228 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

Pseudocognition wrote...

I suspect that 'brown' has become a catch-all term for muddiness (mushy, undefined, dull colors in poorly designed spaces, not only referring to the color of mud).

I think this is the case as well. When he said 'brown' I knew what he meant was the washed out colors you get in places, but when I checked the places I considered 'brown' many of them were actually this pale tan.

[StElmo]

Pseudocognition wrote...

StElmo wrote...

Pro tip for enjoying DA2: zoom all the way in and enjoy the close up action combat and exploration. Makes the setting more imposing.

I play from predominately that perspective, in fact, but the kitchen tile is dull no matter how you look at it heh.

true, needs more little details to hide texture repeating. but man, looking upwards was awesome and imposing.

[StElmo]

M25105 wrote...

Just stick with what works, IE Dragon Age Origins (with slightly faster combat and more smooth controls). The world seemed grander and more exciting in Origins, in DA 2, you visit the same damn cave 5x times.

I don't agree entirely.

Variety works, yes.

But that does not mean you have to make itlook all generic like origins.

Maria Caliban wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...

I
suspect that 'brown' has become a catch-all term for muddiness (mushy,
undefined, dull colors in poorly designed spaces, not only referring to
the color of mud).

I think this is the case as well. When he
said 'brown' I knew what he meant was the washed out colors you get in
places, but when I checked the places I considered 'brown' many of them
were actually this pale tan.

sorry yes you are right.

Modifié par StElmo, 02 décembre 2012 - 11:22 .

[Nurot]

StElmo wrote...

DA3 will be awesome if the execution is as polished as Origins, but the originality and creativity is as strong as DA2.

DA3 will be weak if the execution is rushed like DA2 and is as generic in premise as Origins.

I am so afraid that the really "new" and "fresh" thinking from DA2 is going to be scrapped because of its reception - is anyone else scared of this?

I freaking love DA2 (especially the story, characters and setting), even though I had to wade through a bunch of massive design, refinement and dev time issues to appreciate it.

Yes, sometimes I am afraid of this. When the rage against DA2 is running high on the BSN or when the devs say that DA3 will be a mix of DAO and DA2 (I want them to keep moving forward and not take a step backwards), I start worrying. But it is an irrational fear. Bioware has only proved to me that they make innovative games. I have yet to see them release a "safe" game. So I will quell that irrational fear of mine and look forward to a great and innovative DA3.

Modifié par Nurot, 02 décembre 2012 - 11:31 .

[Robhuzz]

If they ditch the 'new' and 'fresh' ideas from DA2, the next game might actually be good.

No more reused environments and over the top hack n slash combat would be a start at least...

[Ridwan]

StreetMagic wrote...

^ That's why Bioware should just move on and ignore players' criticisms. You can't get an actual honest criticism from a disgruntled DA2 player. It's always an "all or nothing" scenario, where it's awful in every way. It's not remotely helpful to listen to people like this. If they limited their criticism to actual specifics instead of making it out to be bad in every way, it'd be a different story.

Dude, reusing envirmoments non stop is a problem. It severely kills any replay value and it makes the world feel bland and boring. Dumb stuff like "Oh my God, why can't I have sex with [insert unimportant npc] is stuff you can ignore, but criticism like reusing zones constantly is VALID.

[King Cousland]

StElmo wrote...

• It doesn't match any other BioWare game formula.
• It reflects the real world (through story).
• It has somewhat classical tragic elements to it, which I loved.
• The conflict was more personal with your sister being a mage and your mother being mutilated by one.
• The world was small in terms of it's character (could have used variety), but the character relationships were contained, which is a sign of good storytelling (imma lookin at you rockstar games).
• There was lots of subtext in the character dialogue (at least more than most games).
• The moral choices were less good and bad and more shades of grey.
• The characters were not characterizations, but actual characters, with flaws and their own turning points.

Overall everything on paper about DA2 is awesome.[/list]

I'm also not trying to be abrasive or create conflict, but I couldn't disagree more on some points:

[*]While it's true that the "save the world" tag can become tedious, a complete, DA II-style departure from the formula is not necessarily a good thing. I found DA II sufficiently enjoyable for several playthroughs, but I still feel it's BioWare's poorest game to date. [*]Again, this is not always good thing. If you want to tackle real-world issues, create a game set in the real-world.[*]For me, the tragic element in the majority of these were diminished by flaws in the writing (e.g. rushed or insufficient character development or simply not having enough time to interact with a character and care about them)[*]You didn't experience any of these personal moments in DA:O?[*]I'm afraid I'm with Allan on this - what exactly do you mean by "contained" relationships?[*]I suppose I'd agree with this but I don't think it's a quality which is exclusive to DA II.[*]When we actually got to make a choice (choice and consequence is something which BioWare has never handled well), it seemed like the game always pointed to what was the good and bad choice. For me at least, it was evident that the templars were presented as the "big bad". [*]I'd agree with this, but, once again, it isn't exclusive to DA II.  

Modifié par King Cousland, 02 décembre 2012 - 11:52 .

[ScotGaymer]

The thing is St. Elmo.

There was actually very little about DA2 that was innovative or creative really.

The storyline had potential and did indeed depart from the standard BW formula and do something a bit different yes. But it didn't go far enough.
Kirkwall was drab, grey (Grey! Not Brown!), lifeless, and boring.
Nothing really changed as the game progressed (that same "noble" demanding to see the viscount for nearly 7 years), and then BW ruined the whole thing by shoehorning in TEH ULTIMATEZ BOZZ BATTELZ!!!!!1!!11!! with two morally grey but not really cos they are insane antagonists.

Other games have done the "containted in one city and its environs" better than DA2. Arkham City immediately leaps to mind. And where DAO was brown and mud everywhere(!), DA2 was Grey and Dust everywhere(!) instead. Yeh big creative improvement there Bioware.
And again, nothing changed!

A lot of the "innovative" that BW did with DA2 was in reality not innovative at all. It was merely them doing what the ME team did so well (not) instead of repairing a feature so it worked, they simply flung it out.
Instead of rebalancing the talent and skill trees so they were more useful and less OP in certain classes they tore it all in half and flung half of it out.
In fact, instead of rebalancing the game to make rogues (and rogue skills) more useful they simply flung the whole lot out and made the rogue a dull as dish water "speedy warrior". Eugh.

Locking companions into "iconic" looks was a mistake. Pure and simple. It sucked.

The new Darkspawn designs (ClownSpawn and DonkeyKongSpawn) were horrific. And the new Elven design was horrible - the entire race looks like it was downs syndrome now.
Melty Clowns, Donkey Kong minus the barrels, and Downs Syndrome Elves are hardly creative IMO.

The family dynamic that was so touted was probably the lamest implementation of "family" I have ever seen. Aveline felt more like family to Hawke than his mother and sister/brother did.
It was not original, or creative, or well implemented.
Carver died and I went "so? why do I care about this strange hostile person dying?"
Bethany got infected by DAH TAINT and I only saved her cos it meant more Anders dialogue.
Even mothers death meant very little as I think Hawke had 3 conversations with her before she died, seriously - she blamed him for Carver croaking it (****), she apologised for blaming him for Carver dying (****), and she tried to match make him with some Kirkwaller noble brat (****). So basically this is a woman who showed herself to be a spiteful interfering **** to her son, why in gods name should we care that she died aisde from the fact that she went in a particularily horrific fashion?
Seriously, I connected more with Gamlen during the game than I did with Mum, Sis, or Bro.

The other things you mention. The Shades of grey. The complexity of the characters. And so on. Were all things that were "features" in DAO. So again don't count as creative or innovative if they did it before.

I enjoyed DA2. But honestly they did ONE thing with it that could be considered innovative or creative and that was the long range "personal" story of Hawke. And as I said they ruined that with the sucky ending, lack of connections with the people (family) and place (Kirkwallers are dicks), and horrible FemHawke voice acting.

So to answer ur question. No I am not afraid because what potential for creativity and things that make you go "ooooh neat!" was patently not achieved in DA2 due to a lack of dev time.
With DA2 they have the basis there for improvements (actual improvements Bioware not just cutting **** out cos it didnt work right!), that they almost can not screw up on.

[Ridwan]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

The thing is St. Elmo.

There was actually very little about DA2 that was innovative or creative really.

The storyline had potential and did indeed depart from the standard BW formula and do something a bit different yes. But it didn't go far enough.
Kirkwall was drab, grey (Grey! Not Brown!), lifeless, and boring.
Nothing really changed as the game progressed (that same "noble" demanding to see the viscount for nearly 7 years), and then BW ruined the whole thing by shoehorning in TEH ULTIMATEZ BOZZ BATTELZ!!!!!1!!11!! with two morally grey but not really cos they are insane antagonists.

Other games have done the "containted in one city and its environs" better than DA2. Arkham City immediately leaps to mind. And where DAO was brown and mud everywhere(!), DA2 was Grey and Dust everywhere(!) instead. Yeh big creative improvement there Bioware.
And again, nothing changed!

A lot of the "innovative" that BW did with DA2 was in reality not innovative at all. It was merely them doing what the ME team did so well (not) instead of repairing a feature so it worked, they simply flung it out.
Instead of rebalancing the talent and skill trees so they were more useful and less OP in certain classes they tore it all in half and flung half of it out.
In fact, instead of rebalancing the game to make rogues (and rogue skills) more useful they simply flung the whole lot out and made the rogue a dull as dish water "speedy warrior". Eugh.

Locking companions into "iconic" looks was a mistake. Pure and simple. It sucked.

The new Darkspawn designs (ClownSpawn and DonkeyKongSpawn) were horrific. And the new Elven design was horrible - the entire race looks like it was downs syndrome now.
Melty Clowns, Donkey Kong minus the barrels, and Downs Syndrome Elves are hardly creative IMO.

The family dynamic that was so touted was probably the lamest implementation of "family" I have ever seen. Aveline felt more like family to Hawke than his mother and sister/brother did.
It was not original, or creative, or well implemented.
Carver died and I went "so? why do I care about this strange hostile person dying?"
Bethany got infected by DAH TAINT and I only saved her cos it meant more Anders dialogue.
Even mothers death meant very little as I think Hawke had 3 conversations with her before she died, seriously - she blamed him for Carver croaking it (****), she apologised for blaming him for Carver dying (****), and she tried to match make him with some Kirkwaller noble brat (****). So basically this is a woman who showed herself to be a spiteful interfering **** to her son, why in gods name should we care that she died aisde from the fact that she went in a particularily horrific fashion?
Seriously, I connected more with Gamlen during the game than I did with Mum, Sis, or Bro.

The other things you mention. The Shades of grey. The complexity of the characters. And so on. Were all things that were "features" in DAO. So again don't count as creative or innovative if they did it before.

I enjoyed DA2. But honestly they did ONE thing with it that could be considered innovative or creative and that was the long range "personal" story of Hawke. And as I said they ruined that with the sucky ending, lack of connections with the people (family) and place (Kirkwallers are dicks), and horrible FemHawke voice acting.

So to answer ur question. No I am not afraid because what potential for creativity and things that make you go "ooooh neat!" was patently not achieved in DA2 due to a lack of dev time.
With DA2 they have the basis there for improvements (actual improvements Bioware not just cutting **** out cos it didnt work right!), that they almost can not screw up on.

I usually avoid reading posts that are overly long, but you just laid down the smackdown with this one. Nice one.

[Maria Caliban]

No, I am not worried.

If DA:I is like DA:O, that's fine. If it's like DA II, that's fine. If it's something altogether different, that's fine. I want good games, but I think there are lots of ways of being good.

Lastly, if DA:I kept the creativity and 'new ideas' from DA II, it would no longer be creative or new. It would be more of the same.

[Fiacre]

StElmo wrote...

Xiomara wrote...

I'm not trying to start an argument (I also like DA2), but can you perhaps explain what you found so original and creative about it?

• It doesn't match any other BioWare game formula.
• It reflects the real world (through story).
• It has somewhat classical tragic elements to it, which I loved.
• The conflict was more personal with your sister being a mage and your mother being mutilated by one.
• The world was small in terms of it's character (could have used variety), but the character relationships were contained, which is a sign of good storytelling (imma lookin at you rockstar games).
• There was lots of subtext in the character dialogue (at least more than most games).
• The moral choices were less good and bad and more shades of grey.
• The characters were not characterizations, but actual characters, with flaws and their own turning points.

Overall everything on paper about DA2 is awesome.

I have to say, I still honestyl liked DA:O's story better.

Deviating from a formula can be good (ask the Zelda fans! every game, we demand just that.), but it doesn't automatically make a story better. Many of DA2's story weaknesses come from the three Acts structure, that wasn't used to it's full potential.

Can't say I found DA2 to do that any more than DA:O

I like classical tragedy, but none of that made DA2's story more compelling than DA:O to me -- which did have tragic elements as well, anyway.

Contained character relationships work well in DA2 because it is set in one city. It wouldn't have worked in DA:O -- we travel through the whole country, contained relationships would simply make the world feel smaller. Honestly, I'd rather have a large world and more throwaway characters than a small one. Then again, I'm also not the biggest fan od DA2's focus on Hawke's personal story -- I'd rather develop the protagonist's story as part of the big, overarching story, like DA:O did. As far as relationships with companions go, I found DA:O to do a far better job at it than DA2.

Is that that unique to DA2? I didn't see it become any more prevalent than in DA:O. I thought that did a pretty good job with it as well.

More so than in DA:O? I found the choices to be pretty clear in DA2. DA:O actually had me think about what to choose. DA:O made, for example, a far more compelling argument to side with the Templars than DA2 did during that whole mess. People like Alrik, Karras, and indeed Meredith really, really don't endear the Templars to me or make me any more likely to side with them. Sten also made the Qun look a lore more grey than the whole Act 2 did.

So were the ones in DA:O. And since you could actually talk to them, you saw a lot more of their character.


Incidentally, I found Loghain to be a far more compelling antagonist than Meredith, and considering what she and Orsino become... The Archdemon as a monster at least made sense. And, apart from Meredith's insanity coming from the Lyrium artifact, which was actually intriguing, was even more interesting, lore wise.

Modifié par Fiacre, 02 décembre 2012 - 12:27 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

StElmo wrote...
I am so afraid that the really "new" and "fresh" thinking from DA2 is going to be scrapped because of its reception - is anyone else scared of this?

There is nothing wrong to try really "new" and "fresh" thinking. We won't have the aeroplane today if men never attempt to fly like a bird - by falling to their death due to their lack of understanding on how the gravity works.


BioWare wanted to show how time and space move through 2 commonly devices in storytelling like third person narrator and frame narrative. Unfortunately, after 10 years we could still see the same corpses laying around in Fenris's Mansion. I wonder if it was due to magic. Or perhaps Varric exaggerated too much. Or perhaps there is no concept of moving through space and time visually.

BioWare wanted to tell a personal story of a common man who rise to power and become the champion of Kirkwall - by accident. Unfortunately they forget, frame narrative has this one bad habit, you know. It tends to disconnect players from the story. Plus lack of proper introduction, lack of  interaction, lack of personal motivation and focus, vague paraphrased dialogue, autodialogue, limited personality choices etc.. and the result, we see a lot of people complaint they couldn't relate to Hawke. I'm sure some people would argue it's not a problem since they don't feel any relevance to personally involved in the story but rather watch the cinematic interaction in their living room and with popcorn in their hand. 

Bottomline, Op, If you want to try something really "new" and 'fresh" make sure you can't just flap your wings like a bird to fly and you need to understand how gravity works. Otherwise you will fall to your death.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

I'm not going to copy walls of text to make one point, so here goes. About the characterization, I found most of them to be one-note. Isabela was always about sex. Fenris was always about mage hating, and Anders was always about templar hating. I enjoyed Avelines and Varrics characters because they were the only ones that seemed real.

Beyond the followers, the npcs were wooden statues, literally. The merchants would just stand there, you don't even interact with them. Enemies were clones with the exact same clothes. Background npcs were horrible low res models.

Side quests were boring and unimaginative, to the extreme. In the case of the fedex quests they were absurdly so.

All the above can be blamed directly on rushing and budget constraints, of course. So what I hope from for DA3 is that they spend some time and money fleshing out the game.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Uh, nope.

[Navasha]

Personally, I feel DA3 will likely be great if they just bring back consequences and choices. In Origins you had real choices with some real effects.

Did you kill the werewolves, kill the elves, or end the curse? Did you destroy the ashes causing Leliana and Wynn to turn on you or did you take just the pinch you needed? Did you help Bhelen or Harrowmont?

DA2 pretty much plays out exactly the same with only very minor differences in speech topics regardless of how you want to play. Not many real choices. I mean sure, you can choose to take your sibling into the deep roads or not, but no matter WHAT you choose they are still removed from the game all the same. The consequences end up being the same no matter what you choose in DA2.

Bringing back the feeling that my choices made a real difference would go a really long way to making it a great game.

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

StElmo wrote...

DA3 will be awesome if the execution is as polished as Origins, but the originality and creativity is as strong as DA2.

DA3 will be weak if the execution is rushed like DA2 and is as generic in premise as Origins.

I am so afraid that the really "new" and "fresh" thinking from DA2 is going to be scrapped because of its reception - is anyone else scared of this?

I freaking love DA2 (especially the story, characters and setting), even though I had to wade through a bunch of massive design, refinement and dev time issues to appreciate it.
----


EDIT: Elaboration

Xiomara wrote...

I'm not trying to start an argument (I
also like DA2), but can you perhaps explain what you found so original
and creative about it?

• It doesn't match any other BioWare game formula.
• It reflects the real world (through story).
• It has somewhat classical tragic elements to it, which I loved.
• The conflict was more personal with your sister being a mage and your mother being mutilated by one.
• The
  world was small in terms of it's character (could have used variety),
  but the character relationships were contained, which is a sign of good
  storytelling (imma lookin at you rockstar games).
• There was lots of subtext in the character dialogue (at least more than most games).
• The moral choices were less good and bad and more shades of grey.
• The characters were not characterizations, but actual characters, with flaws and their own turning points.

Overall everything on paper about DA2 is awesome.

[*]If one can overlook its flaws, like its lack of polish, DA2 is an underrated classic in much the same way Obsidian's KOTOR II was. Almost everyone gripes about the small things, never taking into account the fact that the plot is interesting and ungeneric, the characters are very solidly conceived and feel like real people, the writing is really quite good, and that it dared to be pretty different from its predecessor. Like KOTOR II compared to KOTOR I, DA 2 when compared to DA:O features a darker, more complex story.
[*]DA2 is willing to explore ideas found in one, but more deeply, e.g. in DA:O we had Jowan, a blood mage who could be compelled to use his blood magic to repent for something wicked he had done, but in DA2 we had in Merrill a companion who was basically a bashful, sweet woman who was nevertheless unafraid to use blood magic, naively perhaps, because she genuinely believed that it was part of her peoples' ancient tradition and something to be used rather than feared.
[*]I hope DA3's writers have the wisdom to realize what worked and what needs to carry over from DA2 based on their own sound judgement and not on the petchulant kvetching of BioWare's nearly unpleasable fanbase.

[StElmo]

StreetMagic wrote...

^ That's why Bioware should just move on and ignore players' criticisms. You can't get an actual honest criticism from a disgruntled DA2 player. It's always an "all or nothing" scenario, where it's awful in every way. It's not remotely helpful to listen to people like this. If they limited their criticism to actual specifics instead of making it out to be bad in every way, it'd be a different story.

If I had a music album that I had some doubts on, but knew there was some good songs on it - and some random dude told me it was bad in every way, I'd tell them to ****** off. It's not helpful.

Yeah that comment really saddened me,

[upsettingshorts]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

It will be impossible to have a thorough and honest discussion over the relative merits of Dragon Age 2 - and what significance they have going forward - if people keep lumping in cut corners like repeated environments with deliberate changes like the dialogue wheel.

[StElmo]

The Teryn of Whatever wrote...

StElmo wrote...

DA3 will be awesome if the execution is as polished as Origins, but the originality and creativity is as strong as DA2.

DA3 will be weak if the execution is rushed like DA2 and is as generic in premise as Origins.

I am so afraid that the really "new" and "fresh" thinking from DA2 is going to be scrapped because of its reception - is anyone else scared of this?

I freaking love DA2 (especially the story, characters and setting), even though I had to wade through a bunch of massive design, refinement and dev time issues to appreciate it.
----


EDIT: Elaboration

Xiomara wrote...

I'm not trying to start an argument (I
also like DA2), but can you perhaps explain what you found so original
and creative about it?

• It doesn't match any other BioWare game formula.
• It reflects the real world (through story).
• It has somewhat classical tragic elements to it, which I loved.
• The conflict was more personal with your sister being a mage and your mother being mutilated by one.
• The
  world was small in terms of it's character (could have used variety),
  but the character relationships were contained, which is a sign of good
  storytelling (imma lookin at you rockstar games).
• There was lots of subtext in the character dialogue (at least more than most games).
• The moral choices were less good and bad and more shades of grey.
• The characters were not characterizations, but actual characters, with flaws and their own turning points.

Overall everything on paper about DA2 is awesome.

[*]If one can overlook its flaws, like its lack of polish, DA2 is an underrated classic in much the same way Obsidian's KOTOR II was. Almost everyone gripes about the small things, never taking into account the fact that the plot is interesting and ungeneric, the characters are very solidly conceived and feel like real people, the writing is really quite good, and that it dared to be pretty different from its predecessor. Like KOTOR II compared to KOTOR I, DA 2 when compared to DA:O features a darker, more complex story.
[*]DA2 is willing to explore ideas found in one, but more deeply, e.g. in DA:O we had Jowan, a blood mage who could be compelled to use his blood magic to repent for something wicked he had done, but in DA2 we had in Merrill a companion who was basically a bashful, sweet woman who was nevertheless unafraid to use blood magic, naively perhaps, because she genuinely believed that it was part of her peoples' ancient tradition and something to be used rather than feared.
[*]I hope DA3's writers have the wisdom to realize what worked and what needs to carry over from DA2 based on their own sound judgement and not on the petchulant kvetching of BioWare's nearly unpleasable fanbase.

Thankyou for being the voice of reason in an awash of nostalgia fuelled conservatism. Most of the criticisms most of the criticisms I am reading are either "You say this is good, but it can also not be good" - no reasoning or "it was executed poorly" - which I agree with anyway.

[nightscrawl]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

It will be impossible to have a thorough and honest discussion over the relative merits of Dragon Age 2 - and what significance they have going forward - if people keep lumping in cut corners like repeated environments with deliberate changes like the dialogue wheel.

I don't know why people continually harp on the reused environments anyway. Yes, they irritated me too, but they have said several times that they know it was a problem, had two post-DA2 DLC with varied environments, and have said that that are having gargantuan levels for DA3. What more do you people need?

Do you really think that their design process for the DA2 dungeons consisted of "Here is a slide of this cave design, and we think the best situation is to just reuse it over and over again, that way there won't be a danger of the player getting lost!"?

FitScotGaymer wrote...

And where DAO was brown and mud everywhere(!), DA2 was Grey and Dust everywhere(!) instead.

I am playing DAO again, and you are right about this. I think the main difference between the two games is the lighting and how that affects the color palate. DAO used more yellow light, giving it some warmth, even though there are just as few colors. DA2 uses a paler color, making everything look colder and bleak. To add to this, I thought Kirkwall in Act 3 looked the best of the whole game, mainly because of the sunset lighting changes.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 02 décembre 2012 - 03:35 .

[Hatchetman77]

Well, I hated DA2 as a whole (and my many comments on the DA2 forum stand testament to that) but an innovation I did like was the feature that you could give your Hawke a distinctive personality based on dialouge options you choose (good, sarcastic and bad).  The system did have some flaws but I would like it expanded upon in future.   

[cJohnOne]

After DragonAge Inquistion which I assume will be on a grand scale. I wouldn't mind going back to a smaller scope story such as a single Dwarven city comes to mind. Or visiting a single country like DA2. The smaller miore personal story coming back again would be a good move.