329 réponses à ce sujet

[Pasquale1234]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I can appreciate that - but I think there are plenty of ways to avoid making the same game every cycle without changing the mechanics and interface so severely as to render some formerly supported playstyles null and void.

What are the plenty of ways? Is there any guarantee that your plenty of ways are the same as my plenty of ways?

Should they be?

I'm not a career game developer, but I can think of a few ways to make a different game without changing all of the mechanics, character designs, and art style to the degree that DA2 did.  Like, for example -

1.  New locations, characters, and storyline on the same game mechanics.
2.  Different ways to utilize existing mechanics, e.g. stealth.
3.  New crafting abilities - like armorsmithing or weapon repair.
4.  Different ways to earn or unlock specializations.  For that matter,
5.  Different specializations, maybe only one to a customer, and have the game world react to them (blood mage, anyone?)
6.  Speaking of specializations, I've played cRPGs that required the player (and followers) to go to a school or instructor to learn each new skill, and they weren't always successful.  I suppose some players might find that tedious, boring, whatev, but I find this system of automatically gaining the skills you select on level-up to be a bit overly simplistic.
7.  Multiple ways to solve quests - diplomacy, subterfuge, problem-solving, something other than combat.
8.  Developing charisma / coercion / diplomacy skills.  It could be pretty interesting to play an entire game without needing to go into combat at all.
9.  More political shenanigans - maybe delve deeply into the different fraternities within the circle.
10.  There are different types of UIs for VO protag, too, besides the dialog wheel/ paraphrases that were selected.

... and at least a bazillion more.

To be perfectly frank, it seems like you basically are telling me "Well, you're only allowed to do something different as long as it's what Pasquale1234 feels is acceptably different, not what Allan thinks is acceptably different."

To be perfectly frank, it seems like you basically are presuming a whole lot from a simple response statement.

To make things clearer: I like what we tried to do with Dragon Age 2 and I stand behind many of the decisions that we attempted to do I find it unfortunate that it missed the mark with so many people, and there are definite shortcomings with DA2. It's on us to make sure we do better in the future. But I'm not disappointed that we didn't just do nothing aside from make a DA2 that was just a new story with DAO's engine and not try to do something different.

Good for you.  No snark there - I'm not a big fan of snark.  People should feel good about their work.  It's clear that you've invested a lot in your career, and personal satisfaction should be among the rewards you receive from all of your hard work.

It is true, though, that some of the changes you made from DAO --> DA2 rendered some people's playstyles, mine included, impossible.  I get that some people enjoy the prospect of making some selections and then watching to see how things play out, allowing the protag to reveal himself as the game progresses.  That isn't how I role-play, though.  I need much more control over the character and pacing than DA2 affords.  And, yeah, I'm really bummed about it - because it seems like y'all are planning to continue in this direction.

I'm not here griping about the story, the combat, the re-used maps, the characters, or any of the other features that will be different in the next game.  My real issue is the voiced protag / dialog wheel / parphrases, because those are the components that have rendered my playstyle impossible.

I didn't actually state "heavy" emotional response. I'm simply referring to making me care about the characters and the setting. Any emotional response. Most games do not typically do this for me. I consider it a good thing when a game can actually make me emotionally invested. Given my original comment, I am not able to really ascertain the point you were trying to make with this part of your post. I'm assuming that it's because there was a misinterpretation somewhere.

It's possible, I suppose.  Or maybe I wasn't very clear with my response.

The emotional response is one of the reasons why I've enjoyed BioWare's games.  The characters and stories are usually amazing, the writing phenomenal.  I think we might agree on this point. 

And I know that Gaider delights in yanking the audience's strings.  It is, after all, a mark of excellence in writing.

But lately, I feel like it's gone too far in some ways - like Hawke starting out with a family, then having them exit one by one.  Can you imagine the kind of reaction you might have had if Harry Potter had to watch not only Sirius and Dumbledore, but also Hagrid, McGonagall, and the adult Weasleys get picked off one by one?  That's kind of how I feel with some of the things that BioWare has done lately.  When you take too much away from a character with tragedy after tragedy, injustice piled on top of injustice, failure upon failure, the impact of each one is diminished until all that's left is this hollow, empty, numb sort of feeling.  At least, that's the way it works for me.

[RaggieRags]

Pasquale1234 wrote...
But lately, I feel like it's gone too far in some ways - like Hawke starting out with a family, then having them exit one by one.  Can you imagine the kind of reaction you might have had if Harry Potter had to watch not only Sirius and Dumbledore, but also Hagrid, McGonagall, and the adult Weasleys get picked off one by one?  That's kind of how I feel with some of the things that BioWare has done lately.  When you take too much away from a character with tragedy after tragedy, injustice piled on top of injustice, failure upon failure, the impact of each one is diminished until all that's left is this hollow, empty, numb sort of feeling.  At least, that's the way it works for me.

Hm, I see your point. For example, I was once a big Buffy fan. At one point I realized that nobody in the show was going to be happy and everyone was expendable for the sake of drama. At that point I stopped caring about the characters, and after that I stopped caring about the show. I enjoyed the drama, but I didn't enjoy being played by the writers.

I remember watching the making of video of Jaws, and Steven Spielberg explained how one part of the movie got screams out of the test audience. He decided to change another scene before it, because he thought he was going to make people scream in that scene as well. For his surprise, when they ran the film again for the test audience, people did indeed scream at the changed scene, but no longer at the second. He concluded it was because after the first time he surprised his audience, he also lost their trust. People were emotionally guarded against the movie.

[Das Tentakel]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think what's coming here is that people may define the core experience as something different from someone else.  For me, the Elder Scrolls games were in large part games that I played due to their complexity.

Morrowind was a game that enamored me, while Oblivion was one that made me feel like I wasted 40 hours of my life when I later realized I really hadn't had any fun at all.  Though this isn't necessarily all about changes to the game systems.  Sometimes a game's design just isn't for me.  Oblivion is hardly the first case.

It may have something to do with personality (in the sense of strong gaming preferences). Several years ago I did the Bartle Test, and, somewhat reductionist that it may be, it showed I was an ‘Explorer’ at heart. But the description pretty much fits, given my tendency to travel to every nook and cranny of the map, regardless of what kind of game I am playing.

I do think the Elder Scrolls heavily caters towards the Explorer type though. The actual gaming systems, for instance character creation and progression, are to a high degree dispensable and change every Elder Scrolls game. At the same time, these systems probably appeal to min-maxers too. Perhaps the latter group prefers the more opaque / more complex earlier incarnations of some of the Elder Scrolls’ subsystems?

Some people think Bethesda ‘dropped the ball’ with Oblivion, but I disagree, at least up to a point. They got the character customisation options and sandbox gameplay mostly right.
Although I have to say I respected Oblivion the technical achievement far more than I enjoyed Oblivion the game: Terrible animation, clunky combat, clunky interface, repetitive environments, ugly character faces, repetitive and mediocre voice acting Not to mention the enemy auto-levelling (which I did not mind too much, but individual experience probably varies). Still, a huge number of people were able to look beyond that. It was mostly an improvement on Morrowind.

Where Bethesda really, really stumbled was the setting, about which many people complained. I myself, too, cared very little for Cyrodiil the place.
We did not get a crazy mix of the Roman Empire and Ming China (see for instance www.youtube.com/watch ), as might be envisaged from earlier established lore. Nor did we get a beautiful and interesting pastiche of late medieval / early modern Europe (a la The Witcher I and II).

The way Bethesda realised Cyrodiil’s ‘look’ and ‘feel’ was, alas, painfully generic (like that of some other RPG’s I know). And by that I mean overly familiar. Oblivion’s players did not get an exotic, fairly original and visually interesting setting. They got a very Renaissance Fair-ish generic pseudo-medieval, pseudo-western European place with timber-framed houses, fairly simple-looking castles and city-walls made of undressed stone, LotR-ish Ayleid architecture (Imperial City, Ayleid ruins) and generic sailing ship thingies and what have you.

For anybody who has been around a bit and read, watched and played at least a modicum of fantasy movies, videogames, pen & paper RPG’s, novels and comics it all looked terribly, terribly familiar.

When your game caters heavily to the explorer in gamers, the nature and look of the setting is absolutely vital. When the land your players want to explore looks too familiar – landscape and architecture, the way people dress, arms and armour – it quickly and painfully becomes kind of drab and boring. For an explorer type like me, Oblivion fizzled out fairly quickly. This was actually a bit of a shame, as the Shivering Isles expansion was once again pretty weird and visually much more interesting.

A few years later another highly regarded RPG (which I actually enjoyed a lot, but not by virtue of the setting) repeated the same mistake, going for a very generic look with LotR-ish influences.
It is sometimes said that originality is overrated, but well, so is constantly copying the familiar.:innocent:

However, for gamers who aren’t too familiar with these kind of settings, for whom a pseudo-medieval western European fantasy setting is still fresh, Oblivion can still be an amazing experience. I gave my spare Xbox 360 copy of the game to my best friend’s son (a very intelligent and precocious 9-year old), and he was completely spellbound. He’s probably going to be completely in awe once he gets his hands on Skyrim.

Also, Skyrim's look is not necessarily everybody's cup of tea, especially if one hopes for something even more unusual, or if one is overly familiar with 'Nordic' settings. It's the reason Ingvi Snaedal, editor of the European online videogame site Hooked Gamers, gave for his disappointment in Skyrim. Ingvi's from Iceland.

[Mr Fixit]

A beautiful analysis, as usual, Tentakel.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Let's not overblow things. DA2 was a medicore game.
Now personally, for me it was horrible (I have obnoxiously high standards), but objectively it wasn't. It was medicore.

You always have to compare a game with the others of it's genre, and not just follow your first instinct - wether it be all-consumiong rage and screams of "BETRAAAAAYL" or gushing and blinded Alatar-building.

If you cannot distance yourself from a game to judge it, your judgement is worthless.

All I can say with certanty is that I have been enjoying BioWare games less and less. They seem to posesss less and less...."soul" for the lack of a better word.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Mr Fixit wrote...

A beautiful analysis, as usual, Tentakel.

Partially agree.

One thing where I do find a point of disagreement is that everything must be different. Nope.

I played RPG and fantasy for years. The midle-ages realstic style doesn't bore me at all. I love it.
Actually you could say it's the opposite. The more extreeme, the more tacky a design style, the more "unfuctional, purely for the looks it is" the more I hate it. There's very few exceptions to this.
LOTR-esque architectre? I love it. Feels familiar. And I love it that it feels familiar.

The same things that would make you love a setting would probably make me hate it. And I'm pretty much an explorer-type too.

[Fast Jimmy]

If the OP JasonPogo is still hanging around... can we PLEASE change the thread name to correctly spell the word "does"?

It has been grating on my nerves for the past week.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If the OP JasonPogo is still hanging around... can we PLEASE change the thread name to correctly spell the word "does"?

It has been grating on my nerves for the past week.

Why dose it bother you, Jimmy?

I honestly don't cee the problem with the so-called "misspelling". Everyone can still read the title just fine.

[Pasquale1234]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
All I can say with certanty is that I have been enjoying BioWare games less and less. They seem to posesss less and less...."soul" for the lack of a better word.

More style, less substance?

More cinematic storytelling by the devs, less player creativity allowed in shaping the story?

[Realmzmaster]

I think that a lot of gamers are upset with DA2 because it did not allow their roleplaying playstyle. Some gamers' playstyle require more control over the central character. DA2 in effect for them nullified their playstyle.

Other (like me) have a different type of playstyle that is actually a combination of different playstyles. I have played crpgs and tabletop rpgs that allow for complete party creation. I have played crpgs and tabletop rpgs modules with the party completely defined. I have no problem with either style. So playing DA2 as Hawke does not affect my playstyle.

I see roleplaying as either stepping into a pre-made character's role or creating my own character. I can roleplay either way, others cannot.

Character creation is only one aspect of roleplaying to me. As long as I have control over the character attributes, skills, inventory and personality I am good to go. I do not have to even customize my companions. I had no problem in NWN not being able to customize my henchmen. I simply roleplay them as their own people and told them to level up. I am not saying everyone can roleplay that way. Others want more control I can work either way.

I have played crpgs with a basic story (like Temple of Apshai, Telengard, Sword of Fargoal, Dragon's Eye, Oubliette) to crpgs with more complex gameplay and story (Ultima, Wizardry, Wizard's Crown, Baldur's Gate). My playstyle is malleable, but as always YMMV.

[Das Tentakel]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Partially agree.

One thing where I do find a point of disagreement is that everything must be different. Nope.

That is not what I meant at all. When I say 'generic', I mean overly familiar, cliché, stereotype. I do not mean 'realistic', 'medieval' or 'European' as in solidly based in historical reality. The Witcher's visual style is solidly based on high to late medieval and early modern Europe (with a dash of LotR for Elves and Dwarves), but there's nothing generic about it, it's not something which you see a lot of in fantasy. Same, originally, with LotR's visual style; when the movies were made, its look (or to be precise, the book illustrations much of it was based on), was based on Vendel-era Scandinavia, Byzantium and high to late medieval / early Renaissance Italy and France. That approach only became 'generic' when it was copied, in a watered-down version, by various videogames from WoW to DA, Oblivion and Skyrim. Research is hard, and so is good visual design.

For instance, timber-framed houses are 'generic', but you will never see, say, a Limburg farm or German fachwerk townhouse. Katanas and scimitars are 'generic', but kopesh and falcata are more rare. Double-bladed axes are common, but you won't see a goedendag. Simplified or, another extreme, outrageously sized and prettified Zweihanders are fairly common ('big swords are cool'), but you won't see a Katzbalger that often. Weird spiky repeat crossbows are generic, but a Roman manuballista is nowhere to be seen. Oblivion and other games have English parrish church-ish pseudo-Gothic temples, but you won't see something like an Etruscan temple, or the Cathedral of Amalfi, or the Duomo of Milan. Armour loosely based on medieval plate armour, Roman lorica segmentata, the Gallic Imperial helmet, these will be encountered with or without spiky bits. Rarely if ever will you see a Principate era Roman cavalryman, a late Roman ridge helmet, or a good rendition of a beautiful late medieval Gothic set of plate armour (at least, not outside games like The Witcher).
When I say 'generic', it means: taken from a repertoire of by now overly familiar tropes, from Dark Lords to vaguely carnevalesque pseudo-Roman armour to chainmal bikinis. No research to speak of, no creative effort. Plain, safe, familiar, cliché.

In the Tasteful, Understated Nerd Rage video on Morrowind ( www.youtube.com/watch ), the maker commented on the differences between earlier lore concerning Cyrodiil and the Imperial City and the one we got in Oblivion.
Rice paddies, Moth priests, dragons overhead?

Rice paddies? Rice was introduced into Europe during the medieval period, and it was grown in northern Italy (the country originally home to the Romans, on which the Imperials are based, judging by their legions, Latin-esque names and Mediterranean-European default looks) from the 15th century onwards.



Flooded rice fields, Piemonte



Italian women working in the rice fields

Moth priests? Weird cults and strange temples? Gothic-ish English parrish churches are pretty much cliché, but a painted Roman temple, or an earlier Etruscan temple, or even a medieval church like the Cathedral of Amalfi would have been more fitting.



Etruscan temple



Roman temple, Pompeii



Cathedral of Amalfi

Again: Bethesda dropped the ball when they decided on the look of Cyrodiil in Oblivion. Just based on what they already had established earlier, and historical examples from Italy and the Roman Empire mixed with a bit of imagination and creativity, they could have created something special. But they went for the easy & overly familiar.

In Skyrim, they fortunately did better.

Modifié par Das Tentakel, 16 août 2012 - 07:49 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Das Tentakel wrote...
<snip>

Did you say chainmal bikinis?!












In all honesty, setting and background can be varied, but that doesn't make a good story. The Dynasty Warrior games capture a different (if not accurate) style that is not "generic" by the usual medieval war game standards. But that doesn't mean the story or its background is better than passable.

Similarly, with a "generic" style in DA:O, they were able to craft really excellent characters, situations and choices, despite people complaining that it was the same old Elves, Dwarves and Sauron's Orcs we've seen LOTR was made and D&D started doing table top.

While I would appreciate the amount of work that would go into a fresh style, especially if in DA3 we are going to be visiting some more exotic locales, I still think it is not a core feature to focus in to the exception of other design aspects. Technically, with its sandstone buildings, Kirkwall had a unique city atmosphere than Denerim did. That didn't make it a beautiful city, or one that I would be even remotely interested in entering again (unless they were doing something with the Band of Three subplot).

My point being - while seeing nice things like people out working in the fields, or weapons that you won't find in your average Gauntlet Legends knock off, or buildings with unique archictectural flavor... that is all extraneous, cosmetic stuff. If Bioware was a kid who is in school, and we the fanbase were its parents, then we have to see that Bioware is bringing home some bad report card grades recently. It started when Fantasy RPG, their former favorite subject, got a C on their most recent report. Not that a C is horrible for other students, and in all honesty it was average C work they did on that project, but usually our Bioware student gets straight A's. Then, on their Space Shooter final, they flunked and had to take Extended classes (EC) summer school just to get a passing grade.

Now, its a new school year. But the next paper on Fantasy RPG is coming up. I don't Bioware to devote any of their time on this project putting it in laminated binders or finding fancy fonts. I want the actual work to be top notch. After that has been established, then they are free to experiment and work on the appearances-only details. But I want an assurance that this next project will get an A, hopefully an A+. So they can get back on the Dean List.

Metaphorically speaking, of course. I'm speaking allegorically. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 17 août 2012 - 05:34 .

[Will8585]

I just wanna let the employees of bioware know that you all are doing a great job making quality games ( yes, this includes DA2). EVERY game has flaws, no game will ever be perfect, and people need to get over the changes that were made from Origins. Its over and done with. Stop crucifying bioware over DA2 and have some faith that they will make DA3 a great game. The whole point of spending the time on the bioware social network is that we are supposed to be fans of their work. Show a little support.

[Das Tentakel]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Das Tentakel wrote...
<snip>

Did you say chainmal bikinis?!












In all honesty, setting and background can be varied, but that doesn't make a good story. The Dynasty Warrior games capture a different (if not accurate) style that is not "generic" by the usual medieval war game standards. But that doesn't mean the story or its background is better than passable.

Similarly, with a "generic" style in DA:O, they were able to craft really excellent characters, situations and choices, despite people complaining that it was the same old Elves, Dwarves and Sauron's Orcs we've seen LOTR was made and D&D started doing table top.

While I would appreciate the amount of work that would go into a fresh style, especially if in DA3 we are going to be visiting some more exotic locales, I still think it is not a core feature to focus in to the exception of other design aspects. Technically, with its sandstone buildings, Kirkwall had a unique city atmosphere than Denerim did. That didn't make it a beautiful city, or one that I would be even remotely interested in entering again (unless they were doing something with the Band of Three subplot).

My point being - while seeing nice things like people out working in the fields, or weapons that you won't find in your average Gauntlet Legends knock off, or buildings with unique archictectural flavor... that is all extraneous, cosmetic stuff. If Bioware was a kid who is in school, and we the fanbase were its parents, then we have to see that Bioware is bringing home some bad report card grades recently. It started when Fantasy RPG, their former favorite subject, got a C on their most recent report. Not that a C is horrible for other students, and in all honesty it was average C work they did on that project, but usually our Bioware student gets straight A's. Then, on their Space Shooter final, they flunked and had to take Extended classes (EC) summer school just to get a passing grade.

Now, its a new school year. But the next paper on Fantasy RPG is coming up. I don't Bioware to devote any of their time on this project putting it in laminated binders or finding fancy fonts. I want the actual work to be top notch. After that has been established, then they are free to experiment and work on the appearances-only details. But I want an assurance that this next project will get an A, hopefully an A+. So they can get back on the Dean List.

Metaphorically speaking, of course. I'm speaking allegorically. 

Speaking for myself and my recent posts in this thread, they were clearly not about Dragon Age, but about Elder Scrolls, since that was the sub-debate I was interested in. Sense of place and sense of wonder are vital ingredients for an Elder Scrolls game. BioWare games? Not so much. They are less about setting (or story for that matter), more about characters (most of the narrative meat is there, including your own character. Oh, and there's the cutscenes of course) and combat. There were and are quite a few complaints about the DA setting being bland and boring (with a few nice bits), but in the end they do not matter as much as long as the characters are well done, the combat is enjoyable, and your own character is your own character and has a chance to shine. The 'background' shouldn't look too bad and the overall story should be serviceable, but they do not necessarily have to be more. If they are more - more unique, more complex and interesting - and it is done well, that is a definitive plus though.

[RaggieRags]

I can't wrap my head around what's happening to Bioware. They have a more than a decade of experience in making RPGs, staff at around 800 (according to Wikipedia), respected IPs, a track record to be proud of, merchandising, DLC and access to EA's wallet. They've now put out two games suffering from a shot developement cycle. I understand they had a lot of resources tied to the unfortunate MMO, but does that explain completely why they have been in such a hurry to push haphazardly made games out of the door and flirting the mass markets?

I'm not industry expert, but from where I'm looking, I don't see why Bioware shouldn't be doing great. RPGs are doing good. Back when Bioware started, RPGs were thought to be dead. Right now there are several devs doing RPGs and apparently doing well for themselves. Even the niche RPG kickstarters are collecting money multiple times more than what they're aiming for. Bethesda spends years doing their massive games and they do top sales. Several small and independent European developement houses are publishing quality RPGs. A  team of four people made a grid-based first-person dungeon crawler in the style of Dungeon Master (from 1987!). They went straight to the number one spot at Steam and got their developement money back within hours. Heck, even Jeff Vogel seems to be doing better than ever. CD Projekt RED is a Polish developer of 112 people. They have made two RPGs based on books that were not even translated into English. Their games have sold very well and The Witcher 2 reviewed better than DA2. They don't sell DLC. Instead they have released additional content and impovements on both of their games for free. So why can't Bioware compete with these guys?

[Realmzmaster]

 Actually the whole video game market except for mobile is experiencing a down turn from PC to console. The day of the $60 game has come and gone. There are a few exceptions, but the market as a whole is soft. 

investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/news/article.asp 

games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/video-game-industry-dying-175530304.html

The outlook is not as rosy as developers and publishers would like.  Providence Equity which owns 61% (convertible perferred stock of $450 million) of ZeniMax Media parent of  Bethesda Softworks was shopping  its share in the company.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 17 août 2012 - 07:15 .

[Friera]

Im so sick and tired of the negativity here in this forum. Thats the main reason why I just don´t bother coming back here.
We know next to nothing about DA3, so please stop with the flaming. Its childish, lame and completely judgemental.
Sit down, grap a beer, and hold the opinions ´till you actually can play the game.

[RaggieRags]

This is not a DA3 thread. It's a thread about the current Bioware games. Critical opinions on Bioware and expressing worry for their future are not "flaming" or "childish, lame and completely judgemental". I'm not so sure about your own post, though.

[Kidd]

RaggieRags wrote...

I've been a Bioware fan since 1998. I still WANT to like Bioware. I honestly find it sad that whenever I visit any gaming discussion forum (outside this one, that is) and lurk at the Bioware-related threads, I can see how badly Bioware's reputation has taken a hit. It's not just us whiny worryhens in here, people are complaining *everywhere*.

I agree =(
I care a whole lot about the BioWare brand. There's been so many good games that have given me so much coming out of this company (still are!) throughout the years. I've always loved how when I mention their games, the reactions from other people were either utter rejoice or "Bio-Who?". The Bio-Who crowd has grown smaller and smaller, and it's like this developer I have supported all this time is growing bigger and bigger, more and more famous.

Logically I know I'm just a few purchases and ultimately not worth anything, especially since I've never worked a day for them so I've not really contributed anything but those few lumps of money throughout the years. But somehow it still feels like seeing somebody you know grow up and get out there to meet a cheering crowd. Am I proud? Yes, I believe that's a word I could use even though it may not be perfect.

Nowadays when I mention BioWare though, I indeed still get some joyful shouts my way, and I'm happy Bio-Who has more or less disappeared, but I'm sad there's so much hate flung. Strong negative feelings that, while I understand where some of them come from, not at all feel justified. I want to stand up and shield what I love, but ultimately there's very little I can do. So I return to BSN, eager to receive information in hopes of my own enjoyment and eager to give feedback on design in hopes of fighting back the flames outside.

All right, that's enough sentimentality for a video game developing company operating on the other side of the globe. RaggieRags' words simply resonated with me, I suppose.

Modifié par KiddDaBeauty, 17 août 2012 - 09:03 .

[Corto81]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

harkness72 wrote...

You know, from reading some of your past posts I'd like to ask why you never really form real arguments but just resort to petty insults and always come back to calling people who disagree with you "whiners"?

You haven't read many of my posts, then.  I have plenty of people on my friends list I disagree with.  

This thread though, is a whine.  The clear message behind threads like this is "make more DAO" but...  blech.  Those games died out for a reason.  DA2 wasn't a perfect game, but it was a better game than DAO.  DA3 will be even better than DA2.  Some of the trope can creep back in, I'll roll my eyes buy still buy it....  but the more of the old world game mechnics that are carved out of new games, the happier I'll be. 

Quoting myself from the other thread:


The following is not an opinion, it is FACT:
DA:O was much more successful than DA2 in all departments:
- fan reviews
- critics
- and most importantly, sales
- I mean, even the DLCs for DA2 got canceled, that game - by BW standards - a flop.

Apart from faster movement, DA2 was a mess:
- cartoony combat
- enemy waves
- recycled areas
-
awful companions (all of them one-dimensonal, most of them emo, dumb or
naive, none of them nearly as deep or likeable or polarizing as someone
like Leliana or Alistair or Morrigan)
- ridiculous story twists... I mean, some of it's worse than Diablo 3... And that's saying a LOT
- choices didn't matter at ALL
- no exploration
-
"MMO" quests... nothing that will last more than 15 minutes, in case
your casual CoD player can't manage the length it took to do something
in BG or DA:O
- poor companion customization
- (to most) shallow and unlikeable main protagonist, and to me, it never felt mine, unlike the warden, Hawke is BW's toon...
- no race to choose from
- etc etc

How can anyone in their right mind, after all this time, go out and say DA2 is a better RPG than DA:O?

...

The
sad thing is, DA3 is likely gonna blow as well, the voiced protagonist
alone means no race selection, less content because how much time and
money voicing the protagonist takes, and the returning conversation
wheel with the little pictures in case you're too dumb to understand and
read through the text in games like BG and DA:O.

...

Worst thing is, why is Bioware changing a successful recipe????
DA:O was a hit.
DA2 was a flop.
Witcher 2, Skyrim, Dark Souls... All deep RPG in their own way, smash hits.
All of these games delved deeper into the RPG core, the way the genre was first imagined as.
Be
it exploration, choices, combat, etc... Nothing that holds your hand,
they all went out to try and make a proper, deep RPG, not appeal to the
CoD crowd.
Like DA:O.

Yet BW is sticking to the DA2 recipe. The "CoD" recipe.
Utterly amazing.

[RaggieRags]

Bioware's like the friends you used to have at school.

You grew up together. You liked all the same stuff. You were the bestest of buddies. Then some day they start hanging out with the wrong crowd. They start doing all sorts of stunts that make you wonder if you ever knew them at all. They no longer have nothing to say to you, except "whatever". Suddenly you just aren't good enough for them anymore.

[Fast Jimmy]

They started hanging out with the rough crowd in Edmonton...?

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

RaggieRags wrote...

Bioware's like the friends you used to have at school.

You grew up together. You liked all the same stuff. You were the bestest of buddies. Then some day they start hanging out with the wrong crowd. They start doing all sorts of stunts that make you wonder if you ever knew them at all. They no longer have nothing to say to you, except "whatever". Suddenly you just aren't good enough for them anymore.

Yeah, they even got tattoos.



2cool4u

[Will8585]

whats so bad about having a voiced protagonist?...for me hawke seemed much more personal and real when he had a set voice, it gave him more of an identity. I felt more attached to hawke then the warden, who was silent and never had an actual voice.

[Will8585]

Corto81 wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

harkness72 wrote...

You know, from reading some of your past posts I'd like to ask why you never really form real arguments but just resort to petty insults and always come back to calling people who disagree with you "whiners"?

You haven't read many of my posts, then.  I have plenty of people on my friends list I disagree with.  

This thread though, is a whine.  The clear message behind threads like this is "make more DAO" but...  blech.  Those games died out for a reason.  DA2 wasn't a perfect game, but it was a better game than DAO.  DA3 will be even better than DA2.  Some of the trope can creep back in, I'll roll my eyes buy still buy it....  but the more of the old world game mechnics that are carved out of new games, the happier I'll be. 

Quoting myself from the other thread:


The following is not an opinion, it is FACT:
DA:O was much more successful than DA2 in all departments:
- fan reviews
- critics
- and most importantly, sales
- I mean, even the DLCs for DA2 got canceled, that game - by BW standards - a flop.

Apart from faster movement, DA2 was a mess:
- cartoony combat
- enemy waves
- recycled areas
-
awful companions (all of them one-dimensonal, most of them emo, dumb or
naive, none of them nearly as deep or likeable or polarizing as someone
like Leliana or Alistair or Morrigan)
- ridiculous story twists... I mean, some of it's worse than Diablo 3... And that's saying a LOT
- choices didn't matter at ALL
- no exploration
-
"MMO" quests... nothing that will last more than 15 minutes, in case
your casual CoD player can't manage the length it took to do something
in BG or DA:O
- poor companion customization
- (to most) shallow and unlikeable main protagonist, and to me, it never felt mine, unlike the warden, Hawke is BW's toon...
- no race to choose from
- etc etc

How can anyone in their right mind, after all this time, go out and say DA2 is a better RPG than DA:O?

...

The
sad thing is, DA3 is likely gonna blow as well, the voiced protagonist
alone means no race selection, less content because how much time and
money voicing the protagonist takes, and the returning conversation
wheel with the little pictures in case you're too dumb to understand and
read through the text in games like BG and DA:O.

...

Worst thing is, why is Bioware changing a successful recipe????
DA:O was a hit.
DA2 was a flop.
Witcher 2, Skyrim, Dark Souls... All deep RPG in their own way, smash hits.
All of these games delved deeper into the RPG core, the way the genre was first imagined as.
Be
it exploration, choices, combat, etc... Nothing that holds your hand,
they all went out to try and make a proper, deep RPG, not appeal to the
CoD crowd.
Like DA:O.

Yet BW is sticking to the DA2 recipe. The "CoD" recipe.
Utterly amazing.

We really dont know enough about DA3 to say whether it will be a poor game or not. You really cant judge a game that you havent played yet.