210 réponses à ce sujet

[Nelatherion]

I didn't hate DAII, I liked it. But I was dissapointed.

1. While I appreciate the new art direction you went for, it just didn't feel like "Dragon Age" to me, the tone felt different. Chiefly the Dark Spawn, they felt a bit less evil and more silly. Although I liked the Genlocks much better in DA2. If they are not going to return to the same art style as Origins then at least bring the tone back towards there.

2. Badly camouflaged reuse of environments. Yea, and the fact it is set in one city makes it even more obvious.

[Felya87]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

AGREED. I feel like there is a conspiracy in the gaming world to make subtitle text as impossible to read as humanly possible. It's absolutely mind boggling why this has been made the standard.

Not in all games. In Kingdoms of Amalur (at least from what I have see in the demo) the subtitles where quite big, and so was in Fallout 3 and NV. I really saw the problem playng DA2. In DA:O sometimes I didn't read the subtitles, usually I could pick what the people say, and the dialogue option where big enought to not have problem reading them.
and ME was all voiced by italian voice actors, so there wasn't really need for subtitles (great return in ME3 of Claudio Moneta! a great bonus to start a maleShep! even if Cinzia Massironi would forever be THE Shepard.) And I could live with the mini text of the whell.

But in DA2 was really painful...both with choosing the sentence tryng to ignore the icons, than with tring to undertsand what people said!!! really, I had a hard time...

[Indoctrination]

The people marketing the game can be honest with us instead of constantly betraying us by telling us things about the game that simply aren't true. If BioWare had said "Mass Effect 3 is a super linear shooter where none of your choices matter at all" then I wouldn't have been disappointed in that game at all.

I just want BioWare to be honest about Dragon Age III when it comes to the good and the bad. Can't make a complete game where choices matter because of budgetary concerns? Okay, just say that, because then we'll only get exactly what is advertise and no one can complain.

With that said, I'd really like it if they put in choices that matter, and not a whole lot of decisions which simply create the ILLUSION that choices matter.

Another thing I'd like to go is the attitude from certain developers who say "well this data shows that most of our consumers only finish 20% of the game anyway, so it's okay to cut corners on every aspect of the game!" No it isn't. If you aren't developing RPGs for the dedicated fans who finish your games at least twice, then you're developing them for the wrong reasons.

If BioWare wants to save the series, then they need to make a game with all of the love and dedication of Dragon Age: Origins.

[Twisted Path]

Honestly a game that's just like Origins with updated graphics, a new story and maybe an expanded color palette would be ideal. Origins was pretty much a perfect RPG, I don't see why Bioware had to try and fix what wasn't broke.

[challenger18]

Twisted Path wrote...

Honestly a game that's just like Origins with updated graphics, a new story and maybe an expanded color palette would be ideal. Origins was pretty much a perfect RPG, I don't see why Bioware had to try and fix what wasn't broke.

Really? You couldn't find anything wrong with Origins besides needing better graphics and more colors? Because I can think of a few thinks that needed to be improved upon that DA2 fixed. 

[Get Magna Carter]

Things I want different to DA2:-
More varied environments.
A greater sense of motivation for the protagonist to take the actions required by the plot.
A greater sense of the protagonist achieving something.
(an adventure RPG [more or less] needs to be centred on an epic quest to save a country\\world\\universe\\etc from a big threat -DA2 strayed too far from that concept and the result was weak),
More awareness of the consequences of the big decisions (and more big decisions having significant consequences).

[In Exile]

Twisted Path wrote...

Honestly a game that's just like Origins with updated graphics, a new story and maybe an expanded color palette would be ideal. Origins was pretty much a perfect RPG, I don't see why Bioware had to try and fix what wasn't broke.

My favourite part was how each plot mission brached in important ways, like how if we went to Redcliffe first, then did all the missions, Connor didn't wait around in statis for us to save the mages!

[Steppenwolf]

frankf43 wrote...

But if you stood in the lobby of the restaurant and started shouting baseless insults about the food to everyone who would listen you would expect to be ejected.

This forum is BSN's virtual lobby

:facepalm:
This is a discussion forum, not a waiting area. If this were just a place to file praise for Bioware then it wouldn't be a discussion forum. Bioware made this ****ing thing to be a place to discuss their games.

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

Twisted Path wrote...

Honestly a game that's just like Origins with updated graphics, a new story and maybe an expanded color palette would be ideal. Origins was pretty much a perfect RPG, I don't see why Bioware had to try and fix what wasn't broke.

My favourite part was how each plot mission brached in important ways, like how if we went to Redcliffe first, then did all the missions, Connor didn't wait around in statis for us to save the mages!

Or how DA2 rectified that by giving us next to no control about when we could do missions or where we could go... And how missions would still stay in stasis, like Allistair waiting in the palace lobby while I went off to Orlais to do MotA!

That was really amazing. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 15 décembre 2012 - 08:53 .

[LTD]

In Exile wrote...

Honestly a game that's just like Origins with updated graphics, a new story and maybe an expanded color palette would be ideal. Origins was pretty much a perfect RPG, I don't see why Bioware had to try and fix what wasn't broke.

If anyone disagrees with this I'd encourage such person to spend 15 minutes browsing various video game communities all over the net. DA:O is generally speaking highly praised and fondly remembered. DA 2 on the other hand recieved, and keeps recieving, rather exceptional amount of hatred. People were insulted by it.

Modifié par LTD, 15 décembre 2012 - 08:55 .

[Steppenwolf]

LTD wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Honestly a game that's just like Origins with updated graphics, a new story and maybe an expanded color palette would be ideal. Origins was pretty much a perfect RPG, I don't see why Bioware had to try and fix what wasn't broke.

If anyone disagrees with this I'd encourage such person to spend 15 minutes browsing various video game communities all over the net. DA:O is generally speaking highly praised and fondly remembered. DA 2 on the other hand recieved, and keeps recieving, rather exceptional amount of hatred. People were insulted by it.

I think it comes down to Mass Effect 2. For ME2 they gutted the RPG aspects of the game, shifted focus to combat, wrote a barebones and small story, and decided to put writing focus on characters instead of strengthening said barebones, small story. And ME2 was a smash-hit. Critics and gamers alike didn't seem to mind that about 2/3 of the game was just locating people and then doing favors for them or that the stakes were exceptionally low compared to ME1. Less story and more flash was rewarded. So of course Bioware thought they would have another hit on their hands if they gave a Shepard character, spent less time working on the story, make combat quick and over the top, and give us wacky characters instead of compelling objectives/goals. Style over substance became the goal.

Modifié par BasilKarlo, 15 décembre 2012 - 09:08 .

[abaris]

BasilKarlo wrote...

I think it comes down to Mass Effect 2. For ME2 they gutted the RPG aspects of the game, shifted focus to combat, wrote a barebones and small story, and decided to put writing focus on characters instead of strengthening said barebones, small story. And ME2 was a smash-hit. Critics and gamers alike didn't seem to mind that about 2/3 of the game was just locating people and then doing favors for them or that the stakes were exceptionally low compared to ME1. Less story and more flash was rewarded. So of course Bioware thought they would have another hit on their hands if they gave a Shepard character, spent less time working on the story, make combat quick and over the top, and give us wacky characters instead of compelling objectives/goals. Style over substance became the goal.

I don't think it's as easy as that. I loved both ME1 and 2 and I loathed DAII as soon as I tried the demo.

The whole presentation was totally different and obviously catered to a totally different audience than DA:O. The very short production cycle and changing of the core team might not been helpful either.

[Uccio]

Twisted Path wrote...

Honestly a game that's just like Origins with updated graphics, a new story and maybe an expanded color palette would be ideal. Origins was pretty much a perfect RPG, I don't see why Bioware had to try and fix what wasn't broke.

Hear hear! Seconded. Just even more choises/consequenses. 

[Fast Jimmy]

abaris wrote...

BasilKarlo wrote...

I think it comes down to Mass Effect 2. For ME2 they gutted the RPG aspects of the game, shifted focus to combat, wrote a barebones and small story, and decided to put writing focus on characters instead of strengthening said barebones, small story. And ME2 was a smash-hit. Critics and gamers alike didn't seem to mind that about 2/3 of the game was just locating people and then doing favors for them or that the stakes were exceptionally low compared to ME1. Less story and more flash was rewarded. So of course Bioware thought they would have another hit on their hands if they gave a Shepard character, spent less time working on the story, make combat quick and over the top, and give us wacky characters instead of compelling objectives/goals. Style over substance became the goal.

I don't think it's as easy as that. I loved both ME1 and 2 and I loathed DAII as soon as I tried the demo.

The whole presentation was totally different and obviously catered to a totally different audience than DA:O. The very short production cycle and changing of the core team might not been helpful either.

ME2 was a game that had smart game design, but a regression of story and RPG elements. It's story is pretty flat and wholly unimportant... but it's overall framework for presenting the game was engaging, so it's flaws were overlooked. 

ME3 and DA2 had poor game design, and all of the simplifications   

[David7204]

ME 2 did not have a regression of RPG elements. And ME 3 sure as hell didn't. (In combat.) The RPG combat elements in ME 1 were awful.

Modifié par David7204, 15 décembre 2012 - 10:44 .

[Nerevar-as]

David7204 wrote...

ME 2 did not have a regression of RPG elements. And ME 3 sure as hell didn't. (In combat.) The RPG combat elements in ME 1 were awful.

Why? I never understand this complaint. You have to play on Insanity for fire dispersion to become problematic, and that would be the 3rd playthrough. 

[Hatchetman77]

If a character's primary motivation is that they went crazy, either with or without a magical McGuffin, then there's something wrong with the writing. 

[Weskerr]

Hatchetman77 wrote...

If a character's primary motivation is that they went crazy, either with or without a magical McGuffin, then there's something wrong with the writing. 

How's that? Are you saying people never go crazy?

[David7204]

First of all, the skills in ME 1 are horribly balanced. Some (electronics, immunity, stasis,) are overwhelmingly powerful to the point of being game-breaking, while others (most of the tech and weapon skills) are weak to the point of being useless.

Secondly, the mechanic of having to go halfway down one tree to unlock another is frustrating and pointless. I would be okay with it if one tree depended on or branched off from the first, but it's less okay when the trees are unrelated. For example, I always had to train Liara halfway in the 'First Aid' skill (which gives literally absolutely no benefit if another squadmate or Shepard has the same rank unlocked) for her to unlock electronics and improve her shields.

Thirdly, many of the skills barely even qualified as so. It's fake depth. Skills such as 'medicine' which let medi-gel recharge a second or so faster per point. And that's it. How exciting. Or the armor skill which gives 2% more damage protection per point. Compare that to skills in ME 3 which can heavily diverge depending on which bonuses you decide to take and which provide a substantial difference to combat once upgraded.

ME 3 does it right by integrating those bonuses in other skills and having them strong and substantial enough to be meaningful.

Modifié par David7204, 15 décembre 2012 - 11:02 .

[Hatchetman77]

Weskerr wrote...

Hatchetman77 wrote...

If a character's primary motivation is that they went crazy, either with or without a magical McGuffin, then there's something wrong with the writing. 

How's that? Are you saying people never go crazy?

No, I'm saying using a character going crazy as a primary motivation is bad writing.  Much like the fact that people dream in real life, but ending a story with "...and it was all just a dream" is also bad writing.

The only exception to this is if your story is actually about the effects of mental illness, such as a game like "Spec Ops: The Line".

[Weskerr]

Hatchetman77 wrote...

Weskerr wrote...

Hatchetman77 wrote...

If a character's primary motivation is that they went crazy, either with or without a magical McGuffin, then there's something wrong with the writing. 

How's that? Are you saying people never go crazy?

No, I'm saying using a character going crazy as a primary motivation is bad writing.  Much like the fact that people dream in real life, but ending a story with "...and it was all just a dream" is also bad writing.

The only exception to this is if your story is actually about the effects of mental illness, such as a game like "Spec Ops: The Line".

Oh ok, that makes sense. Certainly, however, as you pointed out, using craziness as a motivation in writing is not always bad. It depends on the story. I think you're referring to using it as a sort of deus ex machina,  which is bad writing whatever the motivation is for using it.

[Steppenwolf]

David7204 wrote...

ME 2 did not have a regression of RPG elements. And ME 3 sure as hell didn't. (In combat.) The RPG combat elements in ME 1 were awful.

Objectively you are wrong. It's not a matter of opinion. There are fewer RPG systems in ME2 and ME3 and the RPG systems that remain are more simplistic. ME3 brought some of the RPG systems of ME1 back so clearly ME2 had fewer RPG systems.

David7204 wrote...

First of all, the skills in ME 1 are
horribly balanced. Some (electronics, immunity, stasis,) are
overwhelmingly powerful to the point of being game-breaking, while
others (most of the tech and weapon skills) are weak to the point of
being useless.

Secondly, the mechanic of having to go halfway
down one tree to unlock another is frustrating and pointless. I would be
okay with it if one tree depended on or branched off from the first,
but it's less okay when the trees are unrelated. For example, I always
had to train Liara halfway in the 'First Aid' skill (which gives
literally absolutely no benefit if another squadmate or Shepard has the
same rank unlocked) for her to unlock electronics and improve her
shields.

Thirdly, many of the skills barely even qualified as
so. It's fake depth. Skills such as 'medicine' which let medi-gel
recharge a second or so faster per point. And that's it. How exciting.
Or the armor skill which gives 2% more damage protection per point.
Compare that to skills in ME 3 which can heavily diverge depending on
which bonuses you decide to take and which provide a substantial
difference to combat once upgraded.

ME 3 does it right by
integrating those bonuses in other skills and having them strong and
substantial enough to be meaningful.

This is a completely different concept. You're saying that you didn't like some of the RPG systems of ME1. That doesn't mean that removing them wasn't removing RPG systems.

[David7204]

I tell you what. I'll admit that some RPG elements were removed if you can admit that 'more RPG' doesn't always mean 'better' and can in fact make a game quite a bit worse.

[Steppenwolf]

I will admit that the extremely incremental bonuses per point in the level-up system of ME1 did seem arbitrary for some powers. But what was a robust system with many viable builds for each squadmate became an almost completely linear system in ME2. Streamlining in ME2 equated to simplification and simplification of video games in this day and age generally means worse.
But admitting that RPG systems were removed in ME2 doesn't mean anything because to say otherwise would be lying.

[wsandista]

If DA3 has.....

1. A dialogue system that lets me know exactly what will be said by the PC
2. Exploration
3. A combat system that is less action and more tactical
4. A charcter sheet at charcter creation
5. A Toolset and is Mod-firendly in general

..then I will consider it a large improvement than DA2 and will buy it.