79 réponses à ce sujet

[Rxdiaz]

Melca36 wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

I think DA3 is likely to have more in common with DA2 than Origins.

They said they would be combining what worked in DA2 as well as more elements from Origins so I would not expect a DA:2 clone if I were you

Well, considering virtually nothing worked in DA2 I would not put much stock in the BioWare PR BS...

[cJohnOne]

DAO was sold to me in a commercial that showed better graphics than was actually in the game. I think some people thought they where getting a better game than was actually got. I personally luv DAO but it isn't the game advertised.

Also when you get a hot game some people try a genre they are not used to. And another thing just because I like something doesn't mean other people enjoy it.

[Plaintiff]

Provi-dance wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

jpzgoku wrote...

Really? Quality of a product in no way correlates with how successful that product is or will become?

Generally, no.

 

Keep in mind that the quality correlates much less with what you think is good, Plaintiff.

I never claimed to be the arbiter of taste.

But that's precisely why high sales can't be considered an indicator of quality. There is no indicator of quality.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 01 septembre 2012 - 12:33 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

There are plenty of 'Let's Play' videos on YouTube of virtually every game that comes out. You can watch the game being played before you pick it up. Some games also have demos. Personally, when game falls below a 70 on metacritic, I start to question it's quality.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 01 septembre 2012 - 03:56 .

[Linksys17]

Plaintiff wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
Don't you think BioWare should continue to do their own thing and not copy something else just because it sold more than their last few games?

Sure, I think that, but do you? I don't think you want Bioware to do their own thing, I think you want them to do your thing.

When people spout this line, what they really mean is that they want Bioware to produce clones of Baldur's Gate (or Neverwinter Nights or whatever they think the best Bioware game is). But Bioware doesn't want to do that anymore, so it's not "their own thing".

Of course I want them to do my thing and use all my ideas. That would make me very happy. That said, it's very unlikely that will ever happen and even if it did, it would ****** a lot of other people off. I would then be blamed exiled from BSN and everywhere else.

Umm... anyway, I get the feeling BioWare doesn't know what BioWare wants to do anymore. They seem to be constantly taking ideas from other games these days in an effort to achieve 'maximum profit'. I dare say that maximizing profits is about the only thing BioWare is sure about these days.

Do you disagree?

I do disagree. I think Bioware knew exactly what it wanted to do with DA2. I also think they succeeded. I think DA2 is an extremely good game. That it failed in a financial sense is completely irrelevent to the question of its quality. Lots of good things are unpopular and lots of utter crap takes the world by storm.

Very little of consequence changed in the transition from DA:O to DA2. Most of the changes are superficial tweaks. In a functional sense, in a gameplay sense, the two are almost identical.

I don't know what "other games" you think Bioware is borrowing from, aside from Mass Effects 'dialogue wheel', which is largely an aesthetic change, not a gameplay change.

You're going to have to give me specific examples of games that you think DA2 borrowed from, which game elements you think they borrowed, and wher exactly they appear.

dialogue wheel = morality system

dragon age 2 = mass effect wannabe dragon age game

dao = great

da2 = mediocre 

the character animations were way too stupid as well stupid gymnastic mages

[Renmiri1]

I loved my athletic mages. Arcane Warriors FTW

[Plaintiff]

Linksys17 wrote...
the character animations were way too stupid as well stupid gymnastic mages

And why should mages not be fit and physically capable? If anything, the exact opposite should be the case, if they're going to accompany you on a journey around the entire goddamn world, fighting monsters.

There's no rule that says magic has to be accompanied by muscle atrophy, that's a moronic fantasy cliche and the sooner we do away with it, the better.

DA:O's trailer showed Morrigan doing backflips and cartwheels and using her staff as a melee weapon. At least DA2's marketing didn't represent combat so inaccurately.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

I really thought the Sacred Ashes trailer for DA:O was horribly cheesy with characters doing cartwheels, backflips off fifty foot pillars and taking on an entire army of darkspawn and a dragon with weapnons that cut effortlessly like a hot knife through butter. To top it all off none of the NPCs looked like the character designs to the actual game, which is just bad marketing. Regardless of whether a player prefers one appearance over the other, they shouldn't be asking themself "Wait...is this the chick and the dude in that video I think I saw advertising this game?" Hopefully they should be saying "Oh cool, that's that chick or dude I saw in the advertising for this game!"

I guess DA 2 did deliver on the high fantasy cheeseball combat of the Sacred Ashes trailer, but to some players that stuff is just comical. DA:O mage standard attacks may of looked boring, but they were generic attacks, they aren't supposed to look special. Twirling a staff around and spinning before each generic attack, while intended to look exciting and unique, just replays itself over and over and quickly just becomes as redundant as the animation of DA:O mages. Plus, why is all that spinning around necessary to fire a generic bolt from a staff when the more complicated magic of shooting fireballs or conjuring a mind blast spell would likely be more draining both physically and mentally and likely have a better visual effect, being more a special attack. Also, mages being restricted only to staff weapons is goofy to me. Why limit playstyle instead of giving each class flexibility and depth? It's alot of work, sure, but people will play your game longer if the character building is dynamic and complicated instead restricted into very narrow architypes.

[Plaintiff]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

I really thought the Sacred Ashes trailer for DA:O was horribly cheesy with characters doing cartwheels, backflips off fifty foot pillars and taking on an entire army of darkspawn and a dragon with weapnons that cut effortlessly like a hot knife through butter.

Because swords don't cut through flesh easily at all. Everyone knows armor is just for decoration. 

To top it all off none of the NPCs looked like the character designs to the actual game, which is just bad marketing. Regardless of whether a player prefers one appearance over the other, they shouldn't be asking themself "Wait...is this the chick and the dude in that video I think I saw advertising this game?" Hopefully they should be saying "Oh cool, that's that chick or dude I saw in the advertising for this game!"

Leliana and Morrigan are very easily recognisable and while Sten may look very slightly different I don't see how you could possibly mistake him for someone else.

I guess DA 2 did deliver on the high fantasy cheeseball combat of the Sacred Ashes trailer, but to some players that stuff is just comical.

"Jumping? In combat? Well, I never!"

DA:O mage standard attacks may of looked boring, but they were generic attacks, they aren't supposed to look special.

Who needs visual appeal in a visual medium, am I right? 

Twirling a staff around and spinning before each generic attack, while intended to look exciting and unique, just replays itself over and over and quickly just becomes as redundant as the animation of DA:O mages.

Because a staff is also a melee weapon in DA2? Which makes a hell of a lot more sense than anything going on in DA:O. If you have six feet of solid wood or metal in your hands, you use it. 

Plus, why is all that spinning around necessary to fire a generic bolt from a staff when the more complicated magic of shooting fireballs or conjuring a mind blast spell would likely be more draining both physically and mentally and likely have a better visual effect, being more a special attack.

Oh, so now we're talking necessity. Alright then. Chop out everything "unnecessary" from a video game and see what you're left with. I'm guessing not a whole lot.

Also, mages being restricted only to staff weapons is goofy to me.

Another moronic cliche establised by early fantasy games, and not by DA2. The "classic" RPGs that everybody on this forum seems to want didn't offer magic users many weapon options at all, either. "You mean I can wield daggers and slings as well?! Whoop-de-freaking-do."

Why limit playstyle instead of giving each class flexibility and depth?

All the classes in DA2 have plenty of flexibility in their skill tree options.

It's alot of work, sure, but people will play your game longer if the character building is dynamic and complicated instead restricted into very narrow architypes.

classes? In a class-based RPG? Madness! Why have limitations at all? Let everybody do everything!

Just to be clear, here: you want mages to be able to feasibly use any and all weapons, but you don't want them to be athletic. Is that about right?

Modifié par Plaintiff, 02 septembre 2012 - 05:38 .

[Renmiri1]

@Plaintiff - Rofl, you nailed him

[Plaintiff]

Renmiri1 wrote...

@Plaintiff - Rofl, you nailed him

Well, in all fairness, I should say that I don't want mages to be restricted to just staff weapons either, so in that sense I think he's right. But I think it's pretty hypocritical to accuse DA2 of being restrictive when DA:O has far less options in terms of class development.

Rogues are my personal favourite class in fantasy games and it was a sore point for me in DA:O that not only did they have much less options than mages and warriors, but that two thirds of the rogue skills weren't even unique to that class. And on top of that, mages and warriors could even learn non-combat skills that I consider to be traditionally "rogue-ish", like disarming traps and coercion.

I think a good solution would be to have weapon skills and class skills separate from each other. That way, any class could equip any weapon and earn "Weapon Points" at level-up, to improve their skill with that weapon. At the same time, each class would have its own non-weapon skill trees that are unique.

And since people seem to love their non-combat skills, bring those back and have them be a separate category also.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 02 septembre 2012 - 05:57 .

[TEWR]

Plaintiff wrote...
I have some issues with execution, yes, but I think not as many as you. I don't put as much value in execution as I do in concept.

For me, almost every "flaw" goes back to the timeskips, which I feel were not only unnecessary, but even harmful, in that they damaged the verisimilitude of the story, and thus my suspension of disbelief.

Ah, I understand your position on DAII much better now, or at least I believe I do. Whether the execution is sound or lacking is irrelevant, so long as the game had great concepts backing it. If the concepts are great and fully fleshed out to be amazing, that's great. If not, it doesn't bug you too much. That seems to be the case.

I'll be honest, I do find that a strange way to like a game, based on the concepts despite how the execution may have been lacking. But, we are two different gamers.

As for the timeskips, I can certainly agree that they damaged the game, but I feel they were necessary. Not properly implemented, but certainly necessary. 

Plaintiff wrote...
As far as gameplay is concerned, I couldn't care less. For me, gameplay is merely a means to access the narrative. If the two elements are well-integrated, that's a bonus. If they aren't, I don't care.

By the same token, good gameplay will rarely save a game if the story doesn't interest me. I find Skyrim and Kingdoms of Amalur to be dull and uninspired when it comes to story (although Skyrim's ****ty UI did not escape my notice).

I liked Skyrim's story personally, though I have yet to get KoA. Sure the main plot is typical "Big Bad" -- in this case a Dragon -- but the war between the Nords and the Empire was pretty well done, and Skyrim manages to have awesome stories beyond the main one where the Dragonborn defeats the Doomy Dragon of Doom.

But I agree that even if gameplay is good, if the story isn't captivating then it's all for naught. DAII is like this for me, though it's gameplay is just as bad as the story IMO.

Plaintiff wrote...

Despite my personal greivances with DA2, my overall opinion is still that the game was pretty damn good, I enjoy it more than Origins, that much is certain. It makes me sad that it failed, because it looks like DA3 is returning to the standard "epic quest, defeat ultimate evil" plot that is ubiquitous in the Fantasy genre. I'm sure Bioware will do it very well, as they did with DA:O, but it is nonetheless depressing that they appear to be shying away from further experimentation, and have resolved to play it relatively safe.

I also agree with this, how DA3 shouldn't go back to a ultimate evil type plot. But... I don't think that's what they're setting up. I think they're going to showcase the Mage-Templar War, the Orlesian Civil War, the possible Renewed War of Ferelden and Orlais, and the imminent Qunari invasion.

And if done right, the Qunari invasion won't be a "Big Bad" type of thing. It'll be bad to some, but not a Big Bad.

[Vox Draco]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
I also agree with this, how DA3 shouldn't go back to a ultimate evil type plot. But... I don't think that's what they're setting up. I think they're going to showcase the Mage-Templar War, the Orlesian Civil War, the possible Renewed War of Ferelden and Orlais, and the imminent Qunari invasion.

And if done right, the Qunari invasion won't be a "Big Bad" type of thing. It'll be bad to some, but not a Big Bad.

So that will be the elements in DA3 taken from Skyrim?

We have a civil war in both games, with the protagonist getting involved, choosing sides eventually and performing missions/battles for one side until it has won...I already see our Main Char leading an army of rebels storming the capital of Orlais...

Mage-Templar...a main quest like the Dragon's returning and Blades/Dhovakiin opposing them, with some big baddy pulling strings in the background, but maybe a little disconnected from the civil war story arc...at least at first...

And last but not least the threat of a Quanri/Aldmeri-Dominion invasion looming at the horizon, setting things up for the sequel...and I see it as some realyl bad thing ahppeneing, The Quanri are atrocious and hoepfully get crushed and thrown into the sea by  combined exalted march forged by the next protagonist (or if you prefer to betray Thedas help the Qunari I guess, Maker curse them)

I just hope Bioware realized that Skyrim was a major success for many reasons, but one foremeost as I see it: Bethesda actually listened to the many complaints over Oblivion, especially in regards to the superior prequel Morrowind. Skyrim improves almost every aspect of Oblivion, but also returns some aspects from Morrowind, without ignoring the changes modern gaming has undergone.

Skyrim found a balance in things. It returned to the more gritty, realistic, gloomy atmosphere in its presentation and many of its quests. It returned to the Morrowind-like "experience a different foreign culture and its mythology"-aspects, which as I see it made it far easier for the fans to swallow the overhaul of the level-up-system,  the absence of attributes and certain skills kicked out...

And Skyrim also was a success because many people just want to play an RPG and have no interest whatsoever in Call of Duty and other games. You CANNOT please everyone! If you try it, you don't increase sales, you just don't convince the new target-audience with halfhearted attempts and annoy the loyal fans at the same time

Modifié par Vox Draco, 02 septembre 2012 - 10:13 .

[Merlex]

Plaintiff wrote...

Rogues are my personal favourite class in fantasy games and it was a sore point for me in DA:O that not only did they have much less options than mages and warriors, but that two thirds of the rogue skills weren't even unique to that class. And on top of that, mages and warriors could even learn non-combat skills that I consider to be traditionally "rogue-ish", like disarming traps and coercion.

I think a good solution would be to have weapon skills and class skills separate from each other. That way, any class could equip any weapon and earn "Weapon Points" at level-up, to improve their skill with that weapon. At the same time, each class would have its own non-weapon skill trees that are unique.

And since people seem to love their non-combat skills, bring those back and have them be a separate category also.

Sounds like a good solution to me.

[BatmanPWNS]

Witchers would be a better inspiration.

[Merlex]

BatmanPWNS wrote...

Witchers would be a better inspiration.

That's kind of vague. What inspiration do you think the DA developers should take from The Witcher? Not the locked character i hope?

[philippe willaume]

Plaintiff wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

@Plaintiff - Rofl, you nailed him

Well, in all fairness, I should say that I don't want mages to be restricted to just staff weapons either, so in that sense I think he's right. But I think it's pretty hypocritical to accuse DA2 of being restrictive when DA:O has far less options in terms of class development.

Rogues are my personal favourite class in fantasy games and it was a sore point for me in DA:O that not only did they have much less options than mages and warriors, but that two thirds of the rogue skills weren't even unique to that class. And on top of that, mages and warriors could even learn non-combat skills that I consider to be traditionally "rogue-ish", like disarming traps and coercion.

I think a good solution would be to have weapon skills and class skills separate from each other. That way, any class could equip any weapon and earn "Weapon Points" at level-up, to improve their skill with that weapon. At the same time, each class would have its own non-weapon skill trees that are unique.

And since people seem to love their non-combat skills, bring those back and have them be a separate category also.

Hello P
i would say that Non combat Skill have the same issues as Weapons-Skills.

I think the main problem with that is having meaning full class-skill.
by meaningfull, i mean that are usefull in the game

For exemple, sneaking should be part of a warrior skill (fieldcraft is normal solidering actitivty)
but sneaking  should be part of rogue  as well.
Sure we can make the difference in that a rogue stealth includes pick pocket.
hence we could a stealth  skill that is avaliable to all class and rogue specific sneak.
but unless you have pickpoting activity that advence the plot, there is no point of making the difference.

Or we could say that rogue could use stealth in combat (ie hiding in plain sight) and a warrior could not.
but if there are no pre-combat phase where the warrior can use stealth, again what's the point.

Personally I am more in favour of class skills/talents that add to the generic skill.
so if you we take stealth 
as  generic skils it reduces you speed by 2 and can't be used in armour or when preparing a spell.

the steath skill class for a warrior enable you to use steath with heavy armour 
for the rogue you can move at full speed
and for the mage you will stay hidden during the spell preparation.


phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 02 septembre 2012 - 06:32 .

[Vox Draco]

Merlex wrote...

BatmanPWNS wrote...

Witchers would be a better inspiration.

That's kind of vague. What inspiration do you think the DA developers should take from The Witcher? Not the locked character i hope?

Presentation: I still think the prologue of Witcher 2 is outstanding. The siege, the Dragon, the Kingslayer-confrontation, it sucked me all right in.

Atmosphere: Yes, the DA-franchise is dark and mature. But I think it could get better. Not only with the themes adressed in the story, but also simply in terms of graphics. Floatsam was no big city, but it felt more real and alive than Kirkwall. Details by all means! Make DA3 feel alive!

Characters: Looking at DA2 and Witcher 2...Vernon Roche, Triss, Iorvain, damn King Henselt or the glorious King Foltest (What the f...do we want!!???) are more believable and realistic to me than most of DA2's cast...I am looking at you, Anders and Isabella....

Don't get me wrong, as much as I like Witcher2 I also do not wholly condemn DA2, but in regards of the above points, I think Bioware can at least have a look at Geralt's latest adventure...though I guess the people of thedas will forever make love in their underwear (okay, Geralt left his pants on too...only so much equality I suppose possible even in Poland)

[Arthur Cousland]

If the fear is that DA3 will be a sandbox game...that won't happen.

Skyrim has been selling well since its release, and Bioware simply want to see what elements that they could possibly integrate into Dragon Age. DA3 is still going to be the same heavily story-driven game that the previous games were.

If Bioware takes anything from Skyrim, I hope that it's the taverns with singing bards, and npcs who come and go depending on the time of day. I wouldn't mind if those replaced the obligatory brothels.

[tonnactus]

In the past,they make the trends. Now they try to follow them(and failed three times already)

[SirGladiator]

Honestly, when it comes to TW2, sure Bioware could learn a thing or two from them (like how to do a love scene right, nudity aside they were very well done) but more importantly TW2 could learn from Bioware, as its annoying to have to play as an ugly dude when it would be so easy to give us a character creator and let us play as a male or female character, like not just Bioware but TONS of other games out there. On the issue of Skyrim, it was awesome. They added LIs and took the DA2 route with them, you can romance anybody you want. Not only was the main storyline really cool, but more importantly the side quests were just as fun if not even moreso than the main quest (I still havent even finished the main quest yet, the millions and millions of side-quests are so interesting and fun). I don't know how Bioware plans to take what they learn from Skyrim and apply it to DA3, but anything they can learn will indeed make the game that much better, because Skyrim is one of the very best games out there today.

[Icinix]

SirGladiator wrote...

Honestly, when it comes to TW2, sure Bioware could learn a thing or two from them (like how to do a love scene right, nudity aside they were very well done) but more importantly TW2 could learn from Bioware, as its annoying to have to play as an ugly dude when it would be so easy to give us a character creator and let us play as a male or female character, like not just Bioware but TONS of other games out there. On the issue of Skyrim, it was awesome. They added LIs and took the DA2 route with them, you can romance anybody you want. Not only was the main storyline really cool, but more importantly the side quests were just as fun if not even moreso than the main quest (I still havent even finished the main quest yet, the millions and millions of side-quests are so interesting and fun). I don't know how Bioware plans to take what they learn from Skyrim and apply it to DA3, but anything they can learn will indeed make the game that much better, because Skyrim is one of the very best games out there today.

Indeed - if you took the open freedom of Bethesda, the character development of Bioware, and the mature handling of politics, racism, religion etc from CDProjektRed - you would actually have the greatest game of all time...


..made perhaps only greater by having Warren Spector as lead and thus a Deus Ex approach to everything...Everything..

[bEVEsthda]

Melca36 wrote...

cJohnOne wrote...

Didn't DAO sell 3.5 million and DA2 sell 2 million? The chart seems a little off.  In direction I guess.

Actually Origins sold like 5 million and DA2 sold 2 Million

No. DA2 sold "in" 2 mil. Which prob means we'll never know the true sales. Except that it's less than 2 mil.

[cJohnOne]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

cJohnOne wrote...

Didn't DAO sell 3.5 million and DA2 sell 2 million? The chart seems a little off.  In direction I guess.

Actually Origins sold like 5 million and DA2 sold 2 Million

No. DA2 sold "in" 2 mil. Which prob means we'll never know the true sales. Except that it's less than 2 mil.

Yeah, yeah it shipped 2 million.  That doesn't mean it didn't sell more than that it depends on the reorders. You act like you know what your talking about.  You don't.

[bEVEsthda]

cJohnOne wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

cJohnOne wrote...

Didn't DAO sell 3.5 million and DA2 sell 2 million? The chart seems a little off.  In direction I guess.

Actually Origins sold like 5 million and DA2 sold 2 Million

No. DA2 sold "in" 2 mil. Which prob means we'll never know the true sales. Except that it's less than 2 mil.

Yeah, yeah it shipped 2 million.  That doesn't mean it didn't sell more than that it depends on the reorders. You act like you know what your talking about.  You don't.

But where do you think the oft quoted "2 mil" figure originally comes from? (Which I think you yourself also mentioned. If you have a different source original figure for 2 mil, please enlighten me.)

As for reorders, I assume there wasn't any. You're correct that I'm just assuming that. But: There's a reason why they gave away a free copy of ME2 to DA2 buyers. There's a reason why further dlc was cancelled. There's a reason there isn't any "ultimate" version, bundled with existing dlc. And we have that reason from Mark Darrah's own mouth. The retailers don't want anything DA2.