236 réponses à ce sujet

[ScotGaymer]

Your post confuses me a bit man.

Those are some example reasons why i like DA2 yes, but not the only reasons. I was illustrating my point/opinion.

Are expecting me to list every single tiny little reason I like DA2? If so that would be unrealistic and unreasonable man. Sorry.

Modifié par FitScotGaymer, 25 avril 2013 - 12:36 .

[Althix]

you did. and funny thing that possitive ones are about Isabela and Hawke.
the rest... well.
combat system - boring, art style is crap, maps etc. etc.
i can also add to this plot and events but it would rather be my input not yours.

so - aside from Isabela, Hawke and storytelling... what? nothing?

just look at this from that side - >
game mechanics is bad || Isabela is awesome.
game design is bad || Hawke is good
this is how your post looks, even if you put good things in the end of your post, bad things have more weight.

DA2 is a decent game sure... is it a good game? i don't know i guess it is more like personal opinion.

Modifié par secretsandlies, 25 avril 2013 - 12:38 .

[Darth Death]

Gabbenator8787 wrote...

Who else feels somewhat worried about its overall prospects?

As of now & maybe forever, I don't expect anything from BioWare. My expectations are reserved for those who are capable. 

[mickey111]

Gabbenator8787 wrote...

 Knowing Bioware and there
gradually declining quality of games in recent years, do you honestly
believe DA:I will be able to live up to its hype and be just as good if
not better than Origins? I personally believe it
will definitely be an improvement off DA 2 (with obviously is not saying
much IMHO) but still is likely going to feel rushed and possibly dumbed
down to appeal to the Skyrim crowd. Personally I think a game of this
size and calibar needs at least 3 years in developement minimum in order
to feel truely complete and polished. Who else feels somewhat worried
about its overall prospects?

You misspelled Baldurs Gate 2.


Or do you actually mean to suggest that Origins is better than Baldurs Gate (assuming you're in the minority of neo-bioware community who have played it, or even know of it)

Modifié par mickey111, 25 avril 2013 - 01:22 .

[spirosz]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

So far ME it's the COD crowd and for DA it's the...Skyrim crowd?

I swear, this has got to be the most pretentious forum I've ever been a part of.

"Oh a video game is popular so it has to be stupid and it's players have to be stupid!!!"

The funny thing is, a lot of the COD crowd are RPG players, RTS players, etc... or even strictly competitive in the online aspect, but you know - stupid players.

[GreyLycanTrope]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

So far ME it's the COD crowd and for DA it's the...Skyrim crowd?

I swear, this has got to be the most pretentious forum I've ever been a part of.

"Oh a video game is popular so it has to be stupid and it's players have to be stupid!!!"

OP =/= whole forum tbh

[Kidd]

mickey111 wrote...

Or do you actually mean to suggest that Origins is better than Baldurs Gate (assuming you're in the minority of neo-bioware community who have played it, or even know of it)

Can we please stop putting people into categories and assume who has played what and why? I mean right here you have somebody who started with BG1, and I do not think BG2 is BioWare's best game ever. *gasp* It's downright amazing, yes. But to me they've done even better than that. And that's a completely valid opinion to have.

[spirosz]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

mickey111 wrote...

Or do you actually mean to suggest that Origins is better than Baldurs Gate (assuming you're in the minority of neo-bioware community who have played it, or even know of it)

Can we please stop putting people into categories and assume who has played what and why? I mean right here you have somebody who started with BG1, and I do not think BG2 is BioWare's best game ever. *gasp* It's downright amazing, yes. But to me they've done even better than that. And that's a completely valid opinion to have.

Generalizing and knowing other posters better than themselves is the norm on BSN, tbh. 

[Althix]

i don't like this... qunicron. where is a pony? even if it's merrill

[mickey111]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

mickey111 wrote...

Or do you actually mean to suggest that Origins is better than Baldurs Gate (assuming you're in the minority of neo-bioware community who have played it, or even know of it)

Can we please stop putting people into categories and assume who has played what and why? I mean right here you have somebody who started with BG1, and I do not think BG2 is BioWare's best game ever. *gasp* It's downright amazing, yes. But to me they've done even better than that. And that's a completely valid opinion to have.

BREAK HIS LEGS

[Fast Jimmy]

mickey111 wrote...

Gabbenator8787 wrote...

 Knowing Bioware and there
gradually declining quality of games in recent years, do you honestly
believe DA:I will be able to live up to its hype and be just as good if
not better than Origins? I personally believe it
will definitely be an improvement off DA 2 (with obviously is not saying
much IMHO) but still is likely going to feel rushed and possibly dumbed
down to appeal to the Skyrim crowd. Personally I think a game of this
size and calibar needs at least 3 years in developement minimum in order
to feel truely complete and polished. Who else feels somewhat worried
about its overall prospects?

You misspelled Baldurs Gate 2.


Or do you actually mean to suggest that Origins is better than Baldurs Gate (assuming you're in the minority of neo-bioware community who have played it, or even know of it)

I think Origins is better than Baldur's Gate 2. And yes, I played it back when it was released.

It was a great DnD game and it had a lot of great dialogue, but it was often incredibly linear. In addition, I feel like the events the player was involved in with Origins made them part of the larger world. In Baldur's Gate 2, you were given a large amount of choices, but in Origins you were given choices that were large. It gave the feeling that you were shaping the world as you moved through it.

For that, I found Origins to be more enjoyable and offer much more replayability (my primary measuring stick for if I like a game or not).

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 25 avril 2013 - 01:43 .

[Althix]

this is also true. however in BG games party members had their own opinions or agendas. Minsc can leave you if you fail to save the witch in time.
Jaheira can dump you, many things can happen.

Those choke points when companions can betray you or leave you, were not so obvious like in dao for example. You can also kill Drizzt... and you can make badass multiclass to solo the game as True Son of God.

Origins is a compromise of some sort between old fashion games and new games.

Modifié par secretsandlies, 25 avril 2013 - 01:46 .

[dreamgazer]

"...dumbed down to appeal to the Skyrim crowd."

And what exactly does this lower form of life look like, hmm? Because you're going to find a significant number of people on this very forum, players all the way back to the BG days and tabletop regulars, who are part of that "crowd".

[Fast Jimmy]

secretsandlies wrote...

this is also true. however in BG games party members had their own opinions or agendas. Minsc can leave you if you fail to save the witch in time.
Jaheira can dump you, many things can happen.

Those choke points when companions can betray you or leave you, were not so obvious like in dao for example. You can also kill Drizzt... and you can make badass multiclass to solo the game as True Son of God.

Origins is a compromise of some sort between old fashion games and new games.

Allistair can leave you if you side with Loghain. Leliana will dump you (of sorts) if you defile the Ashes of Andraste. But yes, they were more obvious chokepoints, I will agree there. 

And the ability to kill anyone, at any time, is a feature that I am really on the fence about. Having the ability to say "I'm going to fight this person" and not have to wait for the option to pop up in a dialogue wheel is much better than being forced down the "but thou must" road. But, at the same time, very few games have any built in content, reaction or response to these types of actions other than sending tons of random fights your way. So does it enhance a game all that much if you have the ability to slaughter entire towns?

I love having set attirbute stats that define and constrain what your character can and cannot do. I love having non-combat actions, skills and options. And I love having a lot of dialogue options. 

I feel like DA:O tried to do these things well (and suceeded, just to a less degree than BG), but I think they far surpassed in the chocie and consequence department, as well as the story-telling department. In fact, if DA2 had been a lot like DA:O, but with some of the weaker elements that BG and other old-school RPGs did well, it may have very well been a truly perfect game.

The fact that Bioware has gone the other direction, which I view as the more Eastern RPG route of more cutscenes, more cinematics, set/voiced protagonists and more linear stories, is a tragic loss. But I am hoping they can overcome the obstacles these design choices have in creating player choice, gameplay and definition and strive to be a game that does both sides of the fence as well as possible.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 25 avril 2013 - 02:05 .

[mickey111]

Origins story did, the gameplayon the other hand had hardly any replayability and grew stale much, much quicker than BGII. Also, you could make bad decisions which lead you to fail in BGII. Hard, and frequently. I consider the ability to fail as quite a big deal to the whole choice/consequence replayability and stuff. Can't really single Bioware for neglecting negative consequences seeing how nearly every developer is trying their very best to protect the player from failure. I'm honestly at the point that I feel grateful for the few instances that Bioware allows people to let the player make decisions that lead to results that hardly anybody would happy with, even if all such instances are presented in such a way that we're always damn near certain will lead to nowhere good..

Modifié par mickey111, 25 avril 2013 - 02:04 .

[Kidd]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

And the ability to kill anyone, at any time, is a feature that I am really on the fence about. Having the ability to say "I'm going to fight this person" and not have to wait for the option to pop up in a dialogue wheel is much better than being forced down the "but thou must" road. But, at the same time, very few games have any built in content, reaction or response to these types of actions other than sending tons of random fights your way. So does it enhance a game all that much if you have the ability to slaughter entire towns?

Now you gave me flashbacks to that time I had a quest to kill somebody in Fallout 3, did, and the guy on the radio kept talking as if the guy whose head I'd blown off was still alive. To put this lightly, letting characters be killed outside of when the story will register their deaths brings annoyance and breaks immersion very heavily.

[Fast Jimmy]

mickey111 wrote...

Origins story did, the gameplayon the other hand had hardly any replayability and grew stale much, much quicker than BGII. Also, you could make bad decisions which lead you to fail in BGII. Hard, and frequently. I consider the ability to fail as quite a big deal to the whole choice/consequence replayability and stuff. Can't really single Bioware for neglecting negative consequences seeing how nearly every developer is trying their very best to protect the player from failure. I'm honestly at the point that I feel grateful for the few instances that Bioware allows people to let the player make decisions that lead to results that hardly anybody would happy with, even if all such instances are presented in such a way that we're always damn near certain will lead to nowhere good..

Oh, I agree full crank on both the gameplay as well as the "ability to fail" fronts. DA:O's combat was incredibly easy for anyone who had a good grasp on leveling mechanics. Baldur's Gate, on the other hand, can chew you out and spit you out fairly easily, especially with its low level caps.

If a game was to even include a difficulty for the story, like where things like terrible choices could actually result in terrible consequences on Hard, but where the player would be protected on Easy, that would be something to see. Of course, it would be prohibitively expensive and fall under the dreaded "Toggle" designation, which is a bad word on these forums. But still, just like such difficulty levels for combat/gameplay have been a staple for decades that allow developers to make a game as difficult or as easy as the player chooses, having a similar option for how harshly the story treats you would be a welcome addition.

[Dutchess]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

secretsandlies wrote...

this is also true. however in BG games party members had their own opinions or agendas. Minsc can leave you if you fail to save the witch in time.
Jaheira can dump you, many things can happen.

Those choke points when companions can betray you or leave you, were not so obvious like in dao for example. You can also kill Drizzt... and you can make badass multiclass to solo the game as True Son of God.

Origins is a compromise of some sort between old fashion games and new games.

Allistair can leave you if you side with Loghain. Leliana will dump you (of sorts) if you defile the Ashes of Andraste.But yes, they were more obvious chokepoints, I will agree there. 

... Zevran will betray you when confronted with Taliesin and his approval with the Warden is low, Shale will turn on you when you choose to fight to preserve the Anvil, Morrigan leaves before the final battle if you refuse to do the ritual, Wynne will also turn on you if you defile the ashes. I think only Oghren and dog can't betray the Warden. Were all these too obvious? Maybe. I suspected Leliana would get mad when I defiled the ashes, but that Wynne chose to attack me as well was a bit of a surprise. Shale seems to like being a superior creature made of stone, yet she won't accept the Warden defending preservatoin the Anvil. 

In DA2 there were less of these events, but you can still lose a few companions. Fenris will leave if you refuse to fight Hadriana in time, Isabela won't come back if her friendship/rivalry isn't high enough at the end of act 2. You lose Sebastian if you don't kill Anders. 

I'm not sure if I would like it if the chokepoints came completely out of the blue. Sounds frustrating, haha. But then I am one of the newbies whose first RPG was DAO. 

[Althix]

eastern RPG... you know from my point of view it is rather bad thing. it is like if you change "eastern" word for "crap" word.

But again Dark Souls it is rather different game in all aspects than let say DAO. But for eastern RPG it is rather good game. Although you don't have passive skills or none combat abilities Dark Souls offers absence of quest log, map and quest marker. So basically it is only you and game world.

Games like BG and DAO do have a quest log, journal, map and quest marker - however you can also have spells like "open chest", some skills like let say herbalism or persuation which also helps greatly with immersion into game world. Also dialogues, as i said before even if we have 10 options when speaking to npc and only 3 of those will get us to the next step in conversation it is still better than 2-3 options we have now. It also helps a lot to get deeper into game and it's setting.

In me or da2 dialogues looks like - ok i choose most higher option - esc esc esc esc - ok again - esc esc esc - k done, move on. i am skipping conversations in those games simply because they have no meaning. Whatever you choose, for the most part it will lead to the same outcome. Cutscenes? game looks like a movie?

who cares? maybe we should also have the option to skip battles and instead of playing the game we could just watch novella about DA setting (as example)? i am sure there is a lot of users who would like this idea. But game indeed becomes so obviously linear. Even if we have the illusion of choice and illusion of making our own characters it's sure as hell beats the alternative.

RPG is all about how you can express your character or how you can build behavior of your character. Even if we are limited by choices developers made for us.

@ renjility if you are not dumb you will see it coming all of that. And Zevran, and Morrigan all of them. And DA2 examples are very BAD examples - because Captain Obvious is one of the developers of DA2.

Modifié par secretsandlies, 25 avril 2013 - 02:26 .

[LPPrince]

renjility wrote...

I think only Oghren and dog can't betray the Warden.

Fun fact- Oghren will fight you if his approval gets too low of you, and may in fact leave the party.

[Dutchess]

LPPrince wrote...

renjility wrote...

I think only Oghren and dog can't betray the Warden.

Fun fact- Oghren will fight you if his approval gets too low of you, and may in fact leave the party.

Huh, I had never heard of that and had never had it happen in my game. Does disapproval have to go all the way down to -100? That's probably why I've never seen it. Gifts always prevented me from reaching that number, even on my big meanie playthrough.

[Wulfram]

renjility wrote...

Huh, I had never heard of that and had never had it happen in my game. Does disapproval have to go all the way down to -100? That's probably why I've never seen it. Gifts always prevented me from reaching that number, even on my big meanie playthrough.

Well, you can hardly expect Oghren to turn on someone giving him booze.

Modifié par Wulfram, 25 avril 2013 - 02:47 .

[Althix]

also how you play your game. i will give you three examples : Skyrim. DAO. DA2.

Skyrim - in Skyrim my character have support of all factions avaliable in the region. Except for Dark Brotherhood which were killed by Dragonborn and Blades who also were killed by Dragonborn. Because my character have a goal to become new Emperor with support of those faction and a dragon.

In DA:O i have a very ruthless, calculating Warden. Who do not cares about lives of those around him on a personal level, instead he cares to gather potent fighting force and deliver them to battle save. So they could die there instead of dying some where else with out purpose. Believe it or not i was replaying battle for Redcliffe for many many many times to prevent casualties in militia ranks. Even Lloyd survived. Simply because those peasants are tools that can and will be used in coming war. And that is why my Warden refused to accept helmet as gift for saving a village and saving the Arl. Because even if my Warden is not a nice person in general terms, but he still have some codex of behavior. He is not your friend, he is your commanding officer who will not let any harm happen to you without need or purpose.

In DA2... well Hawke is a Hawke, there is nothing here. pc is just a Hawke.

So if i am about to choose between pre made character such as Hawke and generated character such as Warden - i will pick generated character. At least i can play it and construct some additional story, purposes and goals around him while i am playing. I can project myself to this voiceless character. And even if i have borders set for me by devs team i still have ability to make my own character.

i don't want visual novella... i want rpg.

Modifié par secretsandlies, 25 avril 2013 - 02:54 .