188 réponses à ce sujet

[Zanallen]

DuskWarden wrote...

They still have this branching possibility, except with DAO2 and DA3 instead of Exodus 2 and DA2. I think calling DA2 DA: Exodus or DA:Kirkwall would have saved a lot of headaches though, and kinda wish they had done. It would have meant that a return to an Origins style game was still somewhat possible.

I've always found this to be an exceptionally silly argument. Allow me to quote Shakespeare: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet." If you didn't like Dragon Age 2, you won't suddenly like Dragon Age: Exodus by virtue of it having a different name. It would have still been the second main game in the Dragon Age franchise and would still technically be Dragon Age 2. If they name the third game Dragon Age: Crumbuts From Tevinter it will still be the third main game in the series and, by virtue of that, be Dragon Age 3.

[Jerrybnsn]

Rojahar wrote...

iheartbob wrote...

Considering that many game reviewers admit to not even putting in the time for a full playthrough and finishing the games they review

I don't think a lot of reviewers even play the games they review at all considering how copy/paste and shallow a lot of reviews are...

This I've noticed too considering how they can miss certain aspects of a game that the general consensus of users complain about.  ME3's ending being the best example.  A lot of the reviews do look like copy and paste from original "previews" and have certain catch phrases released in earlier developers' articles.

To say I don't read reviews anymore isn't entirely accurate.  I still read them to get a better understanding of the concept of the game and the mechanics that go with it, but I totally disregard their scores on the basis that most reviews are automatically higher than what I would score them at.  I suppose it has a lot to do with that they don't have a monetary value attached to the games they are playing like I would.  If I shelled out $60 for a game that doesn't have a begining or an end, a la ME3, I'm giving you a low score because that was what I was expecting.

[Jerrybnsn]

Zanallen wrote...


I've always found this to be an exceptionally silly argument. Allow me to quote Shakespeare: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet." If you didn't like Dragon Age 2, you won't suddenly like Dragon Age: Exodus by virtue of it having a different name. It would have still been the second main game in the Dragon Age franchise and would still technically be Dragon Age 2. If they name the third game Dragon Age: Crumbuts From Tevinter it will still be the third main game in the series and, by virtue of that, be Dragon Age 3.

Yeah, but sequels generally get graded harder than debut IPs.

First, there are a certain expectations by the fans that expect an equal to or better game by the sake of comparison.  If they made DA2 into a completely original IP without using Thedas, darkspawn, or blood mages, then it would be graded on its own merit.
 
Secondly, a sequel brings about a certain expectation of continuation of storyline and returning of original characters which DA2 did not.  If it was named something else and not presented as a sequel than the expectations of seeing the continuation of the storyline and returning characters would have not been there to further criticism of DA2.

And finally, sequels often have pressure by game reviewers of being labled "stagnent" to any game mechanics brought forward from the orignial game.  So it seems that developers make changes just for change sake to avoid the stagnant lable, often disregarding what worked in the first game and what didn't.

The name DA2 put these three variables on its own self; whereas, changing the name would have avoided extra criticism.

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 08 juillet 2012 - 09:06 .

[Get Magna Carter]

While I generally consider length to be a good thing what is done during that time is important.
I gave up on Breath of Fire 3 after 30 hours of boredom playing a kid too young to speak who seemed to spend his whole life running away from bad guys.
I consider Way of the Samurai to be better than it's sequels because it feels like a true INTERACTIVE "movie" (not to be confused with the more common "interactive" MOVIE) while the sequels added to the length by padding the game with unremarkable sidemissions unrelated to the story. (Note: length from story = good, length from padding = bad). The key thing about The Way of the Samurai is the amount of control the player has over their role in events ((impractical in a long game) which adds a lot of replay value.

[Get Magna Carter]

Rojahar wrote...

iheartbob wrote...

Considering that many game reviewers admit to not even putting in the time for a full playthrough and finishing the games they review

I don't think a lot of reviewers even play the games they review at all considering how copy/paste and shallow a lot of reviews are...

I think it used to be a lot worse than it is now
I remember a 1997 review of Suikoden - the first third seemed to be background notes copied from somewhere with virtually no connection to the events in the game, In the second third the reviewer guessed what the gameplay was like and failed to get any detail right (had no idea how the combat system worked), and the final third waffling on about a general dislke but not actually saying anything.
While there are still many bad reviews (And I include the review of DA:origins which was more focussed on nitpicking the script than anything else), I doubt if many published reviews are THAT bad now.

[Uccio]

I loved the Deep Roads in DAO. The claustrofobic feeling after walking endless tunnels and ruins was awesome. The remains of once so proud dwarven kingdoms now filled with ruins, monsters and darkspawn. Much better than in DA2.

[Zanallen]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Zanallen wrote...


I've always found this to be an exceptionally silly argument. Allow me to quote Shakespeare: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet." If you didn't like Dragon Age 2, you won't suddenly like Dragon Age: Exodus by virtue of it having a different name. It would have still been the second main game in the Dragon Age franchise and would still technically be Dragon Age 2. If they name the third game Dragon Age: Crumbuts From Tevinter it will still be the third main game in the series and, by virtue of that, be Dragon Age 3.

Yeah, but sequels generally get graded harder than debut IPs.

First, there are a certain expectations by the fans that expect an equal to or better game by the sake of comparison.  If they made DA2 into a completely original IP without using Thedas, darkspawn, or blood mages, then it would be graded on its own merit.
 
Secondly, a sequel brings about a certain expectation of continuation of storyline and returning of original characters which DA2 did not.  If it was named something else and not presented as a sequel than the expectations of seeing the continuation of the storyline and returning characters would have not been there to further criticism of DA2.

And finally, sequels often have pressure by game reviewers of being labled "stagnent" to any game mechanics brought forward from the orignial game.  So it seems that developers make changes just for change sake to avoid the stagnant lable, often disregarding what worked in the first game and what didn't.

The name DA2 put these three variables on its own self; whereas, changing the name would have avoided extra criticism.

No. No one suggested they should have made it a different IP altogether. The discussion I quoted was about calling the Dragon Age game something other than Dragon Age 2 (Like DA: Kirkwall or DA: Exodus or DA: Apple-Bottom Girls). Not making it a stand alone IP that had nothing to do with the Dragon Age franchise. No matter what they called the second game it would still be the second Dragon Age game and thus the sequel to DAO.

[AstraDrakkar]

I happen to prefer long RPG's like DAO, as long as the quests pertain to the story and aren't just filler "fetch" quests. If an RPG is too short I dont really feel like I'm a part of the story. One of the things that bugs me about DA2 were the time jumps over a 10 year span. I just feel like so much was left out and that I really didn't get to know my companions, as they changed little over that 10 year span.

Modifié par AstraDrakkar, 08 juillet 2012 - 05:39 .

[nightscrawl]

Wulfram wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...

No, you can't argue that. Completing companion quests is required in DA2 if you want to convince the person to stay with you if you pick a side that is against their base beliefs. If you choose templar and need Merrill, you must have either max friendship OR max rivalry, and have completed all of her quests.

But if you don't choose Templar, then all doing her quest achieves is dead *spoily person* or even *spoily people*

Other companions have the same requirements if you choose mage instead. It would only be truly optional if your choice to not finish their quests had no impact on party structure, and only on the overall story. That is not the case.

[nightscrawl]

Zanallen wrote...

No matter what they called the second game it would still be the second Dragon Age game and thus the sequel to DAO.

Yes, I've always wondered why people harp on the title this way. The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions were titled in that style, instead of The Matrix 2 and The Matrix 3 and no one questions that those are sequels...

A sequel is a narrative, documental, or other work of literature, film, theatre, or music that continues the story of or expands upon issues presented in some previous work.

[Jayleia]

Long, where you're running around doing a variety of different things that change your experience in interesting and dynamic ways? 100+ hours for one game would be GREAT.

For a game running back and forth dropping items off for no real change in your ending experience? 100 MINUTES would be too long

[Sylvius the Mad]

Zanallen wrote...

I've always found this to be an exceptionally silly argument. Allow me to quote Shakespeare: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet." If you didn't like Dragon Age 2, you won't suddenly like Dragon Age: Exodus by virtue of it having a different name. It would have still been the second main game in the Dragon Age franchise and would still technically be Dragon Age 2. If they name the third game Dragon Age: Crumbuts From Tevinter it will still be the third main game in the series and, by virtue of that, be Dragon Age 3.

Public perception matters.  BioWare is not likely to do something that people will perceive as moving backward.  A different naming convention, though, might have allowed them to do exactly the same thing without people perceiving it as backward.

[Fallstar]

Zanallen wrote...

DuskWarden wrote...
They still have this branching possibility, except with DAO2 and DA3 instead of Exodus 2 and DA2. I think calling DA2 DA: Exodus or DA:Kirkwall would have saved a lot of headaches though, and kinda wish they had done. It would have meant that a return to an Origins style game was still somewhat possible.

I've always found this to be an exceptionally silly argument. Allow me to quote Shakespeare: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet." If you didn't like Dragon Age 2, you won't suddenly like Dragon Age: Exodus by virtue of it having a different name. It would have still been the second main game in the Dragon Age franchise and would still technically be Dragon Age 2. If they name the third game Dragon Age: Crumbuts From Tevinter it will still be the third main game in the series and, by virtue of that, be Dragon Age 3.

Of course it would still be the second game in the franchise.  But calling it DA:Exodus would have made the position that Exodus was an experiment, and that they could still go back to numbered sequels in the style of Origins, a possibility. And whilst what Shakespeare has to say is all well and good, people do read a lot into names.