82 réponses à ce sujet

[BubbleDncr]

My impression was that the art for Origins was made so long ago, because that game had such a long development period, that the devs just were no longer happy with it. They felt that they could do better. So they changed their art direction for DA2 so that they could carry it (and its assets) forward into DA3 and oneward, rather than a) being stuck with an art style they weren't proud of, or not changing art styles until the 3rd game, at which point people would throw an even bigger fit.

[haroldhardluck]

LeBurns wrote...
The OP is one of the things I kept asking myself over and over again when DA2 first came out. It begged the age old question of "Why fix something that isn't broken?". Granted there are times when you should but I don't believe that DA2 was one of those times.

SSI used to churn out a D&D game every 6-9 months by re-using the same game engine with minimum improvements. They were constantly criticized in reviews of not improving the game engine. In time they got left far behind by other companies when it came to graphics and game mechanics. The game industry is a creative business so changes are expected because competitors are always trying to "one-up" existing games from other companies.

DAO may not be "broken" but clearly much of its game mechanics needed improvement as did the art rendering. The warrior was a useless class as a rogue could be made into a warrior/rogue through the right selection of weapon skills. In the Deep Roads, the shading was so badly done that you often could not tell when the floor ended and the walls began. A game that took 5 years to develop is a game that is at least 2 generations old when it comes to game technology.

Harold

[eroeru]

haroldhardluck wrote...

Jitter wrote...
well there are more stupid people in the world ....
marketing decision .... more 10 year olds in the world than there are 28 year olds .... 
ooooh look boobies ... 

the next dlc should come with ritalin ... 

EA was one of the early game producers and is still around while its competitors such as Sierra Online and Interplay are long gone. The reason is EA is a top notch marketing company. They know who buys their games and why. They started producing console games when they first came out and caught rhe explosion of PS, Xbox, etc. games from day one. EA has ridden the ups and downs of the game industry to become one of the largest producer of games today.

One of the things that makes EA so very successful is knowing when fan feedback is infantile whining and when it is making a genuine point..

Harold

Sooo....

How were you able to avoid EA's sacking of employed "trolls"? Are you really so good at it? Does it pay well?

(sorry in case you're actually not one and are offended or something:P)

[Cigne]

I believe DAO took longer than five years, start to release.

The game was designed for the pc and only ported to consoles at the last minute.

It sold much better on consoles than pc, despite the pc version recieving better reviews.

A common criticism of DAO in reviews was that the graphics looked dated, as in the engine was already showing it's age. (Understandable given its long development)

...So they rebuilt the game engine to run better on consoles, and why not? I don't own a console, but that's where the sales were at, for a game that was promoted as Bioware's showing the pc crowd that they weren't forgotten (after KotOR, JE, and ME).

That's my guess, anyway.

Given that Bioware probably has allotted a longer development cycle for DA3, to be able to address the fans other concerns (more polish! better execution!)* I wonder how drastic the changes planned for the engine are going to be.

Or will we get a new engine?

*(well, those are MY concerns.)

[Jestina]

haroldhardluck wrote...
DAO may not be "broken" but clearly much of its game mechanics needed improvement as did the art rendering. The warrior was a useless class as a rogue could be made into a warrior/rogue through the right selection of weapon skills. In the Deep Roads, the shading was so badly done that you often could not tell when the floor ended and the walls began. A game that took 5 years to develop is a game that is at least 2 generations old when it comes to game technology.

Warriors were not useless. S&S and 2H warriors were great if you did your build right. And as for rogues...DA II made them even more ridiculous by adding the ninja poofing.

[haroldhardluck]

Jestina wrote...
Warriors were not useless. S&S and 2H warriors were great if you did your build right. And as for rogues...DA II made them even more ridiculous by adding the ninja poofing.

In DAO warriors are useless as a rogue can be made into a good warrior so there is no reason to ever play a wrrior in that game. In DA2, rogues cannot be made into a good warrior because they can no longer get the weapon skills of a warrior and warriors are given some useful fighting abilities that cannot be matched by a rogue.

In addition, locks in DA2 have multiple levels. In DAO there was really only two levels, easy and very hard with almost all locks being easy. Combined with only 4 levels of lockpicking skills and you had extra skill points to put into warrior weapons skills in DAO. In DA2 there are 4 levels of lock difficulty and you need to get Cunning up to 40 points to open all locks. This left little points for Strength and Constitution which are needed for a good warrior, making it very hard to make a rogue into a tough buff warrior/rogue.

So in DAO it made sense to play a rogue/warrior while in DA2 it did not. Instead in DA2 it made sense to have a warrior because you could not make a good rogue/warrior and the story arc always had Varric available to you.

Harold

[Jestina]

Warriors were not useless, you more than likely just didn't know how to play them. 2H warriors and S&S warrors were great...one as a pure damage dealer and the other as a tank. If you screw up on your build though, then of course they will seem useless. 2H warriors required that you learned time and chain attacks to be effective. Not as much of a learning curve with warriors in DAII.  Rogues are way more op in DAII than they were in DA:O. You don't even have to be tactical with DAII's rogues as you can just auto poof behind someone.

Modifié par Jestina, 04 mai 2012 - 12:30 .

[haroldhardluck]

Jestina wrote...
Warriors were not useless, you more than likely just didn't know how to play them.

You are completely missing my point so I will repeat it one more time and call it quits.  In DAO you can create a rogue that is as good as any warrior as a fighter. Since you have the rogue and warrior abiliries as a rogue, there is no need to ever play a warrior. You can play a rogue as a warrior and get the rogue specialties as well. I know exactly how to play a warrior. I play my rogue as a warrior who can also pick locks and disarm traps. This makes a warrior in DAO useless as a rogue can totally replace the warrior as a warrior.

Harold

[Realmzmaster]

Warriors are not useless in DAO, but they can be replaced. You can spec a rogue to become a warrior with rogue abilities you cannot do it the other way. A warrior cannot have rogue abilities. A rogue can be spec so it can tank and wear heavy armor. The only disadvantage the rogue has is that it cannot use a shield or two handed

[Face of Evil]

Indeed, my main Warden was a tank rogue.

I think a lot of people wear rose-coloured glasses when it comes to DAO. "Oh, Origins was the most absolutely perfect game ever! DAO singlehandedly united all races in perfect harmony and cleared up my erectile dysfunction! Everyone loved it and don't you dare say otherwise."

Sure, it was a very fun and much-beloved game, but there were also a great number of people who complained BITTERLY about the graphics, the story's similarity to other Bioware games, the silent protagonist, the clunky combat mechanics, etc. While I often defended DAO, I've come to think of it as lightning in a bottle — it achieves greatness in spite of itself, and I can't really put my finger on why.

DA2 at least tried to address those complaints, but to hear people talk, they think the studio decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater because their dark masters at EA demanded a cash cow be sacrificed in their name. DA2 also made some pretty severe missteps and obviously needed more time to be spent on it, but I credit DA2 for taking some huge risks story-wise and tackling some pretty weighty issues.

But wait, I forget that DA2 was made to appeal to the "consoletards" and 12-year-olds, as evidenced by the characters jump around when they fight and DA2 lacks DAO's mature storyline. Because no adult could possibly like flashy combat, and all little kids everywhere want storylines laced with morally grey conflicts with no clear distinction between right and wrong. That's why My Little Pony is so popular these days.

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.

This man speaks truth.

Modifié par Face of Evil, 04 mai 2012 - 08:40 .

[Jestina]

Well, they haven't put much out that would be considered quality or innovative since they merged with EA. It's all about rushing to meet deadlines now, making money takes precedence over a making a quality product. Innovation right now would be making actual RPG's instead of turning RPG's in action games for console players. There's a serious drought in RPG's...and has been for several years now.

[Face of Evil]

Jestina wrote...

Innovation right now would be making actual RPG's instead of turning RPG's in action games for console players.

And what, pray tell, is an actual RPG? Is it something that only a true Scotsman would play?

Modifié par Face of Evil, 04 mai 2012 - 09:47 .

[FDrage]

Face of Evil wrote...


DA2 at least tried to address those complaints, but to hear people talk, they think the studio decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater because their dark masters at EA demanded a cash cow be sacrificed in their name. DA2 also made some pretty severe missteps and obviously needed more time to be spent on it, but I credit DA2 for taking some huge risks story-wise and tackling some pretty weighty issues.

Tried .. and went 2 steps tooo far. While the quality of the graphics migh have improved somewhat the style (which is a taste thing admittly ) certainly hasn't.
Combat was less tactical and more rush around. I get the "complains" about the "slow combat" but instead of improving they went overboard.
I didn't buy Legacy because DA2 disappointed me too much on a basic level to "trust" them with a DLC that still would have most of the same basic things in it. The biggest problem for Legacy was it's association with DA2.
was DA:O a better game .. no as there was plenty of areas to improve. Bioware listen and went 2 steps tooo far. The sweet spot probably would be in between DA:O and DA2 and not just a little bit outside DA2.
They made classes more distinct by deleteing class choices. Personally I liked my DW warrior way more then a DW rogue (for me playing them was cumberson and not fun .. but that is just me).

DA2 story wise was an interesting concept and it was one of the points that actually made me buy it as I wanted to see if they pulled the "framed narative" bit off. For me it was a bit of a mix bag (overall) but that was probably due to the more limited development time. Set aside that the VO style change for varric when he narated the "time jump" compared to his talks with Casandra felt more creepy and less like a "story teller trying to catch the audience" instead of making them "run away" ... weird.

DA3 is a new product so I will give them the benefit of a doubt for that and will see what they come up with. Beside DA-game have a big important draw for me .. the lore (changeable as it is). Also it can show me what direction game mechanics wise they are going and if it is a "2 steps too far approach" or not.

[Bonanza16]

Face of Evil wrote...

Indeed, my main Warden was a tank rogue.

I think a lot of people wear rose-coloured glasses when it comes to DAO. "Oh, Origins was the most absolutely perfect game ever! DAO singlehandedly united all races in perfect harmony and cleared up my erectile dysfunction! Everyone loved it and don't you dare say otherwise."

Sure, it was a very fun and much-beloved game, but there were also a great number of people who complained BITTERLY about the graphics, the story's similarity to other Bioware games, the silent protagonist, the clunky combat mechanics, etc. While I often defended DAO, I've come to think of it as lightning in a bottle — it achieves greatness in spite of itself, and I can't really put my finger on why.

DA2 at least tried to address those complaints, but to hear people talk, they think the studio decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater because their dark masters at EA demanded a cash cow be sacrificed in their name. DA2 also made some pretty severe missteps and obviously needed more time to be spent on it, but I credit DA2 for taking some huge risks story-wise and tackling some pretty weighty issues.

But wait, I forget that DA2 was made to appeal to the "consoletards" and 12-year-olds, as evidenced by the characters jump around when they fight and DA2 lacks DAO's mature storyline. Because no adult could possibly like flashy combat, and all little kids everywhere want storylines laced with morally grey conflicts with no clear distinction between right and wrong. That's why My Little Pony is so popular these days.

I'm sorry but DA:O was well received by both critics and gamers alike and DAII was not. Of course, there were a few who complained and I don't blame them because it's not their cup of tea. I complain about Skyrim all the time. 

Also, to those who say that a rogue could be made into a warrior: Were you able to tank? Were you able to draw threat away from allies? It's like an Arcane Warrior. Sure, with the right abilities, it could be made into a warrior too. It was cool to have the option, like it was cool to let rogues wear heavy armor. I really, really don't see why it bothers you guys... Especially when DAII just removes that ability. OK you've turned a rogue into a DPS (Not tank) warrior... So? You could also have played a regular rogue, right? In DAII. however, you only play as a bland rogue. In the original, you had choice.

As well, in DAII, you didn't even have to plan your character.

Mage? Magic + Willpower

Rogue? Dex + Cun

Warrior? STR + CONST

It's the same all the time. No flexibility whatsoever. I don't see why the option bothers you guys. When you purposely turn a rogue into a warrior (because the game let you), you then complain about it. 

[Uccio]

haroldhardluck wrote...


In DAO warriors are useless as a rogue can be made into a good warrior so there is no reason to ever play a wrrior in that game. In DA2, rogues cannot be made into a good warrior because they can no longer get the weapon skills of a warrior and warriors are given some useful fighting abilities that cannot be matched by a rogue.

So in DAO it made sense to play a rogue/warrior while in DA2 it did not. Instead in DA2 it made sense to have a warrior because you could not make a good rogue/warrior and the story arc always had Varric available to you.

Harold

Errr.. so whats it to you then? I mean you are not forced to play warrior rogue are you, nobody is forcing your hand? I believe people are old enough to decide for themselves to what kind of characters they make. They do not need to be spoon fed ala DA2.

I really hated DA2 style where even weapons were so limited that you could only use one type. Like dagger in the case of rogue. I wish more light weapons like scimitars, rapiers or spears would come back BG style.

[keesio74]

Everyone screaming to have a DA:O 2, Let's not forget DA:O was not a perfect game. It had flaws. I would hope that Bioware would want to fix those flaws. They just went too far and also changed stuff that was not "broken".

[Face of Evil]

Bonanza16 wrote...

I'm sorry but DA:O was well received by both critics and gamers alike and DAII was not. Of course, there were a few who complained and I don't blame them because it's not their cup of tea.

Actually, DA2 was very well-received by critics at the start. It was only later when the fanbase turned on DA2 that the critics all said "Holy ****, better pull a 180 on that one or else lose what little credibility we got".

And no, it was more than "a few". It's actually rather amusing to see so many people who criticized every aspect of DAO now screeching claims of franchise rape. But as I said before, rose-coloured glasses, yo.

The sad thing is that DA2's strengths are now ignored by virtue of association with DA2. Hence the critical trouncing of Legacy despite the fact that it was heads and shoulders above any DLC released in conjunction with Origins.

Modifié par Face of Evil, 04 mai 2012 - 04:43 .

[hussey 92]

Face of Evil wrote...

Bonanza16 wrote...

I'm sorry but DA:O was well received by both critics and gamers alike and DAII was not. Of course, there were a few who complained and I don't blame them because it's not their cup of tea.

Actually, DA2 was very well-received by critics at the start. It was only later when the fanbase turned on DA2 that the critics all said "Holy ****, better pull a 180 on that one or else lose what little credibility we got".

And no, it was more than "a few". It's actually rather amusing to see so many people who criticized every aspect of DAO now screeching claims of franchise rape. But as I said before, rose-coloured glasses, yo.

The sad thing is that DA2's strengths are now ignored by virtue of association with DA2. Hence the critical trouncing of Legacy despite the fact that it was heads and shoulders above any DLC released in conjunction with Origins.

Led Zeppelin was poorly recieved by critics, but do to an overwhelming acceptance from fans, the critics had to change  there opinions.  I trust the fanbase more than I trust critcs most of the time.

And it's not uncommon to see a games strenghths overshadowed by their weaknesses.   Look at Alpha Protocal.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Frankaidenryan wrote...

The Legacy DLC was a huge step in the right direction.

Legacy improved one thing - the level design - left most of the other broken things the same, and made the player agency problem worse by introducing ambient conversations with auto-dialogue.

Legacy was not a huge step in the right direction.

[Sylvius the Mad]

keesio74 wrote...

Everyone screaming to have a DA:O 2, Let's not forget DA:O was not a perfect game. It had flaws.

Not many.

I would hope that Bioware would want to fix those flaws. They just went too far and also changed stuff that was not "broken".

Like the silent protagonist, the tactical combat, the class roles.  The vast majority of new content in DA2 was worse than what it replaced.

[rapscallioness]

I strongly suspect the reason some players stopped playing DA:O so soon was because of the clumsy execution of the combat. More tactical combat is great, but the execution of it. Ugh. I really didn't like it.

I want more tactical combat like in DA:O, but with the impact and flow of DA2.

In DA:O I feel more like I'm aggressively going after an appetizer tray with a toothpick than slaying darkspawn.

[keesio74]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Legacy improved one thing - the level design - left most of the other broken things the same, and made the player agency problem worse by introducing ambient conversations with auto-dialogue.

Legacy was not a huge step in the right direction.

Legacy also did not abuse the whole "spawn waves of enemies out of thin air" as badly as the main game. This made comabt much more satisfying.

[Sylvius the Mad]

keesio74 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Legacy improved one thing - the level design - left most of the other broken things the same, and made the player agency problem worse by introducing ambient conversations with auto-dialogue.

Legacy was not a huge step in the right direction.

Legacy also did not abuse the whole "spawn waves of enemies out of thin air" as badly as the main game. This made comabt much more satisfying.

It still did it far too much, and it still prohibited the player from initiating combat, and it still failed to allow any reconnaissance.

Unless you're fighting demons that spring from the floor, the player should be able to investigate the area in advance and find all of the enemies.

[keesio74]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

It still did it far too much, and it still prohibited the player from initiating combat, and it still failed to allow any reconnaissance.

Unless you're fighting demons that spring from the floor, the player should be able to investigate the area in advance and find all of the enemies.

yes I 100% agree with everything you said. I'm just saying that at least Legacy was still better than the main game with respect to this.

Modifié par keesio74, 04 mai 2012 - 08:16 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Legacy may have done it less, but it did it enough to make playing it an unpleasant chore.

The waves are a symptom of a desire to produce a specific gameplay experience without regard for the coherence of the game's setting. We see this in other ways in Legacy, as well.

There were 3 golems with differing resistances, and they attacked in series. Why? Why didn't all three golems attack at once?

BioWare wanted us to see those differences, and deal with them in sequence, and find the encounter engaging and creative. And it did that, but it didn't make any sense.

I think BioWare is focussing too much on the gameplay experience and not enough on maintaining a coherent setting.