82 réponses à ce sujet

[Bonanza16]

I understand that EA imposed an unreasonable time-frame to the developers. After all, DA:O was in development for more than 5 years. DAII has been the product of 11- months of development. Yet, I still can't believe why they would want to allocate already limited time to twist features that worked well in the first place. Couldn't they just have created a new story (Kind of like Awakenings) instead of wiping the slate clean and start over?

So I guess my question is: Wouldn't you have been happier if DAII had been using the same assets that made DA:O so succesful even though that's not expected of a sequel? We all expect sequels to be a vast improvement over the original but TBH, I'd much rather have a solid sequel that borrows from the original's strengths rather than have a weak sequel that tries too hard not to look like the original and in the end becomes a below-average game.

[Frankaidenryan]

Then you would have had exactly that: Awakenings II: The Blight Strikes Back. And people would have absolutely screamed at Bioware for rehasing the same stuff, and not being innovative enough. It just doesn't work that way. No one likes to be sold the same game twice.

Bioware already pleaded guilty for making it a rush job. The Legacy DLC was a huge step in the right direction. I fully trust they're on course for DA III.

[FrostyLazer]

Bonanza16 wrote...

I understand that EA imposed an unreasonable time-frame to the developers. After all, DA:O was in development for more than 5 years. DAII has been the product of 11- months of development. Yet, I still can't believe why they would want to allocate already limited time to twist features that worked well in the first place. Couldn't they just have created a new story (Kind of like Awakenings) instead of wiping the slate clean and start over?

They can start on production of a new game while the old game is not yet released. You need a lot of less writers (if any at all) and the end of production when you are just putting everything in there. To say DAII had an 11 months development time is just not true (ecpecially when compared to DA:O 5 years which is from start to finish)

I also think the original plan was they had more time. You get the feeling playing the game a lot of things where cut at the last minute to make the release date. So yea they should have taken a longer time for such a big change (or made something more like orgins). They do now have time though to take the things from DAII and take them where they where suposse to go (half of the work is already done)

[5trangeCase]

He isn't saying to rehash the story, but to rehash the game mechanics.

Create a new story, that could be about the Empress' many affairs with the world leaders of Thedas (hint: she did some naaaaaaaaasty stuff with the Ariqun!) but keep the game mechanics to save time.

[HanErlik]

Frankaidenryan wrote...

Then you would have had exactly that: Awakenings II: The Blight Strikes Back. And people would have absolutely screamed at Bioware for rehasing the same stuff, and not being innovative enough. It just doesn't work that way. No one likes to be sold the same game twice.

Bioware already pleaded guilty for making it a rush job. The Legacy DLC was a huge step in the right direction. I fully trust they're on course for DA III.

No. Fallout 2 and BG2  were succesful despite the limited developement time. Because they followed their predecessor, mainly focused on details and story. Nobody said "Aww this is exactly like Fallout, why didn't you add awesome button?" after Fallout 2's release. If you don't play with mechanics (like DA2 or Deus Ex: Invisible War), it is quite easy to make a succesful sequel to RPGs.

Modifié par HanErlik, 25 avril 2012 - 12:07 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

Frankaidenryan wrote...

Then you would have had exactly that: Awakenings II: The Blight Strikes Back. And people would have absolutely screamed at Bioware for rehasing the same stuff, and not being innovative enough. It just doesn't work that way. No one likes to be sold the same game twice.

Bioware already pleaded guilty for making it a rush job. The Legacy DLC was a huge step in the right direction. I fully trust they're on course for DA III.

Save it would have been longer, the story would be different, the characters would be different, the graphics would be different, they'd be new abilities and you'd have the dialogue wheel along with the friendship and rivalry system. So just imagine Dragon Age 2 being built on the Origins engine (yet containing better graphics but true to the original artstyle) with Origins combat but with a whole new story, new abilities, new specializations and the new dialogue wheel.

It might not feel completely innovative but can you say that Dragon Age 2 was? Dragon Age 2 didn't feel that new either save for the wave combat, stupid animations and button awesome. At heart it still had the team gameplay, abilities and emphasis on classes.

Bioware spent time on re-inventing the combat, giving the game a new artstyle and building a new engine. If they had built Dragon Age 2 on Origins engine with Origins combat then I'm certain it would have been greater than Dragon Age 2. It might have still ended up with the less epic story but we'd probably have seen less of the recycled enviroments, waves of enemies and choices not mattering which were the results of rushed development.

[Joy Divison]

Frankaidenryan wrote...

Then you would have had exactly that: Awakenings II: The Blight Strikes Back. And people would have absolutely screamed at Bioware for rehasing the same stuff, and not being innovative enough. It just doesn't work that way. No one likes to be sold the same game twice.

Because they like enyoy paying for a chicken sandwich when they ordered a steak dinner more, right?

Modifié par Joy Divison, 25 avril 2012 - 06:16 .

[Uccio]

DAO 2, I would have bought it in a heart beat.

[Bonanza16]

And who is responsible for the sudden art-style change? WHY?! What's the point of changing Flemeth, elves, Isabella, Alistair and qunari so much? What's up with that?

I'm glad some of you would have preferred another DA:O instead of an obvious spin-off... A sequel is just that...

[Tenshi]

Bonanza16 wrote...

And who is responsible for the sudden art-style change? WHY?! What's the point of changing Flemeth, elves, Isabella, Alistair and qunari so much? What's up with that?

I'm glad some of you would have preferred another DA:O instead of an obvious spin-off... A sequel is just that...

kossith (qunari ) were supposed to be like they are in da II. the fact that horns of ogre are looking like horns of arishok proves that  (if you even now dont know what im talking about than please dont comment on kossith), alistair didnt change a little bit and isabella is just sexier. about elves: they just dont look like undersized humans anymore.
to your last sentence: you would go mad if you didnt know that DA 2 wont be as good as DA 1 and they made spin-off. dont lie to urself.

Modifié par xxx2emo4Uxxx, 25 avril 2012 - 08:23 .

[Realmzmaster]

Kossith have horns . Sten in DAO was a Kossith born without horns. Kossith mages have their horns removed. Qunari are those who have converted or were born in the Qun. Kossith are born to the Qun. Qunari is a way of life not a race. The Kossith are the race.

So you think that Flemeth was just an old hag wilth great power. You tell me that women cannot change their apperance through the use of a clothing change and makeup? Actually I think Isabella looks much better than before and I like how seh grows through the game.

I did not want another DA:O. We already had gamers complaining about the aging engine. I was hoping for a better engine for DA2 not a updating of the old DAO engine.

[LinksOcarina]

HanErlik wrote...

Frankaidenryan wrote...

Then you would have had exactly that: Awakenings II: The Blight Strikes Back. And people would have absolutely screamed at Bioware for rehasing the same stuff, and not being innovative enough. It just doesn't work that way. No one likes to be sold the same game twice.

Bioware already pleaded guilty for making it a rush job. The Legacy DLC was a huge step in the right direction. I fully trust they're on course for DA III.

No. Fallout 2 and BG2  were succesful despite the limited developement time. Because they followed their predecessor, mainly focused on details and story. Nobody said "Aww this is exactly like Fallout, why didn't you add awesome button?" after Fallout 2's release. If you don't play with mechanics (like DA2 or Deus Ex: Invisible War), it is quite easy to make a succesful sequel to RPGs.

Time's have changed since then, especially considering you see yearly sequels and spinoffs from franchises, DLC add-ons, and other bits like that.

In fact, i'm glad they played with the mechanics, because now taking in Dragon Age III with the art asethetics they wanted to do before they had limitations is always a plus, and no one will complain about it being so radically different in the end.

[HanErlik]

LinksOcarina wrote...

HanErlik wrote...

Frankaidenryan wrote...

Then you would have had exactly that: Awakenings II: The Blight Strikes Back. And people would have absolutely screamed at Bioware for rehasing the same stuff, and not being innovative enough. It just doesn't work that way. No one likes to be sold the same game twice.

Bioware already pleaded guilty for making it a rush job. The Legacy DLC was a huge step in the right direction. I fully trust they're on course for DA III.

No. Fallout 2 and BG2  were succesful despite the limited developement time. Because they followed their predecessor, mainly focused on details and story. Nobody said "Aww this is exactly like Fallout, why didn't you add awesome button?" after Fallout 2's release. If you don't play with mechanics (like DA2 or Deus Ex: Invisible War), it is quite easy to make a succesful sequel to RPGs.

Time's have changed since then, especially considering you see yearly sequels and spinoffs from franchises, DLC add-ons, and other bits like that.

In fact, i'm glad they played with the mechanics, because now taking in Dragon Age III with the art asethetics they wanted to do before they had limitations is always a plus, and no one will complain about it being so radically different in the end.

Yeah, thing have changed since the golden of RPGs but somethings have never changed. You can look at CoD series, they almost re-release the same game in every year, still they sell as hell and take good scores from editors. They don't feel obliged to make a 180 degree turn. And RPG fans are a bit more conservative than others, "a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate" title was a crucial element to DA:O's success.

[Pasquale1234]

Bonanza16 wrote...

I understand that EA imposed an unreasonable time-frame to the developers. After all, DA:O was in development for more than 5 years. DAII has been the product of 11- months of development. Yet, I still can't believe why they would want to allocate already limited time to twist features that worked well in the first place. Couldn't they just have created a new story (Kind of like Awakenings) instead of wiping the slate clean and start over?

So I guess my question is: Wouldn't you have been happier if DAII had been using the same assets that made DA:O so succesful even though that's not expected of a sequel? We all expect sequels to be a vast improvement over the original but TBH, I'd much rather have a solid sequel that borrows from the original's strengths rather than have a weak sequel that tries too hard not to look like the original and in the end becomes a below-average game.

I've often wondered the same thing.

I would have been delighted with all of the DAO assets and mechanics kept as is, and a new story, locations, characters, etc. created as a true sequel.  There is not one single "improvement" in DA2 that added to my enjoyment of the game, in fact most of them had the opposite effect.  They stripped out many of the features and mechanics I liked - loved would be more accurate - and replaced them with things I do not like and did not want.

With DAO, I was thrilled to be getting invested in this amazing world called Thedas, and found myself wanting to consume some of the other media offered by the franchise.  My experience with DA2 leaves me feeling generally apathetic.  I'm still around because I'm a hopeful sort, looking for signs that they might do something with the The Next Thing that will arouse my interest again.  I guess we'll see.

[Bonanza16]

^ I completely agree with you! I really don't understand the change. I really, REALLY don't. It's almost like BioWare is ashamed of DA:O.

Yet, BioWare still seems to refuse going back. A shame, really.

[StElmo]

Art style is the best thing about this game. It is gorgeous.

[HanErlik]

Bonanza16 wrote...

^ I completely agree with you! I really don't understand the change. I really, REALLY don't. It's almost like BioWare is ashamed of DA:O.

Yet, BioWare still seems to refuse going back. A shame, really.

I think the new team wanted to leave their mark in this game, so they changed nearly everything in the game.

[Lookupatme]

[quote]Pasquale1234 wrote...

[quote]Bonanza16 wrote...

I understand that EA imposed an unreasonable time-frame to the developers. After all, DA:O was in development for more than 5 years. DAII has been the product of 11- months of development. Yet, I still can't believe why they would want to allocate already limited time to twist features that worked well in the first place. Couldn't they just have created a new story (Kind of like Awakenings) instead of wiping the slate clean and start over?

So I guess my question is: Wouldn't you have been happier if DAII had been using the same assets that made DA:O so succesful even though that's not expected of a sequel? We all expect sequels to be a vast improvement over the original but TBH, I'd much rather have a solid sequel that borrows from the original's strengths rather than have a weak sequel that tries too hard not to look like the original and in the end becomes a below-average game.
[/quote]

I've often wondered the same thing.

I would have been delighted with all of the DAO assets and mechanics kept as is, and a new story, locations, characters, etc. created as a true sequel.  There is not one single "improvement" in DA2 that added to my enjoyment of the game, in fact most of them had the opposite effect.  They stripped out many of the features and mechanics I liked - loved would be more accurate - and replaced them with things I do not like and did not want.

With DAO, I was thrilled to be getting invested in this amazing world called Thedas, and found myself wanting to consume some of the other media offered by the franchise.  My experience with DA2 leaves me feeling generally apathetic.  I'm still around because I'm a hopeful sort, looking for signs that they might do something with the The Next Thing that will arouse my interest again.  I guess we'll see.


my reply-
I agree wholeheartedly, I would have loved a proper sequel to DAO that followed in its footsteps building on everything that was good about the original as opposed to a complete reinvention that is DA2. I could write a page of A4 at the very least as to how inferior the sequel is to the original. I too hated the appearance changes.  With regards to why they did this well I agree short production time was definitely a factor as was greed. EA's pursuit of the mass market at the expense of their core fans,lies at the heart of this. They obviously thought they would sell a whole load more units if they were able to broaden the Dragon Age franchise appeal. They've won some new fans but have succeeded in alienating a whole lot more. From what I've heard they are going to try and appeal/appease  both audiences in DA3; I fear that an amalgamation of the 2 games is going to be a mess. Still one can only hope for the best I suppose ; I certainly won't be rushing out to buy DA3 if its a clone of DA2 at any rate. 

Modifié par Lookupatme, 28 avril 2012 - 11:33 .

[bEVEsthda]

Lookupatme wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Bonanza16 wrote...

I understand that EA imposed an unreasonable time-frame to the developers. After all, DA:O was in development for more than 5 years. DAII has been the product of 11- months of development. Yet, I still can't believe why they would want to allocate already limited time to twist features that worked well in the first place. Couldn't they just have created a new story (Kind of like Awakenings) instead of wiping the slate clean and start over?

So I guess my question is: Wouldn't you have been happier if DAII had been using the same assets that made DA:O so succesful even though that's not expected of a sequel? We all expect sequels to be a vast improvement over the original but TBH, I'd much rather have a solid sequel that borrows from the original's strengths rather than have a weak sequel that tries too hard not to look like the original and in the end becomes a below-average game.

I've often wondered the same thing.

I would have been delighted with all of the DAO assets and mechanics kept as is, and a new story, locations, characters, etc. created as a true sequel.  There is not one single "improvement" in DA2 that added to my enjoyment of the game, in fact most of them had the opposite effect.  They stripped out many of the features and mechanics I liked - loved would be more accurate - and replaced them with things I do not like and did not want.

With DAO, I was thrilled to be getting invested in this amazing world called Thedas, and found myself wanting to consume some of the other media offered by the franchise.  My experience with DA2 leaves me feeling generally apathetic.  I'm still around because I'm a hopeful sort, looking for signs that they might do something with the The Next Thing that will arouse my interest again.  I guess we'll see.


my reply-
I agree wholeheartedly, I would have loved a proper sequel to DAO that followed in its footsteps building on everything that was good about the original as opposed to a complete reinvention that is DA2. I could write a page of A4 at the very least as to how inferior the sequel is to the original. I too hated the appearance changes.  With regards to why they did this well I agree short production time was definitely a factor as was greed. EA's pursuit of the mass market at the expense of their core fans,lies at the heart of this. They obviously thought they would sell a whole load more units if they were able to broaden the Dragon Age franchise appeal. They've won some new fans but have succeeded in alienating a whole lot more. From what I've heard they are going to try and appeal/appease  both audiences in DA3; I fear that an amalgamation of the 2 games is going to be a mess. Still one can only hope for the best I suppose ; I certainly won't be rushing out to buy DA3 if its a clone of DA2 at any rate. 

Yes! See how easy this is?  Just keep it as it stands.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 29 avril 2012 - 10:24 .

[Nefla]

I would would much rather have had that development time spent on making a deep, compelling, and coherent story, more interaction with npcs, party members, and LIs, choices that matter, and a good ending than reinventing the game mechanics. (which I didn't care about at ALL) Especially if we could have origin or backgrounds to pick from or if we have to have a set main character like Hawke, at least have one with a developed backstory.

[Bonanza16]

they could have had so much time if they kept the original combat mechanics, darkspawn, qunari race designs etc (updating it a little) and focus on a new story and origins!!!

also, some people would say a sequel cannot be too much like the previous instalment but CoD does it and most importantly, ME3 did it...

i think DAIII is going to be a lot like DAII, just like ME3 was a lot like ME2...

[Pasquale1234]

Bonanza16 wrote...

they could have had so much time if they kept the original combat mechanics, darkspawn, qunari race designs etc (updating it a little) and focus on a new story and origins!!!

also, some people would say a sequel cannot be too much like the previous instalment but CoD does it and most importantly, ME3 did it...

i think DAIII is going to be a lot like DAII, just like ME3 was a lot like ME2...

I agree - because most of the dev's response to the feedback we've seen thus far points in that direction.  Unless something changes significantly, I won't be buying it, at least not until it goes into the clearance bin.  (and maybe not even then).

OTOH, if they choose to restore the mechanics and features I so loved in DAO, I'll eat it up, along with the all of the other franchise media.

[Unknown_Warrior]

Well, DAO looked really ugly to me. Almost cringeworthy, it was as if it was >3 years outdated.
I had a lot of gripes with DA2, but the new mechanics and appearances was definitely not one of them.

The lack of development did mean they didn't look and feel as well as they could, though. Hopefully, DA3 will build on DA2 without having to do major system changes.

[Lookupatme]

Bonanza16 wrote...

they could have had so much time if they kept the original combat mechanics, darkspawn, qunari race designs etc (updating it a little) and focus on a new story and origins!!!

also, some people would say a sequel cannot be too much like the previous instalment but CoD does it and most importantly, ME3 did it...

i think DAIII is going to be a lot like DAII, just like ME3 was a lot like ME2...

 

Absolutely, Bioware should have adopted the posture if its not broken  then don't try to fix it. They wasted time making changes that were non-essential  to effectively reinvent the original to make it more mass market and took their eye off the ball in terms of essentials- that make a good   rpg : a well developed storyline, commanding characters,multiple cities/locations to explore and lots of interaction and customisation. I will still take a keen interest in the development of DA3 as I loved Dragon Age Origins so much; in the vain hope that Bioware will take account of the uproar that has been caused by such a feeble sequel that is the less than noteworthy-  DA2.