalish elf in a human city - dealing with a society and non-elven culture she knows next to nothing about), at least she's actively doing something to try to improve the plight of her people. All my Hawke does is squander all of his opportunities.

True enough. I know my Hawkes also wanted to be proactive and intelligent. Tobias Hawke was made out in my mind to be a man among men, an intellectual savant, a politician interested in the nature of Mages and Templars, someone that wanted to work with the Mage Underground and undermine the authority of the Templars and specifically Meredith, and so many other things.

But I'm always forced to play Bioware's Hawke.

It's the pre-determined outcome for the entire narrative, not a portion of the story. In Dragon Age II, I don't feel like my ethnically Antivan Hawke changed anything significant, especially given how passive he was throughout the story, while in Origins, I feel as though my culturally Ferelden Surana Warden had a fundamental impact on several societies, and the Magi boon he requested is something that should have significant weight when he has requested the ruler of a nation to emancipate his people, regardless of the official response from the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars.

The fact that Legacy and MoTA railroad Hawke into the same ending as well doesn't really inspire much confidence in me.

So would it be accurate to say that Legacy -- had it been made for a DAII that allowed for a stellar story and sufficient choice/consequence -- would've been more or less a success for you?

But because of how the main game was railroaded, Legacy only exacerbated those issues for you? Is that correct?

Which would make it not so much Legacy's problem itself, but rather the main story taking value away from Legacy.

Regardless of whether we agree or disagree, I always enjoy speaking with you, Ethereal, and I respect your point of view, even if it differs from my own.

As do I Lob. We ultimately wanted the same experience from DAII, even if on one or two issues we disagree.

Actually, aside from Legacy is there anything else we've disagreed on?

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 14 mars 2012 - 06:05 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

While I can see your point the way I see it is because there are 3 discreet choices then 3 discreet choices is what you have nothing more nothing less for me when it comes to have option 1 2 or 3 its as simple as we have 3 choices because the writer intended me to have choices not 3 choices each with a variance or nuance as you choose to call it.

If the Choices presentd are Good,Bad and Snarky then I can imagine till I'm blue in the face that I can have choice Good said in a Snarky however the reality is that option does not exist however much i might want it to

Throughout the entire conversation, you've been presupposing your conclusion and then using it to prove your conclusion.  That's a circle.

Mr Fixit wrote...

You know what they say. Promašio si ceo fudbal

I must admit, I didn't expect to be translating Croatian idioms today.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 14 mars 2012 - 05:51 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Firky wrote...

On point. I'm super cRPG old school. The original Ultima variety. Making games accessible to a wider audience is not the problem. It's how they do it.

But by voicing the PC, they make the game completely inaccessible to those players who desire direct control over their characters.

[DarkAmaranth1966]

Okay take away the voice and offer the same choices otherwise and how does that make it anything but more old fashioned and less realistic? Instead of hearing a voice give the pc, you have to say it aloud and listen to your own voice even if it's the wrong gender. I like the voiced pc and fail to see how a non voiced is better.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Voicing the PC forces a specific delivery on each line. Leaving the PC unvoiced allows the player to impose whatever delivery he would like.

[Elhanan]

DarkAmaranth1966 wrote...

Okay take away the voice and offer the same choices otherwise and how does that make it anything but more old fashioned and less realistic? Instead of hearing a voice give the pc, you have to say it aloud and listen to your own voice even if it's the wrong gender. I like the voiced pc and fail to see how a non voiced is better.

Pls excuse the jumping in part, but I fall somewhere in the middle ground as to desired mechanics moving forward.

After playing both DA games thus far, I woiuld love to hear Full VO, but was offered more exact prompts like the ones read in DAO. Part of the written dialogue that is enjoyable for me is considering the paths not taken; sort of thinking "This is what I want to say, but really shouldn't" mentality. To get that same effect with Full VO, it may require a few reloads to see what exactly is going to occur.

Now back to our program....

Modifié par Elhanan, 14 mars 2012 - 06:21 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

If I play the game twice, I might want to deliver the same line two different ways. I can't do that with a voiced character. A voiced character severely limits the number of possible different PCs I can play.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 14 mars 2012 - 06:54 .

[Elhanan]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If I play the game twice, I might want to deliver the same line two different ways. I can't do that with a voiced character. A voiced character severely limits the number of possible different PCs I can play.

Same 'problem' with silent dialogue. But in both cases, imagined responses can solve the issue.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Elhanan wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If I play the game twice, I might want to deliver the same line two different ways. I can't do that with a voiced character. A voiced character severely limits the number of possible different PCs I can play.

Same 'problem' with silent dialogue. But in both cases, imagined responses can solve the issue.

This can work, as long as we get full text dialogue options.

But I am concerned the voice will change how the writers write dialogue and assume motivations.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 14 mars 2012 - 07:19 .

[LobselVith8]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Thanks for the kind words. I think the last time I was here was towards the end of January. Celebrated my birthday on the 8th of February. Came back here a few days ago this month.

Happy very belated birthday then!

Thanks, Ethereal!

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It's the pre-determined outcome for the entire narrative, not a portion of the story. In Dragon Age II, I don't feel like my ethnically Antivan Hawke changed anything significant, especially given how passive he was throughout the story, while in Origins, I feel as though my culturally Ferelden Surana Warden had a fundamental impact on several societies, and the Magi boon he requested is something that should have significant weight when he has requested the ruler of a nation to emancipate his people, regardless of the official response from the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars.

The fact that Legacy and MoTA railroad Hawke into the same ending as well doesn't really inspire much confidence in me.

So would it be accurate to say that Legacy -- had it been made for a DAII that allowed for a stellar story and sufficient choice/consequence -- would've been more or less a success for you?

But because of how the main game was railroaded, Legacy only exacerbated those issues for you? Is that correct?

Which would make it not so much Legacy's problem itself, but rather the main story taking value away from Legacy.

It's not a DLC that I've ever felt compelled to play again. Aside from Anders' spewing nonsense that contradicts his Act II quest, it felt very small, especially compared to the New Vegas DLCs that were avaliable for the same price. I felt cheated out of my money, especially since it feels like an adventure where Hawke simply screws things up. I purchased an entire game where Hawke does little more than screw things up for nearly a decade - I didn't need a DLC to add a "missing adventure" where we learn that Hawke makes things even worse than he already did.

That's how I feel about it. I purchased Dragon Age II with the impression (from Laidlaw) that Hawke would rise to power, and change Kirkwall with each of his choices. That obviously never happened. I think having an intelligent Hawke who made significant choices throughout the narrative would have made for a compelling game. A real rise to power. With Legacy, I felt like I was paying to see Hawke make a mess of things. That doesn't entertain me.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Regardless of whether we agree or disagree, I always enjoy speaking with you, Ethereal, and I respect your point of view, even if it differs from my own.

As do I Lob. We ultimately wanted the same experience from DAII, even if on one or two issues we disagree.

Actually, aside from Legacy is there anything else we've disagreed on?

Now that you mentioned it, nothing really comes to mind.

[n0na90]

Like a lot of people, I don't hate DA 2, was just disappointed. It's a great RPG, if it was completely rubbish I'd shrug and walk away.

The things I disliked the most was the recycled areas, felt cheap (Weird, I can boot up games from the late 90's and those pixely graphics won't put me off, so I'm not a graphic-wh*** exactly.).

And of course the ending. I've always felt a little mindblown and at the very least damn satisfied when finishing a bioware game (KOTOR 1, NWN HotU, BG 2 , DA Origins etc), and imo they really screwed up DA 2's ending.

I loved it for its more satisfying combat and immersive landscapes and characters, as well as other things. Imo DA 2 will have to step down to Witcher 2, Dark Souls and Skyrim, though.

Bioware is awesome though, I bet they'll pull their sh** together and make DA 3 the game DA 2 could've been

Modifié par n0na90, 14 mars 2012 - 07:47 .