39 réponses à ce sujet

[StElmo]

(TLDR Below)

All of the ideas behind DA2 are excellent - they just needed more time to mature:

The casting is sublime, and the writing develops some truly excellent characters. Varric rivals Garrus in terms of Bro-ness, Merrill rivals Liara in terms of sweetness - there are some great characters. Anders was a bit bland until the end, and then WOAH - sucker punch, he's a freaking terrorist.

The acting, contrary to populist opinion, is stellar.

The story is intelligent, and evokes very interesting socio political themes and is very allegorical, which i loved. As someone who appreciates the use of themes to create an anologue to our own world, DA2 is like christmas came all at once - and its not corney either, the writers clearly knew there had to be conflict to the protagonist etc.

Unfortunately, these great intentions really get held back by what is a rushed game. Needed at least another full year to match the breadth of content in Origins - despite being significantly more intelligent in it's tone.

Every single facet of the game is marred by the labor whip.

So many missed opportunities for more character development, lots of choices, branching narrative - heck, even the idea to limit the worldspace, IMHO is actually very clever, if the art department had time to actually make each section of the city big and unique like the levels in Origins.

Even the art style and combat system, was clearly well intentioned, but again, not fleshed out enough - not given enough time to mature and organically grow.

TL:DR - every single element of DA2 is excellent in principle, but only failed because the execution was rushed to the extreme. If DA3 carries over the philosophy of DA2 and is actually given time to *mature* and grow - it will most certainly be the best game by BioWare in the last 10 years. - ideas were great, exciting and new, but execution just didn't have enough time

I guess I am hoping they don't shy away from DA2's evolution, as others have said - the game has some great originality behined it that just needs lots of polish

Edit: I just got this comment, I will specify my point in response:

Emzamination wrote...

Tell us something we don't know.

Well, a lot of fans like to yell "but this *isn't* dragon age" "I don't WANT this..." "I don't WANT that" - without actually considering the potential for gaming to evolve if those things were given time to develop.

So a lot of people say they hate DA2 even if it wasn't rushed, they would still hate parts of it.

I couldn't disagree with them more - the only problem with DA is the rushed nature of its final product. Not the ideas behined the product.

Modifié par StElmo, 14 novembre 2012 - 01:04 .

[Emzamination]

Tell us something we don't know.

[Ajzpick]

That was well said. I really loved the entire setup of Dragon Age 2, but like you said, everything was rushed. The only thing i found annoying was the speed of the game itself. In Dragon Age: Origins, warriors were swinging their weapons waaay too slow, while in Dragon Age 2, they are swinging it too fast. A two handed weapon , from the game, swings faster than a knife, from real life O_o

[StElmo]

Edit: I just got this comment, I will specify my point in response:

Emzamination wrote...

Tell us something we don't know.

Well, a lot of fans like to yell "but this *isn't* dragon age" "I don't WANT this..." "I don't WANT that" - without actually considering the potential for gaming to evolve if those things were given time to develop.

So a lot of people say they hate DA2 even if it wasn't rushed, they would still hate parts of it.

I couldn't disagree with them more - the only problem with DA is the rushed nature of its final product. Not the ideas behined the product.

[StElmo]

Ajzpick wrote...

That was well said. I really loved the entire setup of Dragon Age 2, but like you said, everything was rushed. The only thing i found annoying was the speed of the game itself. In Dragon Age: Origins, warriors were swinging their weapons waaay too slow, while in Dragon Age 2, they are swinging it too fast. A two handed weapon , from the game, swings faster than a knife, from real life O_o

I don't want to make this topic tangential, but it's actually an animation technique - it was an attempt to combat the floaty nature of DA:O and again, if it was honed for a longer period of time, I guarentee you would not have had a problem with it being "quick".

[Reznore57]

It's true.
DA could have been a wonderful game , I remember feeling like slamming my head against my desk when i first finished it.
Crying "Why !Oh, Why!"

I'm a bit afraid ,because of how the game was perceived , the devs will shy away from some things.
My biggest fear is we will get back to gather allies , defeat big villains kind of story.
It's not that it's bad , but it's been done to death.

[Emzamination]

Oh, you speak of the Entitled. I pity their stunted emotional growth.

[philippe willaume]

yeap we know...

[StElmo]

Reznore57 wrote...

It's true.
DA could have been a wonderful game , I remember feeling like slamming my head against my desk when i first finished it.
Crying "Why !Oh, Why!"

I'm a bit afraid ,because of how the game was perceived , the devs will shy away from some things.
My biggest fear is we will get back to gather allies , defeat big villains kind of story.
It's not that it's bad , but it's been done to death.

Sure has.

[Fast Jimmy]

It's true.
DA could have been a wonderful game , I remember feeling like slamming my head against my desk when i first finished it.
Crying "Why !Oh, Why!"

I'm a bit afraid ,because of how the game was perceived , the devs will shy away from some things.
My biggest fear is we will get back to gather allies , defeat big villains kind of story.
It's not that it's bad , but it's been done to death.

To be fair, its been done to death because it makes for a great framework to build a story, especially a video game story.

It gives the chance to explore different areas and cultures, opening up your game world and lore. It gives a feeling of progression, going from an undefeatable enemy/situation to one where victory is possible. It allows for lots of different characters to be introduced, as travel brings lots of fresh faces. And it gives a sense of purpose to all of this, as there is a defined reason/goal to all of your work.

I'd love to see developers try and create more unique story structures, but ONLY if they realize what it is about the "collect allies/fight big bad" format that works so great. I feel like DA2 tried to change without understanding why the old formula was so fun, and instead fell on its face. If you were playing DA:O and you didn't want to stop the Blight, you are probably playing the wrong game. If you were playing DA2 and were saying "why don't I just gather what little remains of my friends and family and leave this powder keg of a town?" then you will still be forced to stay, which is a little more of an illogical situation.

A more personal story that doesn't have a Big Bad is a cool concept, but it brought none of the sense of urgency/need of doing ANY of it. In addition, it never gave the player a sense of accomplishment, as we were never building up towards anything, more just deciding to go treasure hunting and adventuring because you wanted money or you were bored hanging out in your big, huge mansion. That's not really compelling.

I really don't have a problem with DA2 on paper, for the large part. But its execution really seemed to miss the boat on why Bioware's previous games were successful.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 14 novembre 2012 - 12:56 .

[Kusy]

There was this thing called communism. Boy what a great idea it was, a beautiful concept.
But yeah... the execution was pretty weak.

Any game concept could have been a great game. Kayne & Lynch 2, Too Human, Dead Island... and Dragon Age 2. But they will and should be judged for their execution, not principles. And so, they will and should remain prime examples of being bad.

[Kail Ashton]

7. recycled. dungeons. the entire. freaking. 40 hour. game.

U L T I M A T E S I N !!!

Don't recall anyone being stupid enough to complain about the voice acting, even Anders needless replacement did an excellent job. Companion complaints are just individual preffrances and will always come up (personaly i found the DA2 cast the main redeemible quality of DA2) If the game ended at act 2 it would have been a much better game.

Act 3 is where the rushed mess most likely begins with under developed antagonists(merideth) or completely non existant main story npcs (orsino) with a half assed, rushed plot (which was about 3 missions) & stripped of any real choice as anders will always make the only impactful choice regardless, the mage/templar sides are identical save for which entrance you use in the finale with slight dialouge variations and so forth

Without Act 3 DA2 would've held up better, it's such a painfully tacked on bit of drival that just screams "last minute addition"

[StElmo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

It's true.
DA could have been a wonderful game , I remember feeling like slamming my head against my desk when i first finished it.
Crying "Why !Oh, Why!"

I'm a bit afraid ,because of how the game was perceived , the devs will shy away from some things.
My biggest fear is we will get back to gather allies , defeat big villains kind of story.
It's not that it's bad , but it's been done to death.

To be fair, its been done to death because it makes for a great framework to build a story, especially a video game story.

Yep, true, but generic frameworks aren't worth our time, to be honest. We need something more stimulating - I like to be treated as if I have a modicum of intelligence and patience for something new and refreshing

[StElmo]

Mr.Kusy wrote...

There was this thing called communism. Boy what a great idea it was, a beautiful concept.
But yeah... the execution was pretty weak.

Any game concept could have been a great game. Kayne & Lynch 2, Too Human, Dead Island... and Dragon Age 2. But they will and should be judged for their execution, not principles. And so, they will and should remain prime examples of being bad.

My point is that is not a reason to abandon those ideas - in DA's case all it needed was time. The execution, I have no doubt would have been markedly better with time,

[jstme]

My purely subjective opinion - i did not hate DA2 , but i found it really bland ,claustrophobic and boring and combat was not to my taste.
It being rushed is clearly one of main reasons for some parts, but i hope that they will change the hack and slash and abandon one city day night 3 episode idea.
Visiting the same areas 6 times (day/night, 3 chapters) meant that i knew the exect spot in which enemies from different quests will materialize once i saw where quest is on the map. This shatters immersion ,in my opinion.

[Navasha]

I definitely agree that it being rushed caused many of its problems, but I do feel there were developmental decisions that were also poor. You might just chalk those up to personal opinion.

1) Combat is way too fast. Watch the two-handed animation closely. The character spends almost NO time with both hands on the weapon and is swinging it one-handed like some kind of lightsaber. All the sliding around skills and thieves teleporting. The paratrooper waves that just drop out of the sky. Those were design decisions and IMO... poorly made ones.

2) Equipment and loot. The developers made a choice for the majority of loot to be "JUNK". Literally. It even drops it in a special inventory slot labelled JUNK. This is a completely useless item that you can sell for a few coppers at most. Was that because it was rushed, or was that an actual decision made. Many people who enjoy RPGs enjoy finding stuff and comparing it to what they already are using to see if its better. Getting rid of the JUNK and just dropping standard equipment that no one would have used would have felt a LOT better.

3) The voiced protagonist was also a design choice. While I understand they wanted people to hear the main hero, it also eliminates a lot of the personal interaction It also indirectly eliminates any possible design choice of having multiple different races. Something fans of of the first game fell in love with very much. Also, from someone having played the game many times, I can tell you that no matter what choice of dialog you chose, either "witty", "nice", or "aggressive", the NPCs more often than not respond about the same.
Was that because it was rushed, or that they simply didn't have the "budget" both financially and resources on disk, to produce enough lines to give conversations more options?

I will agree that more development time would have fixed a great many problems, but I also feel that they made design decisions that also stripped out a lot of RPG elements.

I think DA2 is a very good game, but I think its greatest problem is actually that it doesn't meet up to the grand expectations that DA:O set. I think some of the decisions that were likely made to "expand" the customer base for the game were made at the expense of some of the elements that made the first game so great.

[Reznore57]

I agree with the lack of sense of urgency or purpose , Fast Jimmy.
And it does lack that epic feeling DA:O had.

You don't have a horde of monster at your back.
The thing is Kirkwall is "supposed" to be a very cruel city , the city should have felt like a silent monster just waiting to eat your hero up.
It's true that it's really more difficult to create an sense of urgency and threat in those condition.
But it's not impossible .^^

[Heimdall]

I pretty much agree with everything you've said. Having said that, there were a few decisions that it might have done better without. If DA2 had another sixth months in the oven, so to speak, I think it would have not drawn nearly as much hate as it received.

[Fast Jimmy]

Reznore57 wrote...

I agree with the lack of sense of urgency or purpose , Fast Jimmy.
And it does lack that epic feeling DA:O had.

You don't have a horde of monster at your back.
The thing is Kirkwall is "supposed" to be a very cruel city , the city should have felt like a silent monster just waiting to eat your hero up.
It's true that it's really more difficult to create an sense of urgency and threat in those condition.
But it's not impossible .^^

It is not, you are correct. I admit I was excited when I heard the concepts behind DA2 being in one city over ten years. That sounded pretty amazing. It turned out to be a ltitle underwhelming (again, for me, personally).

Instead of feeling like Kirkwall was a city that could eat me alive, I felt like it was the same four/five areas over and over where events completely beyond my control seemed to happen. I didn't feel like I was trying to outrun these events, as it seemed like no matter what I chose, bad things would happen to my character. Which made me sort of shutdown about caring. If bad things were doomed to happen from the start, why would I even want to get emotionally involved/attached? The game gave me no reason to like my character or his family, so if everyone is doomed and I have no say in the matter, then I will just click my dominant personality choice every time and seem where disaster will finally take me.

And even then, the destination was pointless. 

The "gather allies/fight the big bad" story is about hope. How struggling against the odds and doing what needs to be done can overcome anything. The story of Hawke (and, a little off topic, the story of ME3's ending) are that no matter how hard you struggle, you can't overcome anything. You are only able to make decisions in the end that, ultimately, result in the same experience for you and the characters you have with you. And when that experience is primarily dark, that makes for a story that is not "emotionally deep" for me. Its a story that just instills a sense of apathy. And apathy is the absolute LAST emotion you want someone to have while playing (and especially BEATING) your game.

[mat21]

I Agree with the OP on this DA2 had some great ideas( I particularly liked the framed narrative and the fact that the game tried to be grey without one big bad) and I really loved the mixed up more personal storyline. It did just suffer a bit from being rushed. I thought the game got progressively worse through the acts with act 1 being the best and as someone else has said Act3 appearing really rushed.

I personally didn't mind the lack of an epic storyline at all as I thought it was a nice changer to just be a person getting by in the world as best they could.edit It was annoying though how in some situations you wern't even given the option of acting in a certain obvious way, I don't neccecarily have to succeed but I want to be able to try.

I hope bioware don't discard everything from DA2 due to the reactions of some people as it had some very good ideas going into it. Although Bioware have often said that there taking from both DA.0 and DA2 for DA3 so I'm hopeful.

Modifié par mat21, 14 novembre 2012 - 01:36 .

[ioannisdenton]

Yes. and Yes.
Dragon age 2 will age very well.
I find it way more playble now than back then which i hated it.
Now i LOVE it.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

Oh come on this is getting rediculous, are you trolling or just an EA spy? I know you want DA3 to turn out well but why do you feel the need to make exuses and place its predecessors on a pedestal they clearly do not deserve? Lowering your standards, exaggerations and blatant lies do not make a game series better, who exactly are you trying to convince here? Us or yourself?

I mean I get it, you are optimistic about DA3 and hope that it turns out good but all I ask is that you judge the game on its merits and not the picture in your head of what you want the game to be.

[Emzamination]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

Oh come on this is getting rediculous, are you trolling or just an EA spy? I know you want DA3 to turn out well but why do you feel the need to make exuses and place its predecessors on a pedestal they clearly do not deserve? Lowering your standards, exaggerations and blatant lies do not make a game series better, who exactly are you trying to convince here? Us or yourself?

I mean I get it, you are optimistic about DA3 and hope that it turns out good but all I ask is that you judge the game on its merits and not the picture in your head of what you want the game to be.

Says the troll who opened a thread trying to predict how much hate Da3 was likely to receive a week into its official revalation.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! You have Gall!!

[StElmo]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

Oh come on this is getting rediculous, are you trolling or just an EA spy? I know you want DA3 to turn out well but why do you feel the need to make exuses and place its predecessors on a pedestal they clearly do not deserve? Lowering your standards, exaggerations and blatant lies do not make a game series better, who exactly are you trying to convince here? Us or yourself?

I mean I get it, you are optimistic about DA3 and hope that it turns out good but all I ask is that you judge the game on its merits and not the picture in your head of what you want the game to be.

No, I just applaud innovation. The problem is innovation takes time.

Gamers love to chide older generations for not liking "change" - yet we do the same thing with games that want to evolve, we chide change when we should be actively encouraging it!

DA2 is by far the most original fantasy role playing game "on paper" i have ever encountered. It just suffers from poor execution - obviously as a result of time constraints.

if DA2 had been refined over a year, with more content, variety and more nuanced systems, the originally would have really shone through.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

StElmo wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

Oh come on this is getting rediculous, are you trolling or just an EA spy? I know you want DA3 to turn out well but why do you feel the need to make exuses and place its predecessors on a pedestal they clearly do not deserve? Lowering your standards, exaggerations and blatant lies do not make a game series better, who exactly are you trying to convince here? Us or yourself?

I mean I get it, you are optimistic about DA3 and hope that it turns out good but all I ask is that you judge the game on its merits and not the picture in your head of what you want the game to be.

No, I just applaud innovation. The problem is innovation takes time.

Gamers love to chide older generations for not liking "change" - yet we do the same thing with games that want to evolve, we chide change when we should be actively encouraging it!

On that point I totally agree with you however I fail to see what was so innovative about DA2, perhaps you can enlighten me?