81 réponses à ce sujet

[Wifeaggro]

Yes, sure. Let's turn every next title of a franchise in an exact copy of the previous one with just some little enhancements. This is all we need for progress.

If science and art were to be lead by people like you (and 80% of those on this forum) we would still be cavemen engraving graffiti on stone while looking at the sun thinking it is a god.

Did you steal that from your college professor?. I would not call dumbing down the classes, abilities and loot, removing features, making the gaming experience worse then its previous generation moving forward.

[Ansa]

Yes, sure. Let's turn every next title of a franchise in an exact copy of the previous one with just some little enhancements. This is all we need for progress.

If science and art were to be lead by people like you (and 80% of those on this forum) we would still be cavemen engraving graffiti on stone while looking at the sun thinking it is a god.

 

Haha are you for real??

I agree with OP.

The game is so dumbed down any monkey with a gamepad can play it now.

If Bioware is as progressive as you say, in next game you will not have even miniscule amount of choice you have now.

Hold 1 button to slay constantly respawning enemies, and pick 2 choices in every dialogue, the "nice" answer and the "arrogant" answer.

[AlanC9]

Take just one aspect: DAO had fantastic aesthetics. Aesthetically it looked different than anything else, and had a look which complemented the subject of the game well. DA2 moved away from this and looked somewhat more like "any other game". DAI takes this a step further and now doesn't have anything aesthetically special or unique. Sure, both DA2 and DAI have better graphics than DAO, but not better aesthetics (DAI isn't even close). Take a look at this excellent (and short) explanation of the difference between the two: Aesthetics vs. Graphics.
!

I don't check you on this at all. DA:O struck me as being fairly bland when it came out, and I didn't see how it looked different from anything else. Honestly, I thought it was NWN2 with a few more polygons and a somewhat drabber palette. Which I didn't have any problem with, mind; I thought DA2 was a step in the wrong direction.

[coldflame]

Yes, sure. Let's turn every next title of a franchise in an exact copy of the previous one with just some little enhancements. This is all we need for progress.

If science and art were to be lead by people like you (and 80% of those on this forum) we would still be cavemen engraving graffiti on stone while looking at the sun thinking it is a god.

While I agree that in science and art we need people that can think outside of the box, but are you seriously comparing science and art to DA? Really? DA is a game made for entertainment. It is not science nor is it art. Before you say that DA could be a piece of art, no, it is not. It is a product offered by ea in exchange for your money.

[Tex]

Origans was quite bland and uninteresting to a lot of people and to say other wise is quite ignorant. Did People enjoy it? yes off cause as do many others enjoy top down point and clicks or first or 3rd person button mashers me personally I found origans combat quite dull repetitive and felt like there was no whieght to it this is very glaring especially when it came to the rogue specialisation. Which is why I personaly always went a mage even though they had that horrible slouch in combat "shudders". I also found the non voiced protagonist dull this may be because of the games I played previouslly that where voiced I don't truly know what I do know is I personally had a very hard time getting thru the hole game allso as to your praise of the BG series I personaly don't get the hype I'm not trying to get in an argument here it's just I tried it and just couldn't get into it my standards for a game may have been to different I was brought up playing console games please do not let this detract from what I have said so far to put this into context I was born in 1991 and my family didn't have access to a computer till I was around ten years of age take this how you will. As to the reason I have gone into such detail is because I have read the above and people have asked for in depth reasons for their statements to be considerd valid thank you to those who read this I hope i do not offend anyone this was not my intention.

[dlux]

Baldur's Gate 2 wasn't that much a revolution from Baldur's Gate 1.  It did fairly well as I recall.

 

Most of the biggest franchises around evolve in small steps, and they churn out plenty sales year in year out.

They listened to the fans and improved upon BG1. And subsequently made the best game of all time IMO.

 

Now Bioware only listens to a suit at EA who has no idea about gaming or knows what the fans want.

[Hexoduen]

They listened to the fans and improved upon BG1. And subsequently made the best game of all time IMO.

 

 

Baldur's Gate 2 is without a doubt one the best games ever made, and a lot of people would agree. Average score on Gamespot from roughly 7000 users is 9,3/10, doesn't get much better than that

 

"Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!! RrraaaAAGHGHH!!!"

[Selea]

How about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? That's the case.

Of what the hell are you talking about? Where's the correlation I cannot either fathom to understand.

[Selea]

LMFAO. Little enhancements are exactly what progress is you dolt. A sweeping destruction of the core gameplay doesn't 'progress' us anywhere, it sets us back.

No. You obviously know nothing about art and science and it shows. "Little enhancements" don't bring you anywhere to form a proper theory. Maybe you should research a little on how breakthrough in science (as the big bang model or the Lamba-CDM one) took place so you can understand how things works a little before trying to disprove something you obviously understand nothing about.

[Selea]

Hi!
 

Science has the purpose of bettering our lives and mankind in the process.

 

A games only function is to entertain.

 

It doesn't change anything. The modus oprandi behind progress is the same, no matter the medium. The rules behind real progress don't change just because one thing is for entertainment and the other for advancement in life.

If you always follow the previous scheme with only small adjustments you will never have real progress. Sure, there's a chance of going back a step instead of going forward, but the only way you can seriously progress is to try to go forward one full step, not 100 small ones (100 small advancements will never substitute a full leap because in the former case the root remains unaltered).

[Fredvdp]

I'm enjoying this game much more that Origins. While it's good that they listen to the fans, I'm also glad they realize the fans don't always know what they want. Making an Origins copy would be safe, but then the Dragon Age series would become like Assassin's Creed.

[Coyote X Starrk]

Everyone is entitled to their own view and preference. 

 

The people who dislike the game or have issues with the way it plays need to realize however that there are MANY people out there who are enjoying the game just fine. 

[Selea]

Also, that cave graffiti became language, and that sun became solar power. Improving on something solid like DAO is what progress is, not discarding it to make a single player MMO. Your analogy is stupid and you should feel bad.

My analogy is perfect and it is just that you cannot understand it. Simple as that.

You just wanted a DA:O revisited and that's all, because you cannot adapt to change. However this is YOUR problem, not of the game. As I said in other threads the control scheme if working properly would be perfectly fine for the context of the game. Yet you people don't care about it and just pretend the control scheme to be exactly like DA:O, without considering minimally the context. Bioware obviously wanted to have a system where you could play as an action RPG in normal camera and similar to point and click when in tactical camera (so as to have players decide the way to approach combat). Sadly for some problems in the control scheme this doesn't presently work fine, but in theory the system makes perfect sense and it is MUCH better than DA:O since it gives you more options.

If you would be a little less biased and considered things a little better maybe you would understand it, but no, it is much easier to scream "I want DA:O back" without caring minimally about the great improvements in other areas of the game and the changed context.

[Selea]

Did you steal that from your college professor?. I would not call dumbing down the classes, abilities and loot, removing features, making the gaming experience worse then its previous generation moving forward.

Sure. It's easy to extrapolate a thing from the context and seeing the "dumbing down" in some particulars by cherry picking; you could do it with everything. I could consider the Faust of Goethe a "dumbing down" of the one of Marlowe too using this method. Sadly this way of approach to things is used only by people that have a biased view and cannot be objective in their judgment.

But even if it was as you say, the hatred against Bioware is completely out of hand. As I repeat TW2 was (in the same way, using your cherry picking) a "dumbing down" of TW1 and yet nowhere in CDProjekt RED forums there was the outrage you see here.

[MiyoKit]

Honestly I think they made a huge step forward with DA:I. I really disliked DA:2, and DA:O is one of my fav games I've ever played, but DA:I is utterly enthralling. However, there are some things they could hark back to Origins for;

 

- PC controls.

- Walk toggle.

- Quest direction - while I love having the freedom to explore new realms, having some direction helps add immediacy. In Origins, you arrived to chaos so you felt like you had to stick around. In DA:I, you learn about the chaos from the war table, so you have a whole bunch of urgent scenarios on your hand. So then it just feels like priorities don't matter, since those dying villagers or missing troops will just wait until you arrive anyway.

 

At the moment I'm enjoying DA:I as much as I did Origins despite the flaws, if the controls get fixed I might even like it more - depending on how the story progresses.

[Lethys1]

Yes, sure. Let's turn every next title of a franchise in an exact copy of the previous one with just some little enhancements. This is all we need for progress.

If science and art were to be lead by people like you (and 80% of those on this forum) we would still be cavemen engraving graffiti on stone while looking at the sun thinking it is a god.

 

Obviously he's not saying that.  This is such a common straw-man tactic when someone defends the new inferior thing.  DA:O was such a great game that it literally sells copies of Dragon Age to this day, and it has singlehandedly kept the franchise going past the abomination that was DA2.  They had an amazing thing on their hands and they squandered it with DA2.  DA:I is far better than DA2, but the combat is atrociously bad in both of the last two entries.  DA:O combat is the reason many people still play today.  The story in DA:O was bad.  DA:A was the only DA with a compelling story because it wasn't so damn cliche and obvious what was going to happen.  DA2 just made no sense.  So far the story in this game is fun, and it keeps me going.

 

The innovation of this game was its openness and expansiveness.  Plug DA:O combat into this game's scale and graphics, and that's a ton of innovation.  DA:O combat was a thing of beauty developed over many years.  This seems like something that was designed as a last minute compromise, and it shows.  Only archer, mage, and tank are playable.  2h dps and dual wield rogue are broken classes, as is a mage without barrier skills.  You should get skills inherently if they're so important to balance.  Don't make a game which requires a barrier skill and then not tell me to get it as a requirement.

 

Now don't get me wrong, though, I like the game a lot.  But it could be far, far better than it is now if it made huge changes to its combat.

[Selea]

Really? Ah, the nostalgia... it lets you see things as all rosy and pure when it's not so. DA:O had so many problems in the combat scheme that it would take a full page to list them all (and in fact at the time many of the best reviewers pinpointed many of those). Moreover I cannot fathom how people cannot understand a simple thing as that an open world engine cannot adopt a full point and click control scheme. Is it really possible that people are so dumb as to not understand all the problematics an huge world like the one of DA:I can give to a full point and click scheme?

Then, tell me: if you have the option to play a game as an action RPG or a point and click RPG in combat is that better or worse than being stuck with only the latter? Because, guess what, DA:I gives you the choice on how to approach combat (there are shortcomings that presently don't make it work as it should but in theory it should be so) while DA:O didn't. Normal camera = action RPG style combat, tactical camera = point and click RPG style combat (similar to DA:O). The problems the combat scheme has at the moment doesn't change this.

Yes, the control scheme atm has huge issues, but the fact remains that on paper it is an improvement towards DA:O because it gives you a choice that before you didn't have. Moreover you cannot adopt a full point and click interface on an open world environment, the context is simply too complex to make it work fine. You have to make some choices during a game development on what you think is best for what you want to do.

[Terodil]

The arrogance is strong in this thread. I can't see how we're going to have a fruitful discussion with somebody claiming that everybody who disagrees with him/her is just too dumb to understand.

[Selea]

The arrogance is strong in this thread. I can't see how we're going to have a fruitful discussion with somebody claiming that everybody who disagrees with him/her is just too dumb to understand.

If you cannot understand that a full point and click interface cannot work in an open world environment then, yes, you are too dumb to talk about these things. Sorry if this sounds to you as "arrogance" but some things are as they are.

You cannot pretend to blame another human person because he cannot fly and then either insist you have a point.

[Terodil]

Thanks for proving my point. I'm out, have fun discussing this with yourself. I'm sure you'll find it both fascinating and productive.

[Semipro]

They listened to the fans and improved upon BG1. And subsequently made the best game of all time IMO.
 
Now Bioware only listens to a suit at EA who has no idea about gaming or knows what the fans want.

The people that made Baldur's Gate 2 don't even work at BioWare any more.

[CrystaJ]

Selea's generally right about DAO being extremely overrated. I literally can't replay it, and I only really made myself go through it once to get my own unique save state (which now I can't use because of issues with DAI - ugh).

 

And obviously my opinions are always objectively correct.

 

In all seriousness I'm not spending $60 on the same game under slightly different wrapping and interface. For all the grousing about it's flaws, DA II at least strayed from the "there's one big bad and you must go forward and defeat it" plotline cliche', which I can at least appreciate even if there was some mishandling. That, and the DAO combat made me fall asleep, so pls no.

[BammBamm]

to be fair, origin and baldurs gate 2 were massivly criticized too. the lack of freedom and the whole fade thing in origins was shredded from players, baldurs gate 2 was criticized for the reduce of freedom compared to 1 and the streamlined storyline too. the past is a nice thing, you can just forget what you didnt like or ignore which doesnt fit in your thinking now

 

basically the game is fine, there is still a good story but its buried under the freedom of an open world. but you can ignore a lot of the open world thing and advance in the story fast if its your thing. most of your companions are fine, but because there are more important persons (f.e. your counselors) the evalation is different compared to origins.

 

there is only one thing i have to criticize which is not a matter of taste. the controls and the ui! hell i play games on a pc because i love the quality of life features such a system offers. when you port consol and controler friendly things in a game of a genre which is predistinated for the strength of a pc (flexibility in controls, overview, point and click etc) its just bullshit and you can force pc players all you like to use controllers on there systems, THEY WILL NOT DO IT! why? because its a huge disadvantage compared to the strenghts a pc has. do it in driving games or arcade things, there has a controler its strength, but NOT in games where overwatch and inventory managment and complex controls are needed! thats just bullshit.

 

but to be fair, you can enjoy the game even with this flaws. i read about people asking for refund after 30 minutes of testing it yeah maybe not the game is the problem but you as a player. with the flexibility of a rock and the attitude to accept only the one way you like, have fun in life. after an hour or two you master the cluncky controls pretty well, so dont waste your time be a dramaqueen in the forums and learn to get used to it. maybe i have no problems with it because i start playing games in times where no ingame tutorials existed and you have to READ even a one hundred page manual before starting to play. gamers are sometimes so stubborn and spoiled whiners which think they are the centre of the universe. no you are not, and instead of wasting your energie for drama you could after a refocus enjoy this mainly great game. there are definitly things to improve, some should and some have to, but that doesnt mean the game is unplayable and a refund is justified. grow up guys!