143 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

One other games that comes to mind is Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar. The premise of Ultima IV is not to save the world from a big bad evil. The object of Ultima IV is to focus on a virtuous life and become the spiritual leader and moral example to the populace. Ultima IV is considered arguably to be the best of the Ultimas.

 

DA2 tried to shift from the world saving perspective to a more personal story. DAI appears to be going back to the save the world formula. There is nothing wrong with the save the world formula (aside from being very clichéd) when done well. 

 

I hope that within the save the world story DAI gives the personal story of the Inquisitor to make him/her more believable. 

[mopotter]

I'd rather them not have an either/or BPA or BEA and shake it up with a combination of the two.

 

The Witcher 2 and KOTOR2 comfortably showed that you could have a personal story with an epic backdrop of grand politics and war.

 

And Bioware's masterpiece, BG2 was a highly personal story about getting your soul back, that eventually unfolded into a war for godhood between multiple factions of Drow, Elves, Giants, Dragons and Exiles.

 

Something like that would be welcomed again. The two don't have to be mutually exlcusive.

 

 

Wouldn't mind a combination.    I actually liked DA2 well endough.  The ending was a bit disappointing since both sides were nuts, but it was good enough I still play it.

 

Have no interest in Witcher 2, I don't like fixed characters, and I played Obsidian's KOTOR2,  I enjoyed it until the ending which made no sense at all, I've heard that if you want to the dark side it made just a little more sense but not much. Also heard they had to rush it and the pc version has a mod to fix it.  

 

I'm interested in seeing what BioWare does with DAI.      

[mopotter]

your joking right? the revan twist was obvious when they spoke to the jedi council, wasn't a surprise at all.

Speak for your self.  It was not obvious the first time I played back in 2003.  Any more than the twist in JE was obvious.  

[Sanunes]

Wouldn't mind a combination.    I actually liked DA2 well endough.  The ending was a bit disappointing since both sides were nuts, but it was good enough I still play it.

 

Have no interest in Witcher 2, I don't like fixed characters, and I played Obsidian's KOTOR2,  I enjoyed it until the ending which made no sense at all, I've heard that if you want to the dark side it made just a little more sense but not much. Also heard they had to rush it and the pc version has a mod to fix it.  

 

I'm interested in seeing what BioWare does with DAI.      

 

In the defense of Obsidian they made a rookie mistake by not getting a timetable change in writing, so they were caught unprepared when a new liaison wanted their game on the original date.  That is why the "fan patch" has so much content in it, because it unlocks everything they had to cut at the last minute to finish the game.

[mopotter]

Yes..yes...but those are various other cause of DA2 failure...in story department, DA2 story is so cheap like i already mentioned...so add it all up, DA2 is actually a complete failure...that is the truth

Ok, this I need to disagree with.       It was not a complete failure any more than ME3 was, and I am one of the die hard hater of the ME3 ending.   For me ME3 was a failure, but even with ME3 I understand some people loved it and there were some good things about it.  The same is true of DA2.  Some people enjoyed it more than DAO and some didn't.  It may have been a failure for you and others who feel that way, but as long as one person enjoys it, it's not a complete failure.  

 

DA 2 had problems, every game has problems.  DA2 was still fun.  I didn't want to pitch it in the trash can after I was done and I still play it once in awhile.  

[mopotter]

I have to agre with Qistina DA2 was marketed all wrong. But look at DAO it was bearly marketed at all, its popularity came from word of mouth, tbh I never knew about it till a friend on steam told me about it.

For me, BioWare very seldom markets their games well. If I didn't hang out here, I'd probably not have bought many of their games till they had been out for years.

[Remmirath]

Well, the thing about that structure is that it is very broad. Even if the game does follow the structure precisely, all sorts of things can go into it and cause the story to unfold quite differently from other games. All stories have some structure to them, and there are only so many basic ones.

In fact, Dragon Age II can fit fairly well into that structure as well. There is a prologue, the running from Darkspawn bit; then you get to Kirkwall, and the game opens up somewhat. There's never exactly an open ended search, but there is a betrayal at roughly two-thirds (the thing with Isabela and the Qunari). One could count doing all of your companions quests as the searching for things part as well, if one is so inclined. And then, of course, there is an endgame.

I would say we don't know enough about the story yet to even say if it will fit the basic structure, and if it does, what is most important is how it does it. It could still be quite interesting and different even if it does.

[mopotter]

If i am at the marketing department....i will not make trailers look like DA2 trailers..."Choose your Champion"...no, that is not the correct advertisement for DA2 because Hawke is an epic fail hero...

 

Instead i will use trailers showing melancholic unknown hero...walking at the dark path...flashes images of blood magic, flashes images of Templars, flashes images of Arishok and the qunari...then the "hero" is at the cross road...one path is on fire, the other path is decayed, the other path is full of blood....then the unknown with no face hero who is face down lift up the face in flash the eyes glowing with rage.....

 

 

It depends on where you are doing your marketing.  If you do your research you market different areas differently.  The game you have described is a game I would not purchase at a sale price.  But for your area, that would have been a good image.   Marketers need to be aware of their audience.   You seem to be aware of what would work in your country but for someone who buys game for the RPG story, dialogue, making the character who they want, it wouldn't work.

[mopotter]

The oft repeated claim that Bioware made DA2 for CoD fans.

Really?  I missed this.  I heard all sorts of things about ME series but DA 2?  no guns. Oh well. 

[KaiserShep]

I'll never understand that claim. As one who has played CoD, I see absolutely no connection. I think it's just a BS comparison to serve as another way to call them simple-minded.

[mopotter]

How many people have only read the title and replied and paid no attention to my actual post?

  I think I did, but now I don't remember, and being lazy don't want to go back and look.  So no I don't think it will be DA:O 2.  I think it will be a stand alone game and hopefully a good one.

[AlanC9]

In the defense of Obsidian they made a rookie mistake by not getting a timetable change in writing, so they were caught unprepared when a new liaison wanted their game on the original date.  That is why the "fan patch" has so much content in it, because it unlocks everything they had to cut at the last minute to finish the game.

Whoa! Never heard that's how it went down.

[upsettingshorts]

I'll never understand that claim. As one who has played CoD, I see absolutely no connection. I think it's just a BS comparison to serve as another way to call them simple-minded.

 

I don't know if you saw the link earlier, but the entire claim arose from the uproar over the headline of this article.

 

No, nobody at the time read what Melo actually said.  There are connections, but they are features that are already shared by the genres, and not anything DAII had to "introduce."

[KaiserShep]

Fair enough.

[Sanunes]

Whoa! Never heard that's how it went down.

 

Now I could be wrong, but that is what I remember from a video interview when Obsidian was still working on their Kickstarter Campaign, but at the very least I think there are multiple reports that LucasArts wanted a Christmas 2004 release and shortened the schedule for that.

[Naesaki]

Now I could be wrong, but that is what I remember from a video interview when Obsidian was still working on their Kickstarter Campaign, but at the very least I think there are multiple reports that LucasArts wanted a Christmas 2004 release and shortened the schedule for that.

I think it was a multitude of development hell problems, rather than one specific thing that affected KOTOR 2 

[Majestic Jazz]

I think it was a multitude of development hell problems, rather than one specific thing that affected KOTOR 2 

 

NO, KOTOR 2 was originally scheduled for a May 2005 release date (to go along with the release of EP3) however LucasArts wanted to push the game up by like 6 months and release it in December. So Obsidian had to cut a lot of content to make the DEC 2004 release.

[Giantdeathrobot]

The big problem with DA2 having Hawke has a failure hero is that I find it simply doesn't work with the genre.

 

RPGs are about choice in consequences, if not in full, then in large part. Your actions and the reactions they have are a big part of why people play these games in the first place. You can play around with these expectations, of course, but they're here nonetheless. And DA2 was weak on that front; many events happened regardless of what you did and the only input you had was fighting your way to your scripted defeat and then choose if Hawke will be an angel, a clown or a psycopath in reaction.

 

Now, that's not always a bad thing; making the PC fail can work. But making the PC fail as consistently as Hawke does kinda makes you wonder why the player should even bother making choices if they have so little impact. Act 3 in particular was so very bad about this. The first 2 were tolerable, Hawke got some victories and some defeats, but in the third act he could have stayed home and the story wouldn't have changed much, excpet from a few hundred extra bodies made in his wake.

 

This kind of story would be fine in, say, a Deus Ex game or something; Human Revolution has the PC ultimately not accomplish that much but I still liked how it handled the choice. But in a full-blooded RPG (I myself consider action-RPG to be stuff like Diablo or Path of Exile, DA and Mass Effect dont belong there), telling the player their choices don't matter and **** will hit the fan no matter what kinda defeats the purpose of playing the game in the first place. Might as well play a FPS who hands you a gun but forbids you to shoot with it because ''it's so edgy, amirite?''.

 

Of course the game was also plagued with other problems, giving off a serious vibe of being woefully unfinished. But it almost seemed like Bioware tried to ''explain'' the lack of choices by claiming it was by design or something. Being forced to fight both Orsino and Mredith certainly was a black day as an RPG fan.

[Remmirath]

The big problem with DA2 having Hawke has a failure hero is that I find it simply doesn't work with the genre.

Hmmm. I find I both agree and disagree with you on this. On the one hand, I think it very much can work with the genre; on the other, I agree that in this case it did not quite do so, although with a few changes I think that it could have.
 

RPGs are about choice in consequences, if not in full, then in large part. Your actions and the reactions they have are a big part of why people play these games in the first place. You can play around with these expectations, of course, but they're here nonetheless. And DA2 was weak on that front; many events happened regardless of what you did and the only input you had was fighting your way to your scripted defeat and then choose if Hawke will be an angel, a clown or a psycopath in reaction.

To my mind, RPGs are most about roleplaying the character. So long as you can do that effectively, I count a game as a success in terms of being an RPG (I count DA II only as a partial success on that front, but that's nothing to do with the plot). However, choice and consequences can be and often are an important part of realising the character, and I think that DA II could have done with some more of them.
 

Now, that's not always a bad thing; making the PC fail can work. But making the PC fail as consistently as Hawke does kinda makes you wonder why the player should even bother making choices if they have so little impact. Act 3 in particular was so very bad about this. The first 2 were tolerable, Hawke got some victories and some defeats, but in the third act he could have stayed home and the story wouldn't have changed much, excpet from a few hundred extra bodies made in his wake.

Indeed. What I believe would have fixed this is almost always having the possibility of success, but typically having it be extremely difficult. Failure or success, either one, is more meaningful if there was a chance of the other. Yes, some people would simply reload and cheat until they succeeded, but I say that they are free to play the game that way if that is what they enjoy. Doesn't change the experience for the rest of the people.
 

This kind of story would be fine in, say, a Deus Ex game or something; Human Revolution has the PC ultimately not accomplish that much but I still liked how it handled the choice. But in a full-blooded RPG (I myself consider action-RPG to be stuff like Diablo or Path of Exile, DA and Mass Effect dont belong there), telling the player their choices don't matter and **** will hit the fan no matter what kinda defeats the purpose of playing the game in the first place. Might as well play a FPS who hands you a gun but forbids you to shoot with it because ''it's so edgy, amirite?''.

Aye, again, with even the slim possibility of success I think this problem would've been solved. I do think some of the problem was framing the game as a story being told -- in that fashion, with the cutscenes coming before you actually act out the events in question, it would have taken a fair amount of finesse to pull off changing the outcome and switching tack for the cutscene on the other side of the action. I think it could've been done, probably, and if it had been successfully done I think it would've been the better for it.
 

Of course the game was also plagued with other problems, giving off a serious vibe of being woefully unfinished. But it almost seemed like Bioware tried to ''explain'' the lack of choices by claiming it was by design or something. Being forced to fight both Orsino and Mredith certainly was a black day as an RPG fan.

Yes. That one in particular was a problem. I only ever played with a character who sided with the Templars (the game had no replayability to me, for completely different reasons), but watching my brother play siding with the mages I did wonder why they did that. From what I saw then, the whole ending makes it seem like the mages really are all abominations, which doesn't work well with how the rest of the game and indeed the previous game treated the issue.