Mike Laidlaw was never "that bad". Sure, I disagree with some of his views on what he would like to do with DA, but at least the DA team have always been up front about it. With Mass Effect we're just told "you won't just get an A, B or C choice at the end" and then we get exactly that.
Rethinking my dislike of DA2
Débuté par
augustburnt
, avril 23 2012 06:44
Retour en haut
#27
Posté 24 avril 2012 - 08:07
Hexedcoder
-
- Members
- 236 messages
coles4971 wrote...
Mike Laidlaw was never "that bad". Sure, I disagree with some of his views on what he would like to do with DA, but at least the DA team have always been up front about it. With Mass Effect we're just told "you won't just get an A, B or C choice at the end" and then we get exactly that.
No, there was no A, B, or C ending. There was a Trollface.jpg followed by a mention of how you can continue the adventures of Shepard if you BUY DLC!
That's what made me put my fist through my monitor.
#28
Posté 24 avril 2012 - 10:29
Chrumpek
-
- Members
- 458 messages
You can actually get banned for calling someone not bright?.... wow
#29
Posté 24 avril 2012 - 10:38
Morty Smith
-
- Members
- 2 465 messages
mt. manure does not smell as bad if you climb poop-everest?
#30
Posté 24 avril 2012 - 10:47
augustburnt
-
- Members
- 391 messages
Chrumpek wrote...
You can actually get banned for calling someone not bright?.... wow
No, but that doesn't mean somebody can't make a huge fuss over. Thats the problem with a lot of society now, we nuture the soft instead of letting them deal with life. Sadly a post about that would get locked very quickly.
#31
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 12:03
KotorEffect3
-
- Members
- 9 416 messages
augustburnt wrote...
Chrumpek wrote...
You can actually get banned for calling someone not bright?.... wow
No, but that doesn't mean somebody can't make a huge fuss over. Thats the problem with a lot of society now, we nuture the soft instead of letting them deal with life. Sadly a post about that would get locked very quickly.
What are you guys talking about? You should be banned if you are going to throw out insults, it is common sense.
#32
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 09:26
Bonanza16
-
- Members
- 40 messages
Hmm... Mike Laidlaw does not seem to want to go back to the original's concept & direction. Whether or not it's actually what the fans want I'm not sure. I sure don't!
#33
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 09:39
KDD-0063
-
- Members
- 544 messages
Well, his apology is right before the release of DA2 DLC Legacy, so that...doesn't really count.
#34
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 01:31
Momiji.mii
-
- Members
- 443 messages
I think the ME team will start replying to feedback once things has calmed down a bit more. They tried to adress those that were upset a few times already, but since they weren't saying exactly what the those complaning wanted to hear, nothing good came of it and things just got more heated. As I remember it, this is pretty much the same situation as we had with DAII a little more than a year ago, and the DA devs have gradually come back to the forums lately in order to answer questions. I'm sure we'll start hearing more candid dev replies from the ME team as well, though I figure it'll be a while still before it's calm enough for real discussions.
#35
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 01:39
Sacred_Fantasy
-
- Members
- 2 311 messages
By that time, over 2000 forumites move on, leaving a small chunk of minority who continues to ruin BioWare's games with their ideal view of the greatest games of all time which BioWare listen carefully. The same minority who ruined DA 2 a year ago.
Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 27 avril 2012 - 01:41 .
#36
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 04:05
Momiji.mii
-
- Members
- 443 messages
Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
By that time, over 2000 forumites move on, leaving a small chunk of minority who continues to ruin BioWare's games with their ideal view of the greatest games of all time which BioWare listen carefully. The same minority who ruined DA 2 a year ago.
I'd like to think that it's a better strategy to listen to people who actually have patience and enough love for the games to stick with them, than those who will continue to hate everything they do. Also, you have to consider the fact that since people who hate not only DAII, but apparently those who played and loved it as well, have kept derailing all discussions that paint the game in an even remotely positive light since last year, chances are that those that loved the game left the forum long before those who hated it. The forum has become a lot calmer lately, and therefore there might be an influx of people happy to finally be able to discuss the game without getting grief from DAII-haters.
I hope you, Sacred_Fantasy, can try to respect me and others whose opinions differ from yours, instead of just wailing that we ruined DA2 (I didn't even frequent BSN at that time).
Modifié par Momiji.mii, 27 avril 2012 - 04:05 .
#37
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 04:36
Sacred_Fantasy
-
- Members
- 2 311 messages
I didn't spesifically mentioned anyone. That's why I don't quote you. I'm sure I rarely see your name on the forum. But if you feel you're part of those minority then I apologize for my bad wordings.Momiji.mii wrote...
I hope you, Sacred_Fantasy, can try to respect me and others whose opinions differ from yours, instead of just wailing that we ruined DA2 (I didn't even frequent BSN at that time).
#38
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 07:30
SamaraDraven
-
- Members
- 2 312 messages
DA2 is a game that wanted to be great but wasn't given the time needed to be that. We all know this. I like both DAO and DA2 for different reasons. I like the sense of comraderie and every day hanging out in DA2 better but the timing feels scripted. The scenes themselves I like better than DAO but there wasn't enough progression in the time that was supposed to be passing in-game.
I think the difference between those who prefer DAO combat to DA2 combat is a matter of playstyle preference. To that I say, both are enjoyable in their own way. I loved tinkering with DAO's tatics because finding combinations of moves that made for awesome battles thrilled me. To see my time spent thinking about tatics pay off was very rewarding. The Awesome button in DA2 was also a blast. I almost never touched my tatics except for support stuff like when to take potions and such. I felt some of the abilities in DA2 were more fun than they were in DAO. But as we all know, being a mage in DAO was way more bad***! Sure the animations a mage Hawke pulls off are supposed to look cool but they seem ridonkulous when all that flailing does only a fraction of damage. I resorted to relying on Varric for area damage.
For those who prefer DAO's style, the lack of having to plan and seeing the payoff was gone and there wasn't enough in its place to make combat interesting. On the flip side, those who prefer DA2's style might be put off by having to bang their heads against the DAO wall before finding tatics that work. You could push through DAO without touching tatics, but that sucks toes.
It's pretty hard to have a middle ground here. Unless there's a way to make tatical chains and map them to a button for one-touch awesomeness, the play style is going to have to be one way or the other. Players are just going to have to get used to that if they want to experience the story.
Which brings me to a theory: DAO was loved and yet there were some loud enough voices who said that the gameplay style wasn't as well suited to console as it was to PC (A fact I'm fine with by the way). There were people who liked the game but didn't care for the tactics thing. But they DID play it. They wanted that story so they played anyway. As a business, EA and Bioware looked at the numbers of console owners and thought that maybe they were missing out on a larger market because of this, forgetting that those dissenters DID still play DAO anyway. In order to appeal to what seemed a more fiscally sound base, they changed the gameplay to be more appealing to console gamers and casual gamers. People want what they want and they want it now! Right? So changing it like that left less time to polish what they had, to flesh out the world better.
If people were bored of the style, there's room to tweak it, not trash it. If people are bored with the quests, speeding everything up and compacting it together isn't the answer either. I really do think DA2 was done the way it was done to appease players who don't have the time (or don't want to spend the time) to get to know the game. Pandering to their impatience doesn't fix the problem. Adding more stuff you can take or leave fixes the problem. Making trade and money mean something more, adding graver permanent consequences to choices would help fix the problem. DAO had a couple of choices whose repercussions you had to deal with but still... the game mostly played the way it was going to play. Wouldn't it have been a shocker if the PC accepts Morrigan's ritual and it failed? And the result was something worse? Like Morrigan became possessed by the archdemon's spirit and you lost the game?
Instead... no matter what you do, you win.
Giving us more of that, taking away the few big choices we had and cramming it all together; rather than spending time fleshing stuff out was a mistake. They wasted time and effort on revamping gameplay rather than spending it on making the good stuff better and tweaking what wasn't good. All because they thought satisfying people's need for immediate gratification was a better horse to bet on. I know the devs themselves aren't responsible for this but who's to say they weren't told "Well gamers really want it to be more console friendly" so they had to make it so? Then they weren't given the time to make DA2 great once they finished with the gameplay code.
I like DA2, I will say this freely. When I want to just chop stuff up, I play it. I do like the characters in it. They're not any more or less "real" than DAO's companions but I find them more fun. The game stops just shy of making me feel like I really am hanging out at the Hanged Man with my friends. And a minigame there could only improve that vibe. Making "Wanna play Wicked Grace?" a convo option with Isabela and actually playing it, complete with cutscene dialogue when you win or lose, would be awesome.
Think Fable's pub games mashed with the Pearl scene when the Warden first meets Izzy. But I digress. I do enjoy DA2. But aside from the sometimes fun combat style and comraderie, I think there's not as much to recommend it over DAO's style. It's just too boring to do more than once or twice. I'm trying to slog through a mage ending and it's driving me batty. I've got lots of saves, half finished and not but I have yet to finish as a mage because it's so lackluster. 
At least Anders immediately drops whatever he's doing to heal the companion you tell him to instead of taking his time like Wynne and letting your companion go down. Of course hauling around a crapload of potions meant I never needed Anders much anyway.
I think the difference between those who prefer DAO combat to DA2 combat is a matter of playstyle preference. To that I say, both are enjoyable in their own way. I loved tinkering with DAO's tatics because finding combinations of moves that made for awesome battles thrilled me. To see my time spent thinking about tatics pay off was very rewarding. The Awesome button in DA2 was also a blast. I almost never touched my tatics except for support stuff like when to take potions and such. I felt some of the abilities in DA2 were more fun than they were in DAO. But as we all know, being a mage in DAO was way more bad***! Sure the animations a mage Hawke pulls off are supposed to look cool but they seem ridonkulous when all that flailing does only a fraction of damage. I resorted to relying on Varric for area damage.
For those who prefer DAO's style, the lack of having to plan and seeing the payoff was gone and there wasn't enough in its place to make combat interesting. On the flip side, those who prefer DA2's style might be put off by having to bang their heads against the DAO wall before finding tatics that work. You could push through DAO without touching tatics, but that sucks toes.
It's pretty hard to have a middle ground here. Unless there's a way to make tatical chains and map them to a button for one-touch awesomeness, the play style is going to have to be one way or the other. Players are just going to have to get used to that if they want to experience the story.
Which brings me to a theory: DAO was loved and yet there were some loud enough voices who said that the gameplay style wasn't as well suited to console as it was to PC (A fact I'm fine with by the way). There were people who liked the game but didn't care for the tactics thing. But they DID play it. They wanted that story so they played anyway. As a business, EA and Bioware looked at the numbers of console owners and thought that maybe they were missing out on a larger market because of this, forgetting that those dissenters DID still play DAO anyway. In order to appeal to what seemed a more fiscally sound base, they changed the gameplay to be more appealing to console gamers and casual gamers. People want what they want and they want it now! Right? So changing it like that left less time to polish what they had, to flesh out the world better.
If people were bored of the style, there's room to tweak it, not trash it. If people are bored with the quests, speeding everything up and compacting it together isn't the answer either. I really do think DA2 was done the way it was done to appease players who don't have the time (or don't want to spend the time) to get to know the game. Pandering to their impatience doesn't fix the problem. Adding more stuff you can take or leave fixes the problem. Making trade and money mean something more, adding graver permanent consequences to choices would help fix the problem. DAO had a couple of choices whose repercussions you had to deal with but still... the game mostly played the way it was going to play. Wouldn't it have been a shocker if the PC accepts Morrigan's ritual and it failed? And the result was something worse? Like Morrigan became possessed by the archdemon's spirit and you lost the game?
Instead... no matter what you do, you win.Giving us more of that, taking away the few big choices we had and cramming it all together; rather than spending time fleshing stuff out was a mistake. They wasted time and effort on revamping gameplay rather than spending it on making the good stuff better and tweaking what wasn't good. All because they thought satisfying people's need for immediate gratification was a better horse to bet on. I know the devs themselves aren't responsible for this but who's to say they weren't told "Well gamers really want it to be more console friendly" so they had to make it so? Then they weren't given the time to make DA2 great once they finished with the gameplay code.
I like DA2, I will say this freely. When I want to just chop stuff up, I play it. I do like the characters in it. They're not any more or less "real" than DAO's companions but I find them more fun. The game stops just shy of making me feel like I really am hanging out at the Hanged Man with my friends. And a minigame there could only improve that vibe. Making "Wanna play Wicked Grace?" a convo option with Isabela and actually playing it, complete with cutscene dialogue when you win or lose, would be awesome.
Think Fable's pub games mashed with the Pearl scene when the Warden first meets Izzy. But I digress. I do enjoy DA2. But aside from the sometimes fun combat style and comraderie, I think there's not as much to recommend it over DAO's style. It's just too boring to do more than once or twice. I'm trying to slog through a mage ending and it's driving me batty. I've got lots of saves, half finished and not but I have yet to finish as a mage because it's so lackluster. At least Anders immediately drops whatever he's doing to heal the companion you tell him to instead of taking his time like Wynne and letting your companion go down. Of course hauling around a crapload of potions meant I never needed Anders much anyway.
Modifié par SamaraDraven, 27 avril 2012 - 07:37 .
#39
Posté 28 avril 2012 - 09:45
nightscrawl
-
- Members
- 7 522 messages
If you want to talk about game systems, how they work, the players interacting with them, the players feeling immersed in the lore, feeling attached to the various characters, all those things and more, sure I agree with all of that. I also agree that player input is important in those aspects of design because it can be difficult to step outside your own product and see how millions of other people who had nothing to do with designing the game would react to those components.augustburnt wrote...
After seeing what the ME3 design crew did to ME3, and more importantly the way they treated the fanbase (basicly saying the fans have no say in the ME3 storyline) Maybe Laidlaw wasn't that bad. In fact I even respect him for listening to player feedback and addressing that there was a mistake. Any thoughts?
That said, I do not think that fans should have any "say" whatsoever in the story. If you didn't like the story because it was bad, or because it had a crap ending, well that's your prerogative. But in the end it is their universe and they can do with it whatever they damned well please. Do you feel that you should have a say in the story of every movie you watch? If you managed to guess the "twist" of all of those M. Night Shyamalan (The Sixth Sense, et al.) movies even though it was advertised with terms like "unexpected," "surprising," "you'll never guess," and so forth, you might still feel cheated, as people do with ME3 and its advertising. But that doesn't mean you have a say.
My, that's quite the list you have there. Lol...Hexedcoder wrote...
I have also been playing PC-RPGs for a long time and can say that while in my opinion DA II is "subpar" I can't call it "bad" or "terrible" in a way where it contributes nothing to a enjoyable experience. If someone told me they enjoyed the game, I could believe them and not fault them for it unlike several unmitigated pieces of garbage to ever grace your desktop PC.
Modifié par nightscrawl, 28 avril 2012 - 09:51 .
