39 réponses à ce sujet

[Eudaemonium]

This has always been my stance on DA2, which is still one of my favourite games in recent years despite the fact that I think it's not really a very good *game*. I am similarly concerned that the devs may shy away from building a more intellectual story in favour of the tried, tested and thoroughly boring 'gather allies, defeat evil'. They're already changing the friendship/rivalry system back to one more like DAO's, primarily, it seems, because a lot of people couldn't work out what it actually was (and to their credit, the game never actually tells us what it is - another oversight).

I will remain hopeful, but I will always weep for what might have been.

[Poison_Berrie]

Rushed development is the biggest problem and taking longer to develop the game would certainly have improved quite a few aspects of the game.
But like Navasha said some things are a deliberate decision and I don't think things like enemy waves and the final mission/boss fights would have changed much from having more time. And I'm not sure whether more time would actually have made them change the city over the years you spend there.

Modifié par Poison_Berrie, 14 novembre 2012 - 01:59 .

[StElmo]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

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?

The framing/structure of the narrative in particular is very unique, the artstyle was also less generic and very unusual, you could see what they wanted, even if they did miss the mark cos of time, characters were all excellent and different/unique - there was no "good vs bad" basis for them, thank christ.

Themes were also very complex and interesting, something you rarely see in big sprawling RPG's that have typically uninspiring narrative concepts.

[Emzamination]

Elmo please don't engage that, it has no intentions for the conversation to go anywhere pleasant. That has been hatemongering on Da3 since revelation and has no right to question your optimism.You're free to do as you wish, but I urge you to take a look at the linked topics and reconsider prolonging its stay.

Link

Link

Modifié par Emzamination, 14 novembre 2012 - 02:19 .

[Rixatrix]

StElmo wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

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?

The framing/structure of the narrative in particular is very unique, the artstyle was also less generic and very unusual, you could see what they wanted, even if they did miss the mark cos of time, characters were all excellent and different/unique - there was no "good vs bad" basis for them, thank christ.

Themes were also very complex and interesting, something you rarely see in big sprawling RPG's that have typically uninspiring narrative concepts.

The Friendship/Rivalry development system was also pretty interesting, in my opinion.  I liked that it didn't have to be good/bad or love/hate and that it had impact on not only dialogue, story outcomes, and romances, but also play (the friend/rival skill in each companion's unique skill tree).

And btw, I mostly agree with you.  My first time playing DA2, I'll admit I was disappointed that it wasn't DAO2.  The Dalish and Qunari redesigns, for example, bothered me.  My other complaints, like the reused maps/environments, world being too small, less branching dialogue/more autodialogue, no female dwarves or Qunari, no camp (or other centralized hub for companions), waves of enemies vs. more challenging battles (quantity vs. quality), and such can be summed up to "not enough development time."  

IIRC BW has admitted that the game was rushed - they did the best they could with the time that they had, but I doubt they put out the game that the team had envisioned.  The Legacy and MOTA DLC show that the DA team is still capable of making some outstanding content.  Unfortunately, good DLC is moot when people don't buy the game because of its mediocre reviews.  That's disappointing, because I managed to set aside the game's shortcomings and enjoyed its positives immensely my second time playing, like Hawke's personality and story, several of the companions, the new skills, Qunari/human and mage/templar conflicts, DAO cameos, and the quests - Leandra, Feynriel, escaped mages/apostates, the missing templar recruits, etc.  Since then, I have wished there would be more DLC like retaking Starkhaven or Exalted March that was canceled.

I don't know what the DA2 sales figures were like, but considering development for Exalted March had already been underway when it was canceled, they must have been pretty dismal to scrap all that work.  A shame, really.  I know there are people out there who still dislike the game, but to each their own.

[Darth Death]

I disagree on your assessment that the only real problem was the game being rushed. That's very inaccurate; still your opinion though. AngryJoe's review of DA2 is pretty much spot on & honestly the best review of the game imo.

[Wulfram]

The ideas may have been OK - it's hard to judge properly when any flaw can be blamed on the implementation.

But there was no coherency to them. The style of the combat went totally the opposite way to the style of the story. The framed narrative only seems to exist because someone thought framed narratives were cool, and to make one joke in Act 2. The artstyle and level design doesn't fit the story either - we're told this is a grimy, overcrowded maze like city, while we're shown an open, minimalist design. Elves wear no shoes just because. The story jumps from "Get rich quick" to "Surly Qunari" to "Idiotic mages and templars" with only the flimsiest of pretexts of connection.

The Friendship/Rivalry was a nice idea, but going by the implementation half the writers didn't really understand it.  And I liked the companions, but most of their stories seem like they were written to fit in a more traditional sort of timescale, and then had 3 year gaps crowbarred in.

There's just seems to have been no overall vision for the game.

Modifié par Wulfram, 14 novembre 2012 - 02:34 .

[The Hierophant]

StElmo wrote...

The framing/structure of the narrative in particular is very unique, the artstyle was also less generic and very unusual, you could see what they wanted, even if they did miss the mark cos of time, characters were all excellent and different/unique - there was no "good vs bad" basis for them, thank christ. 

Themes were also very complex and interesting, something you rarely see in big sprawling RPG's that have typically uninspiring narrative concepts.

The companions had improved banter, but the player lacked the ability to engage in convos outside of indicated quests. The acts seemed like self contained bubbles with only a mention given to the previous, and the consequences of actions rarely carried over like that dwarven loan shark in act one who wanted his money back in act 2. The themes were simple, Meredith & Orsino were flat antagonists, with most of the templers/mages being reduced to non sensical off the wall crazies for some semblance of grey. 

I appreciate the attempt at a different narrative/story structure, but it's rushed development, and execution overshadowed it, imho.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 14 novembre 2012 - 02:47 .

[WhiteThunder]

What about the utter lack of companion customization, the crappy art redesign (with the exception of the Qunari), the tedious wave combat, the fact that your companions would refuse to listen to the "Hold Position" button in combat, the terrible camera, the railroading of every major decision, I mean event...need I go on?

[King Cousland]

I couldn't disagree more about the story. I found it to be clumsy, disjointed and uninspired in both its writing and implementation. 

[Melca36]

They already said the next game would NOT be the same so I suggest you get used to it.

And what was innovative about the same dungeon over and over. What was unique bout Fetch and Delivery quests?

DA2 was a 7/10 in my book. Great characters but not much else to make it stand out.

Legacy DLC was a 9/10 and a step in the RIGHT direction

[Melca36]

One more thing........Why is this on the DA3 board?

[b09boy]

More time wouldn't have done much.  The problems were more with flawed/lazy design than with anything being rushed.

Locations added, you might think?  Two years is enough time to develop more than a dozen small locations.  That is lazy design, not rushed design.  I believe it was Laidlaw (though it may have been a level designer) who stated they didn't think the reaction would be as strongly negative as it was.

Combat flaws?  The combat was mechanically unsound.  They were taking a system built for raw stats and trying to make an action game out of it so it could be played both ways.  That's like trying to correct a rough draft by tearing out half the pages and sticking in new ones.  This made the health and dodge systems completely unsound, and that, combined with dependence on AoE, made higher difficulties cheap and lower difficulties easy without any middle ground.  I'd also point to enemy encounters being lazy rather than rushed.  Two years development and what is basically the same encounter with the same enemies only in different skins is repeated throughout the game.

How about story?  The writing here was broken from the beginning.  Literally.  Before the prologue is over the story is beyond repair because it's juggling three different stories and has skipped every single bit of important development.  More time wouldn't fix this.  It wouldn't fix Anders screwing up all character development at the end, or Orsino's change for the sake of gameplay.  Might be we'd get to see more of Meredith and Orsino earlier, develop their characters more, but this wouldn't help all the many missteps along the way that were present not because the title was rushed but because the writers and developers actively chose those to be the plot points within the game.

[Chris Priestly]

Not DA3 related.


LOCKDOWN!