228 réponses à ce sujet

[LPPrince]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Enemies coming out of the ceiling innovative?

LOL. When I saw that screenshot my first reaction was "well does that happen in other games?" XD

(Facetiously of course )

If it does happen in other games, its hidden a hell of a lot more compared to DA2's "O HAI CEILING FAN NINJAS!"

[Vandicus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Enemies coming out of the ceiling innovative?

LOL. When I saw that screenshot my first reaction was "well does that happen in other games?" XD

(Facetiously of course )

While its certainly aestheticaly jarring, I found it did have the advantage of making combat rather less predictable. It greatly reduced the "Hmmm conveniently placed cover" feeling that I get in RPGs in general. 

[Reznore57]

I think a lot of ideas behind Da2 were great , but sadly they fall flat.
Da:O was better at fleshing out atmosphere behind ideas.
Playing a dwarf casteless or a city elf , your life sucks it's really obvious .Playing Hawke in lowtown doesn't seem so bad.
Same with a quest in the haunted mansion with Varric brother , i guess it was supposed to be scary...but something like the alienage orphan place worked way better ....

Mages and templars ...I think it's a complicated conflict.Mages falling apart being victim of a system.Templars also suffering the same thing...Abusive templars , crazy mages , and a few normal ones too obviously.
It could have worked wonders , but some key thing were left unsaid (what the hell is going on in the Gallows! )And some were really too much in your face (you like mages?Crazy mage kill your mum! Now go think about it!).
Act 3 being far too short to sum up all this ideas end up being a bit of a mess.But still it had potential behind it.

I hope in Da3 they will keep on with some complicated plot , but if only if they can flesh it out nicely.
If it goes back to DA:O with a main threat like archdemon ( easy to understand and show) and sub plot a bit more complicated , it's fine too .

But i'd like more Arishok vibe going on ,he made a great ennemy.
Loghain and Meredith were fine too ,but I can't say they made me doubt about what i was doing.
Both character had obsessions and were easy to dismiss as lunatics.
The arishok felt like someone i could have tea with and chat a bit , up to the point he will obviously try to convert you but still..

[Allan Schumacher]

While its certainly aestheticaly jarring, I found it did have the advantage of making combat rather less predictable. It greatly reduced the "Hmmm conveniently placed cover" feeling that I get in RPGs in general.

I have heard this as well. My best friend said he actually liked the concept because it meant that fights didn't just start off with him blowing all of his biggest spells right away.

It's not as common of an opinion, however, and there may be other ways for us to explore that as well.

[Blackout62]

You know I kind of am afraid of all that ditching business the OP described. As a fan of more minimalistic storytelling the moment the words "save the world" are brought up I get hesitant. The fact of the matter was that DA2 had a more intimate story dependent on the relationships and views of, comparative to DA:O, a small number of characters and how they reacted to an opposition of those views. There was no grand threat for them to put aside their differences and battle against, no absolute evil that must be destroyed, and no absolute good a hero to combat the evil with those determined to follow him. It was simply a story within a self contained world wherein its inhabitants conflict with each other in a natural manner until the broiling animosity carries things over the edge. Instead of an epic globe trotting adventure of black and white morals (The fact of the matter is if you kill the ultimate evil you're regarded as the ultimate good.) that was DA:O, instead DA2 is a lively discourse with multiple viewpoints of a situation that pointedly places the morals of good and bad where they realistically belong, as the subjective interpretations of the world dependent on the person interpreting while the game itself is concerned with allowing the player to assert their own ideological purview onto the world and see the world react.

And somehow in writing this I forgot the kicker I had for a conclusion but... something or other... Inquisition looks like it could actually end up either way... God did Mass Effect get caught up in having its epic galaxy trotting adventure to save a world that lacked the depth to make it seem like anything more than a series of statistics... DA2 is Love Actually while DA:O is My Big Fat Greek Wedding, both good movies, but Love Actually was about linked together characters with different interpretations of love, while MBFGW is a standard rom-com... Also everything infraredman said on the end of page 3 was just awesome.

TL;DR: Big epic tales of saving the world against the big evil SU-UCK!

Modifié par Blackout62, 03 décembre 2012 - 12:25 .

[LPPrince]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

While its certainly aestheticaly jarring, I found it did have the advantage of making combat rather less predictable. It greatly reduced the "Hmmm conveniently placed cover" feeling that I get in RPGs in general.

I have heard this as well. My best friend said he actually liked the concept because it meant that fights didn't just start off with him blowing all of his biggest spells right away.

It's not as common of an opinion, however, and there may be other ways for us to explore that as well.

Perhaps it should be mixed in with pre-placed enemies.

I know one thing- I'd prefer to prepare a little when I engage the enemy, much like in the Mass Effect games.

Example- today I completed my Insanity run. Throughout the game I had certain strategies(here's one of them)- I'd hover the target over an enemy group, have Liara use Stasis, then have Shepard use Flare, and if enemies hit the floor, shoot them with my Particle Rifle. As a single example.

But with enemies just dropping around everywhere it feels like I just have to SPAM ALL THE THINGS.

So in a way I think what we can learn here is that different people approach enemy placement in different ways.

Some of us see enemies pre-placed and engage them like we are playing chess, while others spam whatever they can with reckless abandon.

Some of us see enemies dropping around us randomly and prefer to go straight into the action while others feel taken out of their element.

A mixture of the two would be nice.

Modifié par LPPrince, 03 décembre 2012 - 12:27 .

[StElmo]

argan1985 wrote...

Hi my name is Ryan wrote...

Not at all. Everything about DA2 was awful.

This man speaks the truth.

then why are you here?

[LPPrince]

Just a quick note- dislike for something does not mean you shouldn't speak of it;actually, disliking something may inspire suggestions that can further improve a product.

You just have to actually give people suggestions.

[StElmo]

Melca36 wrote...

Fetch and Delivery quests are innovative?



Enemies coming out of the ceiling innovative?






Granted there were some great characters in DA2, the developers have said they are going to take what worked in DA2 but you better face the reality that DA3 is NOT GOING TO BE DA:2.5

Jesus. I love how people just assume I am talking about the bad parts. At least try to have a semblance of rationality.

[StElmo]

LPPrince wrote...

Just a quick note- dislike for something does not mean you shouldn't speak of it;actually, disliking something may inspire suggestions that can further improve a product.

You just have to actually give people suggestions.

there is no reason to come onto a game forum and say "DA2 SUCKS ALL OF IT IS BAD" or anything similar. It is not constructive and has no reasoning behined it.

DA2 has good and bad qualities, the point of this thread was to point out the good qualities we would like to see return and not ditched because they were attached to a rushed game. DA2.

I have time and time again praised the story elements in this game as part of the rationale for this post, yet trolls jump in and hijack this thread with other complaints that are irrelevant. Worse, they jump in and just say DA2 sucks as though it is some objective fact.

[pmac_tk421]

I agree with the OP. Alot of the gameplay mechanics and plot devices were thought out so much better than DAO, but it wasn't able to fully realize the gameplay stuff(the plot stuff was amazing) because they didn't have enough time. My fear is that they'll respond to the whiny RPG purists and ditch the creative ideas in favor of older, more traditional ideas. And yes I agree, DA2's plot is way better than DAO's. The plot and characters were more interesting. It just had a few things holding in back from a 10 in my book. I still think its a solid 9 though. DA3 has the oppourtunity to take the raw ideas of 2 and make it something amazing.

[StElmo]

infraredman wrote...

I too am afraid that the art in the dissensus sense as described by Ranciere will be forever lost by bioware. DA2 might have been the first game in Bioware's history that truly could have been included in the idea of art even though ME2 is often given that recognition (insert eyeroll). It remains to be seen if Bioware only desires good reviews or if Bioware desires to actually make great games. Their reaction to the ME3 ending fiasco suggests the previous, but I hope that is only the reaction of one development team.

As a person from USA --- where political lines are so tight between 2 parties that more filibusters have been done in 4 years than the previous decade...the conflict between mages and templars (with all it's intricacies) made DA2 appear to be incredibly relevant. Even the overblown Walking Dead is just a shadow to DA2's potential. I pre-ordered the game and it gave me chills to play through -- while at the same time witnessing the political landscape of my country. Obviously there is some reflection between Christianity and DA2, but instead of harshly criticizing or supporting a particular religion --- DA2 merely investigates the role that a similar religious entity plays - allowing a variety of viewpoints to be expressed and explored along the way; Truly an interactive experience unique to the gaming medium. Extremely accessibly by a wide audience and incredibly powerful, and this is only 1 aspect of Dragon Age. Game of Thrones can't even come close to the potential of Dragon Age because game of thrones tries to be contemporary while sticking to fantasy standards established in the 1930s (it's just not possible). The Witcher is of course a manifestation of the conservative ideals that are perpetuated throughout games. Yet the gaming community is changing, despite the reluctance of game creators to change with it.

I recently played through DA2 again before my countries presidential election with Romney and Obama...and the game again succeeded in giving me chills. I couldn't help but feel the blight was representational of an economic recession and the aftermath of the blight was a close reflection of the aftermath of the great recession. The sophistication of DA2 was of course lost on game critics who herald titles like Batman to be great commentators on contemporary society. While it's true the idolization of the vigilante plays an important part on the American viewpoint. The limited story within Arkym City does not even touch on ideas that are relevant to our times, but are just repeats of the 1960s. It's a downright mockery to the gaming medium how out of touch many critics are. To be honest there is a reason they are game critics and not movie, novel or art critics. The fact that a recent critique described the Mass Effect Omega DLC as "so vast I had not time to explore it all" when it only takes 3-4 hours to explore every aspect of omega .... I think is revealing to how shallow the reviews actually are. This is another issue entirely.

I worry that the "perfect" scores of ME3 and the over reaction to DA2 will warp Bioware into an entity that only wishes to satisfy the broken standards of contemporary game critics. If they do they are doomed to become irrelevant. The movie industry is falling, and the game industry is in danger of falling with it. I hope bioware realizes this and sticks with their integrity rather than seeking to satisfy the standards created by captains of sinking vessels.

Brilliant post, thankyou for contributing something intellectual to this thread I appreciate it

[Tigerman123]

I don't understand the love for enemies being laid out for you to disintegrate Origins style, or the appeal of its combat over DA2's in general, it's quite possibly one of the easiest games ever made. Where is the challenge in offloading SotC ad nauseam, that was the result of having the enemies positions handed to you. The best Origins fights were the ones where you didn't know what you were up against ahead of time; the Revenants, the brood Mother.

[Melca36]

StElmo wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Fetch and Delivery quests are innovative?



Enemies coming out of the ceiling innovative?






Granted there were some great characters in DA2, the developers have said they are going to take what worked in DA2 but you better face the reality that DA3 is NOT GOING TO BE DA:2.5

Jesus. I love how people just assume I am talking about the bad parts. At least try to have a semblance of rationality.

Did I even say I hated the game?  It was a good game but it could have been a fantastic game had it NOT been rushed.

And for $60, we have the right of Free Speech to say what we liked and disliked about it.

[StElmo]

Vandicus wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Enemies coming out of the ceiling innovative?

LOL. When I saw that screenshot my first reaction was "well does that happen in other games?" XD

(Facetiously of course )

While its certainly aestheticaly jarring, I found it did have the advantage of making combat rather less predictable. It greatly reduced the "Hmmm conveniently placed cover" feeling that I get in RPGs in general. 

The best way, IMHO to have these kinds of impromptue battles is to have enemies come out of the scenery. So if you are in a forest, they jump out from the trees etc.

[StElmo]

Melca36 wrote...

StElmo wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Fetch and Delivery quests are innovative?



Enemies coming out of the ceiling innovative?






Granted there were some great characters in DA2, the developers have said they are going to take what worked in DA2 but you better face the reality that DA3 is NOT GOING TO BE DA:2.5

Jesus. I love how people just assume I am talking about the bad parts. At least try to have a semblance of rationality.

Did I even say I hated the game?  It was a good game but it could have been a fantastic game had it NOT been rushed.

And for $60, we have the right of Free Speech to say what we liked and disliked about it.

Sorry, I know this is tangential, but I do have to correct you on this.

Free Speech protects you from the government telling you what you can and cannot say.

It does mean you are immune to crticism for saying irrational, misleading or otherwise uninformed things

[TheBlackBaron]

Short answer: no.

Long answer: f*ck no.

[Kangaxx628]

To answer the question posed in the topic, no. Unless you meant new ideas such as lore breaking enemy mages, waves of spawning enemies, lack of spell combos so you are forced to drag around one of each a fighter, rogue, mage etc. lack of hybrid classes, railroaded plot, lack of meaningful choices, streamlined crafting system, then yes I would like such innovations removed.

[Melca36]

StElmo wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

StElmo wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Fetch and Delivery quests are innovative?



Enemies coming out of the ceiling innovative?






Granted there were some great characters in DA2, the developers have said they are going to take what worked in DA2 but you better face the reality that DA3 is NOT GOING TO BE DA:2.5

Jesus. I love how people just assume I am talking about the bad parts. At least try to have a semblance of rationality.

Did I even say I hated the game?  It was a good game but it could have been a fantastic game had it NOT been rushed.

And for $60, we have the right of Free Speech to say what we liked and disliked about it.

Sorry, I know this is tangential, but I do have to correct you on this.

Free Speech protects you from the government telling you what you can and cannot say.

It does mean you are immune to crticism for saying irrational, misleading or otherwise uninformed things

So in your opinion we as consumers are not allowed to make our voices heard when we are disappointed in something?

Seriously, we will never agree on this so lets just agree to disagree.

I have faith that DA3 will be the BEST of all three games and I am looking forward to it.   I do not want Origins 2.0 ir DA2.5.   I want to experience Dragon Age 3.  I hope you can understand that.

Peace out

[DarkSpiral]

Melca36 wrote...

I have faith that DA3 will be the BEST of all three games and I am looking forward to it.   I do not want Origins 2.0 ir DA2.5.   I want to experience Dragon Age 3.  I hope you can understand that.

Peace out

Its highly amusing to me that you ans StElmo copuld agree to disagree, and yet theoretically close with exactly the same statement.  Thats what Elmo wants too.  A DA3 that is the best of the sereis so far.  She's arguing it from a storyline point of view and you, as far as I can interpret, are arguing it from a game mechanics point of view.

Well, actually you're also both starting to slide away from the game altogether and argue about the definition of free speech.  You both might want to let the nitpicking on free speech/constuctive critism go.  It will add nothing to the thread but negativitiy.

EDIT: spellchecking

Modifié par DarkSpiral, 03 décembre 2012 - 02:07 .

[Saraphial]

I personally was more of a fan of the DA:O story than I was of DA2. I know that DA2 was attempting to do something with storytelling that was innovative and "out of the box", if you will, which I can appreciate, but at the same time, if something isn't broken, don't fix it.

People like the archetypal heroic journey because it works and it's fun and it's one of the most efficient formula's for creating a story that feels meaningful. Does that mean that creating something innovative and new that breaks away from this formula will spell disaster? Not at all. In fact, it has the potential to be absolutely brilliant; however, the farther away you stem from the original formula of "hero + friends defeat the shadow and save the world" the smaller your chances for a successfully epic/meaningful story seem to become.

At the best of times during DA2's story I felt as though I was a very heroic individual with very serendipitous circumstances, and at the worst times, I felt like I was a person who looked like the sheriff of Nottingham that was trying to babysit a city full of lunatics.

The moral of the story: Innovation is great as long as it's well executed.

[StElmo]

Melca36 wrote...

StElmo wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

StElmo wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Fetch and Delivery quests are innovative?



Enemies coming out of the ceiling innovative?






Granted there were some great characters in DA2, the developers have said they are going to take what worked in DA2 but you better face the reality that DA3 is NOT GOING TO BE DA:2.5

Jesus. I love how people just assume I am talking about the bad parts. At least try to have a semblance of rationality.

Did I even say I hated the game?  It was a good game but it could have been a fantastic game had it NOT been rushed.

And for $60, we have the right of Free Speech to say what we liked and disliked about it.

Sorry, I know this is tangential, but I do have to correct you on this.

Free Speech protects you from the government telling you what you can and cannot say.

It does mean you are immune to crticism for saying irrational, misleading or otherwise uninformed things

So in your opinion we as consumers are not allowed to make our voices heard when we are disappointed in something?

Seriously, we will never agree on this so lets just agree to disagree.

I have faith that DA3 will be the BEST of all three games and I am looking forward to it.   I do not want Origins 2.0 ir DA2.5.   I want to experience Dragon Age 3.  I hope you can understand that.

Peace out

You are entitled to voice your opinion, absolutely. But when someone criticizes your opinion you cannot simply say 'respect mah free speech!' as it does not apply.

Also, Darkspiral is right, I mostly agree with you. My only gripe is that you were hijacking my thread with gameplay complaints when my praise for DA2 is clearly in the story realm.

Modifié par StElmo, 03 décembre 2012 - 04:11 .

[StElmo]

Saraphial wrote...
People like the archetypal heroic journey because it works and it's fun and it's one of the most efficient formula's for creating a story that feels meaningful.

Following a formula does not inherently have meaning. You must impose meaning using the principles of storytelling through conflict at the interpersonal, personal and extrapersonal levels.

DA2 does this more than any other game by BioWare.

You play the interpersonal thoughts of hawke, constantly faced with evidence for and against the control of mages through conflicts and turning points you experience.

You have personal conflict with other characters in your party, which is played out through the character quests.

You have extrapersonal conflict with the current roadblock in Kirkwall's leaders.

All of these conlicts are meaningful because there is no black or white answer.

In Origins, it is, for the most part, a game about "defeating the blight" and that goal makes decisions a lot more black and white. Even the moral choices are cliche good or bad decisions "do you steal from this person, or help them"?

Most players objectively see this as a good or bad decision, which nullifies the conflict and it becomes an exercise in "lets see what the bad action does" instead of a real internal dilemma.

[Imp of the Perverse]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

While its certainly aestheticaly jarring, I found it did have the advantage of making combat rather less predictable. It greatly reduced the "Hmmm conveniently placed cover" feeling that I get in RPGs in general.

I have heard this as well. My best friend said he actually liked the concept because it meant that fights didn't just start off with him blowing all of his biggest spells right away.

It's not as common of an opinion, however, and there may be other ways for us to explore that as well.

There were a number of instances in DAO where I'd come across an enemy without alerting them, recon what's there, and plan how I'm going to attack. It added a nice strategy element to some fights. In general though I liked the waves in DA2, despite it looking silly on occasion it made for some epic brawls and a different sort of challenge, more based on the stamina of your party than their ability to lay down a brief outburst of destruction.

Both formats have their own appeal, the trouble is you pretty much always saw what you were getting into in DAO, and you pretty much always knew you were going to have a prolonged fight on your hands in DA2. It'd be nice if DA3 required you to judge (or misjudge) which kind of fight you were going to be in for based on context and setting. Two bandits sitting in front of a tavern? Odds are more friends are going to come pouring out the minute you attack. Just fought your way through an entire lair, demolishing everything in your path, and are now laying siege to the boss's inner sanctum? The handful of foes you're looking at is probably all you have left to have to face, but they're going to be elite so plan your opening attack carefully.

[Celene II]

No everyone thought DA2 was that great.

It sold worse then Origins

It reviewed worse then Origins

It was only fresh and creative to a select number of people and to the rest it was a streamlined action game with most of the RPG elements removed.

Please be scared not of new ideas but of taking a classic RPG and trying to appeal to the bam boom twitch crowd and doing poorly in both critical review and sales.