213 réponses à ce sujet

[Savber100]

Choices and consequences Bioware.

"nuff said.

[ioannisdenton]

i am replaying dragon age 2 and while i was hating it somehow this time on my 3rd playthrough i NOW found out that this game is not bad. in fact it is very good given it's shortcomings.
It must be the latest patch , it somehow fixed the combat for me. i can actually issue combat strategies now.
Bioware did wonders given it's timeframe. seriously.
Do not know about you guys but i was a dick. my attitude towards bioware regarding DA2 was very poor. I have regreted that
yeah yeah reused enviroments, wavy combat etc.
The friendship rivarly system is the best bioware has ever done.
Paragon-renegade system was not well done imo. it has flaws.
Mass effect's mistake was the hype that was built around it.
we (and bioware) built sky high hype.
as the poster above me said
"Choices and consequences Bioware. " <--- this

[Peranor]

thats1evildude wrote...

deuce985 wrote...

http://cloud.steampo...9C436ABA82A2EF/

God, Bethany's creepy witch hands freak me out.

I have to shut my eyes during that scene. 

E.T phone home

[DreamwareStudio]

Return of Isometric camera would be really nice. Choices, consequences, no auto-dialogue, difficult gameplay (by that I don't mean the ninja drops or waves), role-playing, realistic weapons, more weapons, more customization, better graphics...pretty much everything that DA 2 was not.

I could go on a rant right about now regarding what DA 3 should be and what it will turn out to be, but I won't. I will keep assumptions to myself that I've based on what I've read in regards to DA 3. Yes, I will wait and see if EA ever regains my business or whether they will continue to tarnish the name Bioware (because let's face it, that is all Bioware is now...a label).

Modifié par google_calasade, 25 octobre 2012 - 10:29 .

[TheInquisitor]

Terrorize69 wrote...

AdmiralDavidAnderson wrote...

The factors that made Mass Effect 3 not as good as it could have been could certainly carry over to Dragon Age 3. The Dragon Age team should try their hardest to make sure Inquisition doesn't end up the same way.

They should look at the bad parts of Mass Effect 3 for 'How not to do their game'

Ending (Original) - The most disapointing thing about Mass 3 was the ending. It is the opposite of what ANY bioware fan wants from an Ending - Similar to that of Dragon Age 2's. It had NO closure, No explanation and choices did not make a damn difference. The Dragon Age 3 ending needs to have closure, explanation and most importantly a dramatic impact depending on our choices.

A more enjoyable multiplayer - Mass Effect 3's multiplayer got old, fast. I would say that they should not use multiplayer all together for Inquisiton but it is inevitable. Dragon Age 3 needs to have a multi-player that we will enjoy for months and always want to go back to.

No auto-dialogue

Greater Character Development

Take time on the game, don't rush it out the door.

Don't dumb the game down loads for casual players.


Lean more towards RPG... Not action.

1) Your assuming DA3 will be the end. It's not a trilogy. Meaning lack of closure is a high poss. We have no idea how DA2 will affect DA3 either.

2) MP in a sci-fi game with a fair amount of aiming and shooting can be expected. But a fantasy game? Know of very few fantasy games with MP, not counting MMO.

3) The Dialogue system from DA2 is staying, no need to worry about auto.

Dragon Age Origins was the start of the trilogy and it had closure in it's ending. I don't see why Inquisition shouldn't.

[Travie]

I just hope they don't do the Diablo 3 thing... where the devs saw all the hoopla about people not liking the art design so they threw in a level that was a ridiculous opposite of what the fans requested...

A funny thing to do, but what we ended up with is (instead of the funny and cool cow level) a part of the game no one touches because its too grating and horrible.

[sympathy4sarenreturns]

Don't focus on Cerberus when the Reapers are here and use deus ex machinas?

[Celene II]

Totally remove MP

and i agree with you completely

Especially the "Don't dumb the game down loads for casual players"

That absolutely killed DA2 for me.

[JoltDealer]

AdmiralDavidAnderson wrote...

The factors that made Mass Effect 3 not as good as it could have been could certainly carry over to Dragon Age 3. The Dragon Age team should try their hardest to make sure Inquisition doesn't end up the same way.

They should look at the bad parts of Mass Effect 3 for 'How not to do their game'

Ending (Original) - The most disapointing thing about Mass 3 was the ending. It is the opposite of what ANY bioware fan wants from an Ending - Similar to that of Dragon Age 2's. It had NO closure, No explanation and choices did not make a damn difference. The Dragon Age 3 ending needs to have closure, explanation and most importantly a dramatic impact depending on our choices.

A more enjoyable multiplayer - Mass Effect 3's multiplayer got old, fast. I would say that they should not use multiplayer all together for Inquisiton but it is inevitable. Dragon Age 3 needs to have a multi-player that we will enjoy for months and always want to go back to.

No auto-dialogue

Greater Character Development

Take time on the game, don't rush it out the door.

Don't dumb the game down loads for casual players.


Lean more towards RPG... Not action.

I agree with you on all counts, except for on multiplayer.  I enjoyed ME3's multiplayer and it's one of the few games I play online regularly.  All games with multiplayer will eventually get old, but I've found it's the competition and socializing that makes me come back.  Even great games like Borderlands are nothing without a good party.  I do however believe that one thing that all multiplayer games should have is custom games like Halo.  Multiplayer doesn't get too old when you can your friends keep making better game types to play.

[Dubozz]

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

AdmiralDavidAnderson wrote...

Excellent post.

[Plaintiff]

It's a good thing you're here to speak for all of the Bioware fans. I don't know how they'd ever articulate their opinions without you.

Notice I do not include myself. For I disagree with everything you've said and thus am no true fan of Bioware. You've exposed my deception and foiled my evil plot once and for all. Bravo, sir. Bravo.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 27 décembre 2012 - 01:33 .

[Guilebrush]

Plaintiff wrote...

I'm so glad you're here to speak for all of the Bioware fans. I don't know how they'd ever articulate their opinions without you.

Notice I do not include myself. For I disagree with everything you've said and thus am no true fan of Bioware. You've exposed my vile deception. Bravo, sir. Bravo.

Lol, yeah isn't it great that we have individuals as absolute representations of the population.

I mean I can understand the want to express disappointment in certain aspects of a product that people are really passionate about and to outline hopes for the future of the company/line but I'm just taken aback how they turn into nothing short of ultimatums on online discussion forums...

To keep myself on topic though: I think for the most part ME3 was done really well and overall was a fantastic game but the ending thing was so contrived that yeah it did take away from the enjoyment of the game. Personally I wasn't expecting a happy ending nor was I really hoping for one (I was thinking they'd make it so you'd have to sacrifice Earth as the "big emotional moment") but eh we've all discussed this now for nearly a year so I don't really have anything to add at this point. I'm sure inspite of what the internet may want us to believe, the people working at Bioware aren't completely dense, they'll likely come up with something that works the next time around.

Now that said the one thing that has never shown any progress whatsoever in Bioware franchises which I hope gets some attention in DA:I is level design. Not the aesthetical aspect of it but the actual functional execution of their levels. Sadly be it ME, DA, or even their MMO TOR Bioware levels tend to be flat, uninspired, corridor heavy, laoding screen burdened areas which is surprising given what other studios have been able to do with their game spaces (see GTA, SR3, the Arkham Games, the AC games, etc.). Now if Bioware manages to pull off really compelling level design I'll be really impressed, because I KNOW they can do pretty much everything else right, we know they have it in them.

[Androme]

 I'm just hoping BioWare will come to their senses in general.

[atum]

AdmiralDavidAnderson wrote...


Take time on the game, don't rush it out the door.

I think if they just did this, the rest would fall into place.

AdmiralDavidAnderson wrote...

I was born in London.

We know.

[Rawgrim]

Celene II wrote...

Totally remove MP

and i agree with you completely

Especially the "Don't dumb the game down loads for casual players"

That absolutely killed DA2 for me.

You have a point.

[Silfren]

Rawgrim wrote...

Conduit0 wrote...

If Bioware needs to learn anything from ME3 its that they need to just ignore the so called "fans" because they're a bunch of ungrateful twits that will whine endlessly no matter what you do.

If you pay for a product, you have the right to complain. Or do you just ignore it if you find a fly in your soup?

Yes, and no.  Buying a video game is rather like buying a book to read or movie to watch.  You have the right to express your opinion of the material, and you of course have the right to choose never to buy any sequels to that book, movie, or game, or to buy any product put out by the same creative team.  You do NOT have the right to demand that the creative team apologize to you for creating a product you ultimately disliked, or to demand that they edit the material to suit your tastes, or to demand that all future products put out by them are tailored precisely and excellently to your preferences. 

Or did you think that after buying and reading an entire book, you had the right to demand your money back for disliking it?  Or could straightfacedly request the return of your money from the movie theatre because you want back the three hours you wasted watching a sucky movie?  In terms of story-related entertainment (which Bioware games are), fans don't get to demand that stories be written to suit them.

To a rather large extent, that's what's going on here; people are going beyond mere complaints to making outright demands and veiled threats (as if Bioware is going to fall apart because it doesn't get X player's money) about what Bioware MUST do.  Bioware will listen, or they won't, but they certainly are NOT obligated to.  And not a few people here need to bear in mind that they do not speak for all the fans, either on these forums, or outside the BSN altogether.  There's a great deal of "Bioware needs to listen to us fans/NOT ONE FAN LIKES THIS/THIS IS THE KIND OF ENDING NO FANS WOULD E VER LIKE" which categorically assumes that all fans, everywhere, love and hate exactly the same things, and it's so childish and ridiculous and bloody presumptuous a mindset that it needs to be shouted down once and for all.  Especially since if Bioware listened to that group to the exclusion of all others, the problem wouldn't go away, but merely shift to the next group of players griping about how the game didn't suit THEM.

[Rawgrim]

Silfren wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Conduit0 wrote...

If Bioware needs to learn anything from ME3 its that they need to just ignore the so called "fans" because they're a bunch of ungrateful twits that will whine endlessly no matter what you do.

If you pay for a product, you have the right to complain. Or do you just ignore it if you find a fly in your soup?

Yes, and no.  Buying a video game is rather like buying a book to read or movie to watch.  You have the right to express your opinion of the material, and you of course have the right to choose never to buy any sequels to that book, movie, or game, or to buy any product put out by the same creative team.  You do NOT have the right to demand that the creative team apologize to you for creating a product you ultimately disliked, or to demand that they edit the material to suit your tastes, or to demand that all future products put out by them are tailored precisely and excellently to your preferences. 

Or did you think that after buying and reading an entire book, you had the right to demand your money back for disliking it?  Or could straightfacedly request the return of your money from the movie theatre because you want back the three hours you wasted watching a sucky movie?  In terms of story-related entertainment (which Bioware games are), fans don't get to demand that stories be written to suit them.

To a rather large extent, that's what's going on here; people are going beyond mere complaints to making outright demands and veiled threats (as if Bioware is going to fall apart because it doesn't get X player's money) about what Bioware MUST do.  Bioware will listen, or they won't, but they certainly are NOT obligated to.  And not a few people here need to bear in mind that they do not speak for all the fans, either on these forums, or outside the BSN altogether.  There's a great deal of "Bioware needs to listen to us fans/NOT ONE FAN LIKES THIS/THIS IS THE KIND OF ENDING NO FANS WOULD E VER LIKE" which categorically assumes that all fans, everywhere, love and hate exactly the same things, and it's so childish and ridiculous and bloody presumptuous a mindset that it needs to be shouted down once and for all.  Especially since if Bioware listened to that group to the exclusion of all others, the problem wouldn't go away, but merely shift to the next group of players griping about how the game didn't suit THEM.

i basically agree with some of your points. But I would like to point out these small facts.

1. Neverwinter Nights. We were told we could import our BG2 character, and that the story would continue from that game. Didn`t happen. Didn`t find that out untill i bought the game either. ok to complain?

2. Dragon Age 2. We were told the story would span for a decade. Didn`t happen. We were promised some very tactical combat. Didn`t get that either. We were also told our choices in the game would matter in the end. The only thing that got changed was wether or not we got to kill Orsino or Meredith before the other. Didn`t find out about that untill after i had bought the game and invested hours into finishing the game.

3. DA:O - Witch Hunt. Got told i would learn Morrigan`s secret. That was pretty much the whole salespitch of the DLC. Ended up learning nothing at all. Paid for something i didn`t get.

4. Mass Effect 3. Got told all my choices in the previous games would matter, and that it would affect the (16 was it?) different endings. None of my early choices mattered at all., and I got 3 endings. Ok to complain about not getting what was promised flat out? It was also said that multiplayer would not affect the single player at all. It did. allthough that got fixed in a patch later - but not before it screwed up my first playthrough. It also made playing through 1 and 2 just before the 3rd game (yet again) to get a "perfect" save import a complete waste of time.


So yes. its ok to complain when you pay for one thing, and get something completely different.

[Plaintiff]

Rawgrim wrote...
2. Dragon Age 2. We were told the story would span for a decade. Didn`t happen. We were promised some very tactical combat. Didn`t get that either. We were also told our choices in the game would matter in the end. The only thing that got changed was wether or not we got to kill Orsino or Meredith before the other. Didn`t find out about that untill after i had bought the game and invested hours into finishing the game.

Not everybody operates on your personal scale. If I say that I found DA2's combat to be very tactical, and that I think my choices mattered a lot, then on what basis do you prove me wrong?

[LinksOcarina]

Savber100 wrote...

Choices and consequences Bioware.

"nuff said.

They were in every BioWare game though. But you, as the player, can't manipulate them all because of a disconnect between plot and narrative. 

[Rawgrim]

Plaintiff wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
2. Dragon Age 2. We were told the story would span for a decade. Didn`t happen. We were promised some very tactical combat. Didn`t get that either. We were also told our choices in the game would matter in the end. The only thing that got changed was wether or not we got to kill Orsino or Meredith before the other. Didn`t find out about that untill after i had bought the game and invested hours into finishing the game.

Not everybody operates on your personal scale. If I say that I found DA2's combat to be very tactical, and that I think my choices mattered a lot, then on what basis do you prove me wrong?

Sure, you could pretend that you need to use tactics. But its not required at all.

What choices did you make that mattered in the end, pray tell? Ones that really gave you a different ending.

[LinksOcarina]

Rawgrim wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
2. Dragon Age 2. We were told the story would span for a decade. Didn`t happen. We were promised some very tactical combat. Didn`t get that either. We were also told our choices in the game would matter in the end. The only thing that got changed was wether or not we got to kill Orsino or Meredith before the other. Didn`t find out about that untill after i had bought the game and invested hours into finishing the game.

Not everybody operates on your personal scale. If I say that I found DA2's combat to be very tactical, and that I think my choices mattered a lot, then on what basis do you prove me wrong?

Sure, you could pretend that you need to use tactics. But its not required at all.

What choices did you make that mattered in the end, pray tell? Ones that really gave you a different ending.

I'm sorry, but even if its not required, but is there, why is that a mark against the game when you can play it mechanically how you wish? 

If anything that is a strength because it caters to your needs in terms of combat mechanics, instead of being locked into one singular way of doing things. 

[Rawgrim]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
2. Dragon Age 2. We were told the story would span for a decade. Didn`t happen. We were promised some very tactical combat. Didn`t get that either. We were also told our choices in the game would matter in the end. The only thing that got changed was wether or not we got to kill Orsino or Meredith before the other. Didn`t find out about that untill after i had bought the game and invested hours into finishing the game.

Not everybody operates on your personal scale. If I say that I found DA2's combat to be very tactical, and that I think my choices mattered a lot, then on what basis do you prove me wrong?

Sure, you could pretend that you need to use tactics. But its not required at all.

What choices did you make that mattered in the end, pray tell? Ones that really gave you a different ending.

I'm sorry, but even if its not required, but is there, why is that a mark against the game when you can play it mechanically how you wish? 

If anything that is a strength because it caters to your needs in terms of combat mechanics, instead of being locked into one singular way of doing things. 

I belive the devs said "In this game you have to think like a general, and fight like a spartan".
Meaning...tactics is required. Wich is wasn`t at all.

[LinksOcarina]

Rawgrim wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
2. Dragon Age 2. We were told the story would span for a decade. Didn`t happen. We were promised some very tactical combat. Didn`t get that either. We were also told our choices in the game would matter in the end. The only thing that got changed was wether or not we got to kill Orsino or Meredith before the other. Didn`t find out about that untill after i had bought the game and invested hours into finishing the game.

Not everybody operates on your personal scale. If I say that I found DA2's combat to be very tactical, and that I think my choices mattered a lot, then on what basis do you prove me wrong?

Sure, you could pretend that you need to use tactics. But its not required at all.

What choices did you make that mattered in the end, pray tell? Ones that really gave you a different ending.

I'm sorry, but even if its not required, but is there, why is that a mark against the game when you can play it mechanically how you wish? 

If anything that is a strength because it caters to your needs in terms of combat mechanics, instead of being locked into one singular way of doing things. 

I belive the devs said "In this game you have to think like a general, and fight like a spartan".
Meaning...tactics is required. Wich is wasn`t at all.

You strike it against the game because of the assumption that the developers lied to you, when the option is there regardless but not required. Instead, you presume that quote, and whatever else is said means it had to be the only way to play. That is a hollow argument that is wholly irrelevent to the fact that you can, regardless of how you interpret what someone says.

So again I don't see why you are complaining when you got what you wanted. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 28 décembre 2012 - 12:16 .

[Rawgrim]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
2. Dragon Age 2. We were told the story would span for a decade. Didn`t happen. We were promised some very tactical combat. Didn`t get that either. We were also told our choices in the game would matter in the end. The only thing that got changed was wether or not we got to kill Orsino or Meredith before the other. Didn`t find out about that untill after i had bought the game and invested hours into finishing the game.

Not everybody operates on your personal scale. If I say that I found DA2's combat to be very tactical, and that I think my choices mattered a lot, then on what basis do you prove me wrong?

Sure, you could pretend that you need to use tactics. But its not required at all.

What choices did you make that mattered in the end, pray tell? Ones that really gave you a different ending.

I'm sorry, but even if its not required, but is there, why is that a mark against the game when you can play it mechanically how you wish? 

If anything that is a strength because it caters to your needs in terms of combat mechanics, instead of being locked into one singular way of doing things. 

I belive the devs said "In this game you have to think like a general, and fight like a spartan".
Meaning...tactics is required. Wich is wasn`t at all.

You strike it against the game because of the assumption that the developers lied to you, when the option is there regardless but not required. Instead, you presume that quote, and whatever else is said means it had to be the only way to play. That is a hollow argument that is wholly irrelevent to the fact that you can, regardless of how you interpret what someone says.

So again I don't see why you are complaining when you got what you wanted. 

"You HAVE to think like a general". The game required no tactical thinking on my part. At all. Ergo, I didn`t get the type of game that was promised, did I?

Sure you can PRETEND to play the game tactically. But in the end you are just kidding yourself, since you can acieve the same goals by just buttonmashing.

You can play the game as a flight simulator as well, if you wish. Just pretend Hawke is a plane and that he is flying around shooting down enemy aircrafts. Doesn`t mean the game requires me to have any pilotingskills.