116 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Faerunner wrote...
Again, race is a deciding factor for many people.

Also, it's not required, but it's generally a good idea to lick the hand that feeds you.

And it's not just about numbers, but word-of-mouth. That killed DA2, and it really hurt ME3 once the ending furror got underway, so it's good to see that Bioware's learning that people actively trashing your product instead of promoting it is, y'know, bad. 

[mupp3tz]

 

Faerunner wrote...
Again, race is a deciding factor for many people.

Also, it's not required, but it's generally a good idea to lick the hand that feeds you.

It's a huge replayability factor for me, personally. And if they feel they can tackle it, then why not.

[draken-heart]

In Exile wrote...

Faerunner wrote...
Again, race is a deciding factor for many people.

Also, it's not required, but it's generally a good idea to lick the hand that feeds you.

And it's not just about numbers, but word-of-mouth. That killed DA2, and it really hurt ME3 once the ending furror got underway, so it's good to see that Bioware's learning that people actively trashing your product instead of promoting it is, y'know, bad. 

I never liked the phrase "word of mouth" I always mentally call it "masses swaing other masses" when it comes to games, and it is just as bad as getting shafted by bigwigs.

Modifié par draken-heart, 01 septembre 2013 - 04:52 .

[Aaleel]

I don't think ambition could ever kill anything, now execution is another story. You can have all the best ideas and intentions, but if the execution is bad it's all for naught. 

I've never really been a "I'll give them credit for trying something new" person. If the execution is bad, then game is bad. I don't really give points for the intention, especially for something I spent money on.

Modifié par Aaleel, 01 septembre 2013 - 05:04 .

[In Exile]

Faerunner wrote...
Funny thing is I was going to mention it in my post, but I'm trying to avoid making wall-of-text posts like usual.

Like you said though, word of mouth severely hurt DA2 and ME3, and poisoned many people against DA:I. Even when BioWare said they were listening to fan feedback and trying to recapture DA's strong points, most people were saying "Uh huh, tell me another one." Wasn't till they started putting their money where their mouth was and started bringing back features that were heavily praised via word-of-mouth for Origins, like more choices, like race choices, that general consensus started being more positive.

Just my observation from hanging around here for a year and a half. Could be wrong.

Elves and qunari? Yes please. 

I mean, I'm personally still skeptical until I see gameplay, but that's because I'm still smarting from ME3. As much as I like Bioware games, I don't trust a single thing being marketed that I haven't seen in-game footage. As a PC player, I want to see that the combat is like DA:O and not made into an action game. 

[Leo]

draken-heart wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

You could say anything in the game is fanservice.

because the entire game is now just what fans cried and begged for.

Really?

[draken-heart]

Faerunner wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

I never liked the phrase "word of mouth" I always mentally call it "masses swaing other masses" when it comes to games, and it is just as bad as getting shafted by bigwigs.

People don't like something? They sway other people to hate it as well.

Fixed that. I know Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 are not the paragons of games, but I enjoyed them anyways, and you do not see me telling people about the game.

The negatives will always cost bioware money, money they need to make their other games better.

My opinion: Origins was designed purely for the PC and ported to the Consoles, so quit playing Origins on Consoles because it is a PC game, and 2 was designed for Consoles then ported to PC, so do not play 2 on PC. If you want an origins style game, play origins and nothing else, and if you want to play 2 play 2.

Modifié par draken-heart, 01 septembre 2013 - 01:12 .

[Neon Rising Winter]

draken-heart wrote...

Fixed that. I know Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 are not the paragons of games, but I enjoyed them anyways, and you do not see me telling people about the game.

The negatives will always cost bioware money, money they need to make their other games better.

My opinion: Origins was designed purely for the PC and ported to the Consoles, so quit playing Origins on Consoles because it is a PC game, and 2 was designed for Consoles then ported to PC, so do not play 2 on PC. If you want an origins style game, play origins and nothing else, and if you want to play 2 play 2.

There is nothing wrong with word of mouth. For example I am grateful to the friend who said 'Colonial Marines - don't do it'.

On the flip side, good word of mouth has nagged me into looking at many a game that would have flown under my radar. I'm not going to read up on every game that comes out, so how else am I going to hear about them?

Like it, love it, lothe it, word of mouth works.

[eye basher]

No the only thing this game suffers from is too much fan service.

[draken-heart]

Narrow Margin wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Fixed that. I know Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 are not the paragons of games, but I enjoyed them anyways, and you do not see me telling people about the game.

The negatives will always cost bioware money, money they need to make their other games better.

My opinion: Origins was designed purely for the PC and ported to the Consoles, so quit playing Origins on Consoles because it is a PC game, and 2 was designed for Consoles then ported to PC, so do not play 2 on PC. If you want an origins style game, play origins and nothing else, and if you want to play 2 play 2.

There is nothing wrong with word of mouth. For example I am grateful to the friend who said 'Colonial Marines - don't do it'.

On the flip side, good word of mouth has nagged me into looking at many a game that would have flown under my radar. I'm not going to read up on every game that comes out, so how else am I going to hear about them?

Like it, love it, lothe it, word of mouth works.

People only hated DA 2 because it was not origins level content, like everything has to be compared to the original. NEWSFLASH: games are often only compared to the original in terms of selling, and the sequels never do as well as the original, and are often nothing like the original.

I would rather have a human protagonist with companions being "required" for the story rather than a game where race dictates how people percieve you.

[Aaleel]

draken-heart wrote...

People only hated DA 2 because it was not origins level content, like everything has to be compared to the original. NEWSFLASH: games are often only compared to the original in terms of selling, and the sequels never do as well as the original, and are often nothing like the original.

I would rather have a human protagonist with companions being "required" for the story rather than a game where race dictates how people percieve you.

I hate when people say this because it's completely false.

Some people including myself disliked DA2 because a lot of the things it tried to do were executed poorly.  It failed as a stand alone game to a lot of people.  Saying people dislike it because it wasn't Origins is just giving it a pass on all the things it did poorly.

[Neon Rising Winter]

draken-heart wrote...


People only hated DA 2 because it was not origins level content, like everything has to be compared to the original. NEWSFLASH: games are often only compared to the original in terms of selling, and the sequels never do as well as the original, and are often nothing like the original.

I would rather have a human protagonist with companions being "required" for the story rather than a game where race dictates how people percieve you.

I have no idea with what this has to do with what I wrote, but what the hey.

There were lots of reasons people didn't like DA2 - re-use of maps, smaller game area, less epic scale of story, restricted protagonist, restricted ending options, stylised combat, all the other ones I'm missing.

Now me I preferred it, there were certain features, mainly to do with the characters and story, that make me enjoy DA2 more. It doesn't change the fact a lot of people didn't, and not because they're wrong or stupid or easily led, but because they enjoy it less. I don't blame them for wanting to regain that audience.

I also suspect if you look at Bioware games sequels tend to do better than the originals. BG2 vs BG, ME2 vs ME? Okay the sample set isn't massive, but even so.

Modifié par Narrow Margin, 01 septembre 2013 - 05:54 .

[draken-heart]

Aaleel wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

People only hated DA 2 because it was not origins level content, like everything has to be compared to the original. NEWSFLASH: games are often only compared to the original in terms of selling, and the sequels never do as well as the original, and are often nothing like the original.

I would rather have a human protagonist with companions being "required" for the story rather than a game where race dictates how people percieve you.

I hate when people say this because it's completely false.

Some people including myself disliked DA2 because a lot of the things it tried to do were executed poorly.  It failed as a stand alone game to a lot of people.  Saying people dislike it because it wasn't Origins is just giving it a pass on all the things it did poorly.

I noticed that people often complain about what the original did better, and how 2 failed at that. IT was never meant to be a stand alone game, that part was tacked on, and the things that were "done poorly" were done so purely because of time constraints, not because it tried to break away from origins.

Combat in 2 was, while somewhat over the top/anime-ish, was also 1000x better than the clunky stand there and swing, or rogue stand in back and backstab or shoot things all the time, or point and fire comes out of staff origins/pc combat that everybody else wants. this goes 900% to rogues as well.

The Companions actually developed more of a relationship to the Protagonist in two compared to origins where they were basically robots waiting for you to use. They felt like they grew and developed as you grew that relationship.

These are some of the good things that just get overshadowed by the "Failed" story, which was good for the most part, and only really failed at the end. Quit dwelling on the bad and compare the dumb games to themselves and your enjoyment of them.

@Narrow Margin: I know about the re-used maps, but I do not see anything wrong with it. Origins pretty  much did the same thing with  the dwarven whatever-you-call them, just gave them a different look or re-arranged some things. Plus, I was talking about in general, game and movie sequels never do as good as the original.

Modifié par draken-heart, 01 septembre 2013 - 06:08 .

[Aaleel]

draken-heart wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

People only hated DA 2 because it was not origins level content, like everything has to be compared to the original. NEWSFLASH: games are often only compared to the original in terms of selling, and the sequels never do as well as the original, and are often nothing like the original.

I would rather have a human protagonist with companions being "required" for the story rather than a game where race dictates how people percieve you.

I hate when people say this because it's completely false.

Some people including myself disliked DA2 because a lot of the things it tried to do were executed poorly.  It failed as a stand alone game to a lot of people.  Saying people dislike it because it wasn't Origins is just giving it a pass on all the things it did poorly.

I noticed that people often complain about what the original did better, and how 2 failed at that. IT was never meant to be a stand alone game, that part was tacked on, and the things that were "done poorly" were done so purely because of time constraints, not because it tried to break away from origins.

Combat in 2 was, while somewhat over the top/anime-ish, was also 1000x better than the clunky stand there and swing, or rogue stand in back and backstab or shoot things all the time, or point and fire comes out of staff origins/pc combat that everybody else wants. this goes 900% to rogues as well.

The Companions actually developed more of a relationship to the Protagonist in two compared to origins where they were basically robots waiting for you to use. They felt like they grew and developed as you grew that relationship.

These are some of the good things that just get overshadowed by the "Failed" story, which was good for the most part, and only really failed at the end. Quit dwelling on the bad and compare the dumb games to themselves and your enjoyment of them.

I never said it was meant to be a stand alone game, I was saying that even if you look at it outside the scope of Origins it did a lot of things poorly.  It also doesn't matter why they were done poorly, they were done poorly.  You can have all the best ideas in the world, but if they're executed poorly it makes for a bad game.  If they try the same things and execute them well in DA:I then fine, but the fact remains that they were done poorly in DA2.

The rest of your post is completely subjective and you're entitled to your own opinions.  I personally didn't enjoy hardly anything about the game.  If I had a worst all time top 10 it would probably be on there.  It failed me on the most basic level, outside of the many problems it wasn't even fun to play.

Modifié par Aaleel, 01 septembre 2013 - 06:10 .

[Will-o'-wisp]

draken-heart wrote...

People only hated DA 2 because it was not origins level content, like everything has to be compared to the original. NEWSFLASH: games are often only compared to the original in terms of selling, and the sequels never do as well as the original, and are often nothing like the original.

I would rather have a human protagonist with companions being "required" for the story rather than a game where race dictates how people percieve you.

And I would rather take the game with racial choice, just like I would rather play a game that allows you to play either gender or one that allows character customisation at all over one that has a set protagonist.

Different people enjoy different things and a lot of people loved to hear that multiple races are back. For me this was by far THE most positive news about DA:I so far.

Adding a feature that a huge part of the fanbase wanted is perfectly valid and if you would not have needed it, then that's fine, but don't try to present it as a fact that the feature is absolutely unnecessary, just because you feel they should have focused on something else that you perceive as more important.

Modifié par Poison93, 01 septembre 2013 - 06:10 .

[In Exile]

Poison93 wrote...
Adding a feature that a huge part of the fanbase wanted is perfectly valid and if you would not have needed it, then that's fine, but don't try to present it as a fact that the feature is absolutely unnecessary, just because you feel they should have focused on something else that you perceive as more important.

I don't think I'd go so far as to say a "huge" part of the fanbase wanted. The metrics are pretty clear that the majority of the DA:O users went human. But a huge part of the vocal fanbase wanted it, and that's more important. It's not everyone that counts pre-release, it's the loud ones. 

[Angrywolves]

I have read EA is throwing money at Bioware to get DAI right, so theu can just throw more if necessary or delay it another year if necessary .
Not a problem .
rotfl

[Secretlyapotato]

I'm betting on it being glitchy as hell like the other two.

[draken-heart]

In Exile wrote...

Poison93 wrote...
Adding a feature that a huge part of the fanbase wanted is perfectly valid and if you would not have needed it, then that's fine, but don't try to present it as a fact that the feature is absolutely unnecessary, just because you feel they should have focused on something else that you perceive as more important.

I don't think I'd go so far as to say a "huge" part of the fanbase wanted. The metrics are pretty clear that the majority of the DA:O users went human. But a huge part of the vocal fanbase wanted it, and that's more important. It's not everyone that counts pre-release, it's the loud ones. 

and I think that a lot of the people that "hate" Dragon age 2 hate it because they had origins on their mind the whole time. OR they think that everyone should be like them and complain they do not like a game that only biased fans told them about.

That is what "word of mouth" really is, right? Just the biased opinion of biased fans?

Modifié par draken-heart, 01 septembre 2013 - 06:24 .

[cjones91]

If I may give a honest opinion...while I liked DA2 it was flawed in several ways so to dismiss the complaints by saying  people wanted it to be DAO 2.0 is pretty absurd.

Modifié par cjones91, 01 septembre 2013 - 06:28 .

[cjones91]

In Exile wrote...

Poison93 wrote...
Adding a feature that a huge part of the fanbase wanted is perfectly valid and if you would not have needed it, then that's fine, but don't try to present it as a fact that the feature is absolutely unnecessary, just because you feel they should have focused on something else that you perceive as more important.

I don't think I'd go so far as to say a "huge" part of the fanbase wanted. The metrics are pretty clear that the majority of the DA:O users went human. But a huge part of the vocal fanbase wanted it, and that's more important. It's not everyone that counts pre-release, it's the loud ones. 

How many of those people were lazy and skipped the CC in DAO?That's why the stats were skewed in favor of the human noble option.

[Alexius]

I love these forums. No happy-middle ever. If it's bad, it's because it's bad. If it's trying to be superbly good, then that's bad too.

DA2 was hyped as well, but I think DA:I will be the one to deliver, not because of being over-ambitious, but because it seems to have coherent ideas and timing behind it, not to mention the change of engine.

[draken-heart]

cjones91 wrote...

If I may give a honest opinion...while I liked DA2 it was flawed in several ways so to dismiss the complaints by saying  people wanted it to be DAO 2.0 is pretty absurd.

I am personally of the mindset that people who list all the things wrong with DA 2 are too biased against it to see the good.

Things origins did good: Story, but that is also uber-cliche, and the maps felt unique (the maps are unimportant in my eyes.

Things origins did poorly: The companions were robots, plain and simple. Combat was better in terms of waves/nimbers, but animations were cloned from every old-school rpg ever.

Things Dragon age two did good: Combat animations were better, but somewhat over-the-top with one of the classes (warrior) but the waves were a problem. The companions felt unique and had their own lives. Things developed on their own without you being forced to interfere in their daily lives.

Things DA 2 did poorly: Maps were reused and things did not change a whole lot, and the story got rushed and ended poorly.

I know what both games did better than the other and no one seems to see the good in two, only looking at the "bad" parts. Biased fans are biased.