454 réponses à ce sujet

[Birdy]

No, that would be writers who made the endings of ME3.

Don't blame the whole staff. Only two people had a hand in the travesty, and one has left Bioware.

[Fast Jimmy]

Don't blame the whole staff. Only two people had a hand in the travesty, and one has left Bioware.

Did I? I said "the writers who made the ending." Not "the ME writers."

[wcholcombe]

According to Lady Insanity, story driven RPGs are alive and well in DAI. But that is just her opinion afterall.

[Lennard Testarossa]

(Pretty sure they made it clear it ME1 was only a delay, but this is OT)

 

Spoiler

The point is that Sovereign's actions are completely superfluous if he can instead simply wait four years or so for the rest of the Reapers to arrive. Everything he does is entirely counterproductive and risks the galaxy uniting against and preparing for the Reaper attack, not to mention his own destruction.

[Birdy]

Spoiler

The point is that Sovereign's actions are completely superfluous if he can instead simply wait four years or so for the rest of the Reapers to arrive. Everything he does is entirely counterproductive and risks the galaxy uniting against and preparing for the Reaper attack, not to mention his own destruction.

They are computers. They had a set time and directive to do things and that's what he did.  If he hadn't been stopped the whole Reaper force would have just wiped the galaxy again.  Sovereign's only goal was to open the gate.

[Itkovian]

 

Bioware needs to figure out what they want the DA series to be and stick with it. Sure, the series can grow and change depending on changes in design philosophy, etc., but do so in baby steps. Skyrim is the result of an evolution of six games and nearly twenty years of relative consistency. Dragon Age has been the result of a hodge podge of design decisions, each one of which is part of the studio's artistic vision one day, then being completely revamped the next.

Throwing out everything and re-inventing wheel every game is a reckless way to build brand identity, let alone polish features.

 

To a certain extent I agree with the above, however I think we need to realize that all we have here is a couple of data points, one of which is almost invalid.

 

DA does suffer from a certain lack of consistency, but a lot of it comes from DA2 being forced in a single year dev cycle. This forced the drastic shift in scope, narrative style, and of course the many flaws everyone knows and loves (reuse of asset, lack of depth, and so on).

 

Beyond the story itself (the mage rebellion, red lyrium, and so on) and the more unique artistic identify, DA2 clearly didn't bring anything lasting to DA franchise. Hopefully DAI will rectify that and provide the right formula they've been looking for, after which there will be a more stable "brand identity".

 

....

 

Or maybe it won't. Maybe Bioware sees the Dragon Age setting as more of a sandbox where they can be free to innovate as they see fit, unbound by the previous games. Same reason why each DA game has its own protagonist.

[Lennard Testarossa]

They are computers. They had a set time and directive to do things and that's what he did.  If he hadn't been stopped the whole Reaper force would have just wiped the galaxy again.  Sovereign's only goal was to open the gate.

 

...so, basically, the argument here is that for all their intelligence, the Reapers are simply not capable of waiting four years, despite the fact that waiting would allow them to win with a 100 percent chance and massively lower casualties, and that not waiting is a massive risk on all levels without any tangible advantages whatsoever over waiting?

 

Also, Sovereign tried to activate the gate many centuries prior to ME 1. He managed not to attack the Citadel during that time, so what changed?

[Heimdall]

Still, the shift between ME1 and ME2 wasn't as large as DA:O and DA2. I'd say the ME series had a brand - the game felt the same, they just got more "shooter-esque" and stripped dialogue decisions down. You still had a voiced, loosely set protagonist with shooter mechanics, stats in the background, single character control (you always control Shephard) and alien sex. Those all carried forward through each game. DA does not have the same list of connected design elements.

Well, that's partly because ME was always supposed to be about Shepard and DA was not envisioned as a single overarching story. There was still a pretty huge tonal shift in between the first two ME games though. I will admit, they definitely looked at ME2's success and thought: "let's try a little bit of that and see if it works". Though they then took it and used the more defined protagonist to create a personal story about family (More or less, depending on who survives...) rather than going the savior of the world route. I won't deny that it's a bigger shift, but I think the point stands. Sometimes the game that defines the brand isn't the first game, sometimes a revolution in design gets great results.

[Itkovian]

They are computers. They had a set time and directive to do things and that's what he did.  If he hadn't been stopped the whole Reaper force would have just wiped the galaxy again.  Sovereign's only goal was to open the gate.

 OT time!

 

There's also another reason Sovereign's actions were important: it was more than simply opening the gate. It also involved taking over the Citadel AND shutting down the entire Mass Relay network.

 

If Sovereign had succeeded, the galaxy was finished, as collaboration would never have been possible. Hard to unite the galaxy when nobody can get together (or even communicate).

 

So, yeah, ME1 was very important to the story, and Sovereign's role was pivotal in ensuring the Reapers met minimal resistance. ME2, on the other hand, if much less significant (even though the gameplay innovations were massively successful).

[Lennard Testarossa]

 OT time!

 

There's also another reason Sovereign's actions were important: it was more than simply opening the gate. It also involved taking over the Citadel AND shutting down the entire Mass Relay network.

 

If Sovereign had succeeded, the galaxy was finished, as collaboration would never have been possible. Hard to unite the galaxy when nobody can get together (or even communicate).

 

So, yeah, ME1 was very important to the story, and Sovereign's role was pivotal in ensuring the Reapers met minimal resistance. ME2, on the other hand, if much less significant (even though the gameplay innovations were massively successful).

 

...and why risk failure by not waiting four years? It's not like the galaxy has anything to unite against until the Reapers make their existence known.

[inko1nsiderate]

Spoiler

The point is that Sovereign's actions are completely superfluous if he can instead simply wait four years or so for the rest of the Reapers to arrive. Everything he does is entirely counterproductive and risks the galaxy uniting against and preparing for the Reaper attack, not to mention his own destruction.

Very OT, but...

Spoiler

This isn't the case... if you look at the events of ME3, the Reaper invasion was slower, involved the edges of the galaxy being attacked first, which allowed the core races time to regroup, consolidate power, and launch a cohessive offensive at the end.  If you had lost the Citadel at the very beginning of the game, you'd also have quickly lost the Salarian and Taurian home planets, never have gotten the Krogan, and you'd probably not really get a chance to build the thing that ultimately helps you defeat them.  That's what Sovereign was going for: an instant invasion at the heart of the government, crippling the major navies immediately, and basically throwing the entire galaxy in disarray instantly.  The citadel is really the center destination of many other relays, so if you cut out the center of your hub, you'd effectively split up much of the galaxy right at the beginning of the war with no real way for other nations to collaborate. That doesn't seem entirely superflous as it entirely changes the way the Reaper invasion plays out.  EVEN if it ostensibly only changes the timeline by 4 years, it drastically reshapes the way the war plays out

As to the brand identity, I think even if you have major changes to DA2 you still have many basic elements: certain skills, spells, and story universe elements are central to Dragon Age and these are largely kept.  The way magic is split, the kinds of abilities and roles rogues play, and a lot of the stylistic elements are still all present in Dragon Age.  Sure, it changed a lot, but in some pretty major ways it merely evolved.  I think DAI is in this vein in a lot of ways.  It might have changed more between installments between DAO and DAI than franchises like CoD or BF, but I kind of really enjoy the innovation as the main draw to Bioware games for me is the engaging story universes they craft and the characters.

[Heimdall]

Spoiler

The point is that Sovereign's actions are completely superfluous if he can instead simply wait four years or so for the rest of the Reapers to arrive. Everything he does is entirely counterproductive and risks the galaxy uniting against and preparing for the Reaper attack, not to mention his own destruction.

Spoiler

Well, the point of Sovereign's actions was to allow the Reapers to swarm the Citadel and destroy the galactic government before anyone knows they exist. It wasn't just about getting to the Galaxy. It's a hole though, I agree. If I was writing ME2, Shepard would have discovered that Collectors were building some sort of backup relay to get the Reapers out of dark space (And they would have succeeded). But this is OT and we should stop.

[Lennard Testarossa]

Very OT, but...

Spoiler

This isn't the case... if you look at the events of ME3, the Reaper invasion was slower, involved the edges of the galaxy being attacked first, which allowed the core races time to regroup, consolidate power, and launch a cohessive offensive at the end.  If you had lost the Citadel at the very beginning of the game, you'd also have quickly lost the Salarian and Taurian home planets, never have gotten the Krogan, and you'd probably not really get a chance to build the thing that ultimately helps you defeat them.  That's what Sovereign was going for: an instant invasion at the heart of the government, crippling the major navies immediately, and basically throwing the entire galaxy in disarray instantly.  The citadel is really the center destination of many other relays, so if you cut out the center of your hub, you'd effectively split up much of the galaxy right at the beginning of the war with no real way for other nations to collaborate. That doesn't seem entirely superflous as it entirely changes the way the Reaper invasion plays out EVEN if it ostensibly only changes the timeline by 4 years, it drastically reshapes the way the war plays out

 

Spoiler

But there's absolutely no reason why the Reaper invasion would be any slower. Sovereign managed to get an entire Geth fleet to attack the Citadel in a surprise attack. What exactly is stopping the Reapers from 1. assembling in Geth space 2. attack as a fleet in precisely the same way the Geth fleet attacked? It plays out exactly the same way as it did in ME 1, the only difference being that there would be no reasonable chance of the Reaper fleet being defeated.

[Birdy]

...and why risk failure by not waiting four years? It's not like the galaxy has anything to unite against until the Reapers make their existence known.

We're not talking people here. Computers that for all their intelligence never believed they couldn't win.  They had one directive, destroy civilizations, and had never lost before.
They could not fail.  There was no reasoning to wait 4 years.   You say they should have waited, why would they wait? That's the same thing as hem acknowledging they could lose which to the very end they never thought possible.

[Itkovian]

...so, basically, the argument here is that for all their intelligence, the Reapers are simply not capable of waiting four years, despite the fact that waiting would allow them to win with a 100 percent chance and massively lower casualties, and that not waiting is a massive risk on all levels without any tangible advantages whatsoever over waiting?

 

Also, Sovereign tried to activate the gate many centuries prior to ME 1. He managed not to attack the Citadel during that time, so what changed?

 

1- There is a MASSIVE tangible advantage over waiting. Taking control of the Citadel and the relay network would have spelled gamer over for everyone. Far lower casualties and far more efficient "reaping" than if they just moved in as they did in ME3.

 

Sure, had they just waited they would have succeeded, but Sovereign had no way to know he would be stopped (nobody plans on Shepard! ).

 

2- Sovereign also tried with the Rachni, incidentally. What changed is Saren made contact with Sovereign, and somehow learned about the Conduit.

 

If it hadn't been for the Conduit Sovereign would never have attacked: he knew full well the Citadel would just close up, and he'd get destroyed or have to flee. The whole point of ME1 is that Saren can use the conduit to bring in a Geth army to gain control of the Citadel, and keep the arms open long enough for Sovereign to interface with the Citadel and manually activate it.

 

Reapers are perfectionist, they deliberately crafted the Relay network and the Citadel to make each cycle dependent on them and so completely neuter galactic civilizations by turning off the network. As such it's entirely normal for Sovereign to act as he did.

[Sidney]

Short of being a hyper-splitter Da2 and DAO were the same. You created a character, had the same classes, combat was still a point and click affair with activation of skills and talents. You had all the talk to the party and make decisions type things happenings sg the same. Functionally they are right, at a core level nothing was dramatically difference the differences were in the details and frankly as much hot air as gets vented here things that to a large degree don't much matter except in the mind of people who vent a lot of hot air about them.

For people who aren't on this board who played both I know. the reaction I usually saw was, ok now the hero talks but nothing else is really new. People who didn't like DAO didn't find anything better about 2 and people who liked O didn't dislike 2 because of what was "different" but just because of the rushed quality of the world.

Really in ME2 for most people all they knew was different was combat didn't suck and I doubt they could tell you exactly why.

[inko1nsiderate]

 

Spoiler

But there's absolutely no reason why the Reaper invasion would be any slower. Sovereign managed to get an entire Geth fleet to attack the Citadel in a surprise attack. What exactly is stopping the Reapers from 1. assembling in Geth space 2. attack as a fleet in precisely the same way the Geth fleet attacked?

Spoiler

Because they ended up in Batarian space which happens to be on the other side of Geth space, and the Geth they corrupted were only part of the Geth, and the non-indoctrinated Geth are shown to have been a far larger group to begin with.  Part of the invasion plan in ME3 WAS trying to get the Geth, and then launching an attack on the Citadel (which they do eventually), and as you can see it did actually slow things down.  The events in ME1 are not superfluous because of the evolving story in ME2 that reveals the geth you fought were a small part of a larger group of geth that opposed reapers, and because of Shepard's actions in ME3 that prevent the Reapers from making their Geth army the way they wanted to.

[Deadmac]

I loved the open world feel of Skyrim. When it comes to 'Dragon Age: Inquisition', I think there are a few major problems: (1) the use of voiced pcs is a turn off, (2) Dragon Age II has influenced too much of the game's design, and (3) the game tries to do too much at once. After playing the game 'Dragon Age II', I came to the conclusion that 'Dragon Age: Origins' was a once in a lifetime experience.

 

'Dragon Age: Origins', 'Skyrim', 'Vampire the Masqurade: Bloodlines', 'FallOut 2' and 'Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic' can never be clonned.

 

I am waiting for an entirely new franchise.

 

If I do end up getting into 'Dragon Age: Inquisition', I will do so within two to three years from now

 

When I first played 'Dragon Age: Origins', I didn't know anything about the franchise. I bought the game three years after release.

 

'Dragon Age: Origins' was great because it was a unique experience.

 

'Dragon Age: Inquisition' is trying to do too much all at once. It looks like a complete mess.

[Morroian]

Well, that's partly because ME was always supposed to be about Shepard and DA was not envisioned as a single overarching story. There was still a pretty huge tonal shift in between the first two ME games though. 

 

I played them back to back and I don't agree. The changes were to some of the mechanics and making the storytelling tighter. Tonally they were very similar.

 

 

As to the brand identity, I think even if you have major changes to DA2 you still have many basic elements: certain skills, spells, and story universe elements are central to Dragon Age and these are largely kept.  The way magic is split, the kinds of abilities and roles rogues play, and a lot of the stylistic elements are still all present in Dragon Age.  Sure, it changed a lot, but in some pretty major ways it merely evolved.  I think DAI is in this vein in a lot of ways.  

 

Not IMHO. I think DA2 was though, despite teh addition of a voiced protagonist, and was hamstrung by the short dev cycle. The changes to DAI though are of another order and are fundamentally taking the gameplay of the franchise in a different direction. Some of the unique iconic abilities of the first 2 games are either removed or changed markedly just for example.

[Itkovian]

...and why risk failure by not waiting four years? It's not like the galaxy has anything to unite against until the Reapers make their existence known.

 

Why allow the races of the galaxy the chance to unite in the first place, by letting them keep the relay network?

 

Remember that the whole relay network and the citadel is a trap built to ensure all galactic civilizations are dependent on them, so they can be easily isolated and dominated when the Citadel is activated and the relay network shut down. It's only natural for Sovereign to try everything he could to activate it.

 

And it should only be noted that Sovereign only unveiled himself and acted directly when he had a good line on taking over the Citadel. And it would have worked, if it wasn't for the heroic and wholly improbable Commander Shepard.

 

You seem to think that just waiting 4 years presented no risk and would have resulted in an easy and complete victory with minimal losses. This is not the case: their best, most efficient way of "reaping" the galaxy is to activate the citadel. Sovereign clearly believed that doing so presented less risk than trying to Reap the galaxy while the natives kept control of the Citadel and relay network.

[Lennard Testarossa]

1- There is a MASSIVE tangible advantage over waiting. Taking control of the Citadel and the relay network would have spelled gamer over for everyone. Far lower casualties and far more efficient "reaping" than if they just moved in as they did in ME3.

 

Sure, had they just waited they would have succeeded, but Sovereign had no way to know he would be stopped (nobody plans on Shepard! ).

 

2- Sovereign also tried with the Rachni, incidentally. What changed is Saren made contact with Sovereign, and somehow learned about the Conduit.

 

If it hadn't been for the Conduit Sovereign would never have attacked: he knew full well the Citadel would just close up, and he'd get destroyed or have to flee. The whole point of ME1 is that Saren can use the conduit to bring in a Geth army to gain control of the Citadel, and keep the arms open long enough for Sovereign to interface with the Citadel and manually activate it.

 

Reapers are perfectionist, they deliberately crafted the Relay network and the Citadel to make each cycle dependent on them and so completely neuter galactic civilizations by turning off the network. As such it's entirely normal for Sovereign to act as he did.

 

But that isn't a tangible advantage, as they could have simply did the same thing they did in ME 1, only with a Reaper fleet. And the Reapers are supposedly extremely intelligent. Sure, he couldn't have known he would lose, but he had to know that he could lose. There was obviously a very finite chance of him failing. So a basic risk calculation would've resulted in him realizing that waiting four years - which costs him absolutely nothing - is better than risking failure.

 

The only explanation is that the Reapers really are complete morons. Anyone who is incapable of calculating chances of failure clearly is.

[Lennard Testarossa]

Why allow the races of the galaxy the chance to unite in the first place, by letting them keep the relay network?

 

...but they wouldn't have kept the relay network if they had simply waited four years and sent all of their forces to the Citadel from the very beginning.

[inko1nsiderate]

Short of being a hyper-splitter Da2 and DAO were the same. You created a character, had the same classes, combat was still a point and click affair with activation of skills and talents. You had all the talk to the party and make decisions type things happenings sg the same. Functionally they are right, at a core level nothing was dramatically difference the differences were in the details and frankly as much hot air as gets vented here things that to a large degree don't much matter except in the mind of people who vent a lot of hot air about them.

For people who aren't on this board who played both I know. the reaction I usually saw was, ok now the hero talks but nothing else is really new. People who didn't like DAO didn't find anything better about 2 and people who liked O didn't dislike 2 because of what was "different" but just because of the rushed quality of the world.

Really in ME2 for most people all they knew was different was combat didn't suck and I doubt they could tell you exactly why.

I think the biggest differences were in level design, and the art of DA2.  I agree that the core mechanics were similar... to an extent.  By hiding a lot of the core mechanics in a way DAO doesn't, it feels a lot more different than it is.  But you can enable all the nitty gritty details with an option in DA2 and it feels a lot more like DAO (seeing those damage numbers and status effects really goes a long way to making DA2 feel less action RPG IMO).  Honestly, the difference in gameplay between DAO and DA2 is sort of like the difference in what you can do in NWN and NWN 2.  The core rules are the same between NWN games, but classes available, an addition of 'tactics', and the addition of a companion approval like scheme in MoTB are fairly significant changes through out that franchise.