934 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

No, it makes a lot of changes (not radical changes). Same as pretty much every other sequel in other's franchises. Just like the changes through every iteration of, for example, ES or CoD. But it doesn't change the world, tone, fashion or change the heart of what the gameplay experience is. Old gamers notes and likes and/or unlikes, but greedily dives into the experience, soon adapt and forget the differences to the previous game.

 

Yes, I know that "IMO" is your point. You want to make my argument irrelevant by calling on subjectivity. But that everything is subjective doesn't change that some things deserve to be considered facts. DA2 represents a radical change. Regardless of descriptions, the audience reaction to DA2 makes this a fact.

 

I don't want to make your argument irrelevant. I don't think that saying that an objection is subjective in any meaningful way undercuts its power as an objection. My point wasn't that your argument is subjective. My point was your argument was vacuous, because the whole issue turns on how you frame the initial question of what made DA:O, well, DA:O. Essentially, it amounts to saying that, whenever the reception of a product is sufficiently negative, we can infer that that was a "radical" change to its identity. That's false. A product can preserve its "identity" and just be a crap product the second time (or third) time around. 

 

Let's use NWN as an example. HoTU "preserved the identity" of NWN. Identical engine. Minor tweaks to how companions worked. But the OC (and, IMO, SoU) were ****. HoTU was a brilliant and fun campaign. The reception certainly reflects my subjective assessment here. 

 

DA2 represents a bad game. Same identity, far worse product. 

[GoldenGail3]

DA2 represents a bad game. Same identity, far worse product.

That sentence will have all the DA2 lovers booing you. Lol. LOL!!!!!

[In Exile]

That sentence will have all the DA2 lovers booing you. Lol. LOL!!!!!

 

Thing is, I  liked DA2. I just think it has far too many fatal flaws to be called a good game. From the level design, to the environments, to the encounter design, to the lot droops and scaling... all of that is, IMO, evidence of bad design. 

[GoldenGail3]

Thing is, I  liked DA2. I just think it has far too many fatal flaws to be called a good game. From the level design, to the environments, to the encounter design, to the lot droops and scaling... all of that is, IMO, evidence of bad design.

I agree with you. I really do; but I do image you could take the heads off of the hard core DA2 fans if you so wanted too. It's why I thought it was so funny. Your very good at making points.

[straykat]

Thing is, I  liked DA2. I just think it has far too many fatal flaws to be called a good game. From the level design, to the environments, to the encounter design, to the lot droops and scaling... all of that is, IMO, evidence of bad design. 

 

Those definitely suck.

 

Yet somehow I'm forgiving about it. It's all much improved in DAI, and yet it affects me little. I'm attracted to more story based things. Not things about the game space. I make more exception with combat though. Don't bore me to death at least.

[GoldenGail3]

Those definitely suck.
 
Yet somehow I'm forgiving about it. It's all much improved in DAI, and yet it affects me little. I'm attracted to more story based things. Not things about the game space. I make more exception with combat though. Don't bore me to death at least.

I need to go to bed. It's making me feel super happy.... It's unnatural....

[bEVEsthda]

My point was your argument was vacuous, because the whole issue turns on how you frame the initial question of what made DA:O, well, DA:O. Essentially, it amounts to saying that, whenever the reception of a product is sufficiently negative, we can infer that that was a "radical" change to its identity. That's false. A product can preserve its "identity" and just be a crap product the second time (or third) time around. 

 

<shrugs> But in that case your point is pretty irrelevant, isn't it? Because it was never my intention to go into details about DA:O. There are horribly many pages of DA2 and DA:O comparisons and vs arguments in the (DA2 forum, I believe?) forum, and I know for a fact that you participated in that. (The way I remember it, you were mostly defending DA2 and design changes, also arguing that DA2 was a success. But looking at it more in critical detail, I could be wrong - I admit that - and I'm too lazy to go back and check.)

 

And no, my argument concerning the foolishness of changing the identity of a franchise, doesn't amount to what you're saying. Rather, it was me using the poor reception of DA2 as clear evidence of the fact that it indeed radically differed from DA:O, since that is something you wanted to deny. And still seem to want. Your thesis now is that it's 'crap'?

 

Well, this is a discussion that I really don't want to go back to and repeat all over again (and have tried to avoid, because it does only coincidentally concern the point I wanted to make - and fair enough, if you want to live in your stated perception, then I don't have any point inside that, I concede that) but here is my thesis on DA2:

Some people were hot and horny on making a kewl, 'fun', cinematic role-watching game with zip-zap combat, with cartoonish, 'iconic' characters, jaggy edges, horns, spikes, fluffy white hair, feathers, straps, all that Japanese, ultra-generic fantasy-fashion prescribes. And they thought Dragon Age, with its mind share and lore, made for a terrific launch platform for this marketing-wet-dream, 'iconic' franchise, deliberately styled also for comics and animated movies. It also seemed to fit well with a new financial plan for DA-development, so they did it. Aside from changing the style and tone of the franchise, they also changed it from a role-playing game to a role-watching game, something people coming from Japanese tradition, like FF, probably wouldn't notice at all, but is a pretty big deal for many others. The lore, world maps, names, history, plot style is similar, but very little else is. That's IMO a radical change to a franchise.

 

I don't think DA2 is crap. I don't think I can quite agree with that. The shallow styling don't make it exactly crap. Lot's of people like that. All games have flaws. So have DA2, but I'm impressed with what they accomplished with the allocated resources. I loathe DA2 of course, but mainly because of what it did to the DA franchise. It's not a game I would normally bother to buy or play, but I don't go out of my way to loathe games like that. I'm okay with the ninja droppings and I think the re-used environments can be defended.

[Iakus]

Umm... you did read my post, right? I explicitly said that I wasn't talking about need.

The question is whether it was more fun to do it that way, or not. 10K's method worked -- although the DLCs are substantially more difficult -- but it strikes me a being a little dull and a lot slower than more advanced methods.

And that is my point.  As a 2H warrior, I could go through the 2H tree, pick stuff straight down the line, and pick a couple of abilities from a specialist tree, and be good to go.  It's not inefficient or a slog.   It's just kinda...there.  It's hard to gimp yourself.  But it's also hard to design something really interesting either.

 

My problem is even with only eight buttons, I didn't think the talent trees offered be a whole lot of variety.  The only exception is the mage.  And even there it felt like the options were "what element do you want to blast the enemy with?"

[Elhanan]

While I prefer more Player control for Abilities, Attributes, and AI, there is more I enjoy about the game than I dislike. Thus, I still contend that DAO > DAI > DA2.

[10K]

And that is my point.  As a 2H warrior, I could go through the 2H tree, pick stuff straight down the line, and pick a couple of abilities from a specialist tree, and be good to go.  It's not inefficient or a slog.   It's just kinda...there.  It's hard to gimp yourself.  But it's also hard to design something really interesting either.
 
My problem is even with only eight buttons, I didn't think the talent trees offered be a whole lot of variety.  The only exception is the mage.  And even there it felt like the options were "what element do you want to blast the enemy with?"

Exactly!

[In Exile]

Some people were hot and horny on making a kewl, 'fun', cinematic role-watching game with zip-zap combat, with cartoonish, 'iconic' characters, jaggy edges, horns, spikes, fluffy white hair, feathers, straps, all that Japanese, ultra-generic fantasy-fashion prescribes. And they thought Dragon Age, with its mind share and lore, made for a terrific launch platform for this marketing-wet-dream, 'iconic' franchise, deliberately styled also for comics and animated movies. It also seemed to fit well with a new financial plan for DA-development, so they did it. Aside from changing the style and tone of the franchise, they also changed it from a role-playing game to a role-watching game, something people coming from Japanese tradition, like FF, probably wouldn't notice at all, but is a pretty big deal for many others. The lore, world maps, names, history, plot style is similar, but very little else is. That's IMO a radical change to a franchise.

 

I don't think DA2 is crap. I don't think I can quite agree with that. The shallow styling don't make it exactly crap. Lot's of people like that. All games have flaws. So have DA2, but I'm impressed with what they accomplished with the allocated resources. I loathe DA2 of course, but mainly because of what it did to the DA franchise. It's not a game I would normally bother to buy or play, but I don't go out of my way to loathe games like that. I'm okay with the ninja droppings and I think the re-used environments can be defended.

 

I understand your thesis. I just think you're wrong because DA2 fails in some may ways as a matter of game design, we can't separate out the fact that it sucks from the fact that it may well be different, if I actually grant your point. Let me put it this way: if DA2 was a very different, but totally brilliant (at what it wanted to do) game, and it flopped, then we could say that the change was "radical" and the cause - Bioware would have made a great game that was the wrong genre and using the wrong base, and everyone would rightly hate it. But DA2 wasn't a good game. It was a bad one. 

 

One thing I absolutely refuse to let go: role watching. This goes back to the fantasy that the absence of VO is more conductive or even connected in any way to role-play, and that's just false. I don't want to derail the thread further - but if there's something I loathe, it's the idea that the lack of VO is anything other than a poor UI that fails to convey the necessary information to RP. 

[In Exile]

And that is my point.  As a 2H warrior, I could go through the 2H tree, pick stuff straight down the line, and pick a couple of abilities from a specialist tree, and be good to go.  It's not inefficient or a slog.   It's just kinda...there.  It's hard to gimp yourself.  But it's also hard to design something really interesting either.

 

So what you mean is, playing a 2H warrior is completely identical to DAO, except you can't bork your build through poor tool-tips and poorly explained stats. Because there wasn't much to a 2H warrior in that game, either. 

[straykat]

Skillwise, 2h warriors came into their own with DAA. More AoE to set them apart. DA2 was radically different, but they were fun in a way. I think DAI is kind of a blend. OTOH, I hate most DAI weapons. For a game that marketed sexy long and greatswords, there's a lot of stupid weapons. And the specs aren't that cool. Or dependent on some quirk. Like the 2h champion needs crit.. and axes. I hate axes. They're for dirty people

 

I also don't understand Reavers being in the game. Didn't they want to defile Andraste's ashes. Why are they so prevalent? This organization is so open minded it doesn't give a **** about anything, except the most generic principles. Like "restore order". I'm suppose to be some "symbol of hope", yet I feed on people? That's silly. And why don't they have Beserker? I'd rather learn Beserk from Ash Warriors. I'm in Ferelden and it's an Andrastian heavy game. Not to mention it obviously works for dwarves too. Either/or.

[Iakus]

So what you mean is, playing a 2H warrior is completely identical to DAO, except you can't bork your build through poor tool-tips and poorly explained stats. Because there wasn't much to a 2H warrior in that game, either. 

talents is one area that I think DA2 did better than DAO.

 

But DAI was a huge step backwards in that regard.  I've played three different warrior HoFs, and they all felt different. Warrior Inquisitors I think will all feel pretty much the same to me. 

[Kabraxal]

talents is one area that I think DA2 did better than DAO.

 

But DAI was a huge step backwards in that regard.  I've played three different warrior HoFs, and they all felt different. Warrior Inquisitors I think will all feel pretty much the same to me. 

Have to admit, never felt like playing the warrior class ever felt different to me in any of the three games.  Mages and rogues have always had a better and more diverse skill set than Warriors in Dragon Age.  Probably why it's my least favourite class.

 

As for "disappointing"... well, for myself that definitely isn't the case.  Logged in hundreds of hours and plan to continue playing more.  Though maybe a break from Fallout and into Mass Effect first.  Haven't had a Miri run in a while.

[Joseph Warrick]

All I know is I get bored before the game finishes. I've tried several chars and builds and never got so far as to meet Morrigan.

 

I think too much of the worldbuilding was done through books. Even though characters are introduced in the game (e.g., Fiona shows up and says ohai I'm Fiona), you don't know what she's like if you haven't read some book.

[Kabraxal]

All I know is I get bored before the game finishes. I've tried several chars and builds and never got so far as to meet Morrigan.

 

I think too much of the worldbuilding was done through books. Even though characters are introduced in the game (e.g., Fiona shows up and says ohai I'm Fiona), you don't know what she's like if you haven't read some book.

I actually appreciate a shared world like that... but then, I'm the guy that bought both World of Thedas volumes and every paperback so far....... and has almost all the character lithos for any Bioware game.  But damn it Bioware... give me Ashley Williams and a scenic shot of the temple in Trespasser.  Or any of the regions. DAI has the best looking regions in gaming.  Reminded me of ME1 and driving along enjoying the starscapes on strange planets (really hope Andromeda is bringing that sense back).

[Iakus]

 

As for "disappointing"... well, for myself that definitely isn't the case.  Logged in hundreds of hours and plan to continue playing more.  Though maybe a break from Fallout and into Mass Effect first.  Haven't had a Miri run in a while.

It's not game-breaking for me (well, the lack of healing is annoying).  But I feel nothing that says "ooh, I gotta try this combo!"  The combat gets the job done, and that's it.   Honestly, the eight button limit would bother me more if it did  

 

Fortunately, I rather enjoyed the story and characters.

[Mountain]

I just started playing for the first time one month ago and I love it.  After Batman, AC series, Witcher 3, and many more amazing games, I am in awe of this one.

 

Reminds me of a singleplayer MMO.

 

[AlanC9]

And that is my point. As a 2H warrior, I could go through the 2H tree, pick stuff straight down the line, and pick a couple of abilities from a specialist tree, and be good to go. It's not inefficient or a slog. It's just kinda...there. It's hard to gimp yourself. But it's also hard to design something really interesting either.

My problem is even with only eight buttons, I didn't think the talent trees offered be a whole lot of variety. The only exception is the mage. And even there it felt like the options were "what element do you want to blast the enemy with?"

OK. But why'd you mention need when you weren't actually talking about need? Or are you talking about need, and you think that really is the criterion? I'll certainly stipulate -- already did, in fact -- that the base DAI game fails to be challenging.

We may just disagree about how much fun that playstyle loses. I'm also not sure how adding more buttons would help with the problem. Wouldn't that just make game balance even worse than it was?

[In Exile]

talents is one area that I think DA2 did better than DAO.

 

But DAI was a huge step backwards in that regard.  I've played three different warrior HoFs, and they all felt different. Warrior Inquisitors I think will all feel pretty much the same to me. 

 

I don't really see it being talent-driven, so much as statistic driven. In my experience, the meat shields in DA:O vary based more on stat build than talents, because the weapon distribution is so very limited. 

[Wozearly]

I understand your thesis. I just think you're wrong because DA2 fails in some may ways as a matter of game design, we can't separate out the fact that it sucks from the fact that it may well be different, if I actually grant your point. Let me put it this way: if DA2 was a very different, but totally brilliant (at what it wanted to do) game, and it flopped, then we could say that the change was "radical" and the cause - Bioware would have made a great game that was the wrong genre and using the wrong base, and everyone would rightly hate it. But DA2 wasn't a good game. It was a bad one. 
 
One thing I absolutely refuse to let go: role watching. This goes back to the fantasy that the absence of VO is more conductive or even connected in any way to role-play, and that's just false. I don't want to derail the thread further - but if there's something I loathe, it's the idea that the lack of VO is anything other than a poor UI that fails to convey the necessary information to RP.

I think you've hit the nail on the head in the first paragraph.

Speaking as someone who loved the world, gameplay and style of DA:O, DA2 was a disaster on all three counts. I agree with bEVEsthda that it was a radical departure from the style and feel of DA:O, and I think it would be unwise to write off that this fuelled a lot of discontent amongst the DA:O fan base irrespective of whether or not DA2 was any good. bEVEsthda's other point that had DA2 been a new IP (or taken forward the Jade Empire IP) it would have evaded this flood of bile is, IMO, accurate.

However, you're right that it's impossible to attribute what was the main causal factor for widespread dislike of DA2 amongst previous fans of the series, because DA2 was a poorly executed attempt at the new direction and drew a lot of valid criticism for its gameplay and various gameplay and design irritants. IMO, both contributed to it being rated as a fan failure - and the combination of both being such a kick in the teeth for people who disliked the direction change was why the day after launch we saw a storm of furious fans of the franchise descend on the forums spitting blood and demanding Mike Laidlaw's head.

It's also fair to say this was the death-knell for the DA:O style DA franchise. The "evolved" direction of DA2 split the fan base - going forward with a third game in the style of DA:O would have been a grand two finger gesture to the newcomers to the series and Bioware fans who weren't sold on the gameplay of Origins, and almost impossible politically for Mike Laidlaw given that he was a key architect of the shift. Rightly or wrongly, he also passionately believes that the DA2 style is the better way forward. So it's unlikely we'll ever get a DA:O 2.

I don't agree with your linking role-watching purely to the voiced protagonist, though. Sure, it certainly doesn't help, but it's not actually the driving factor. What's far more important is whether you feel that you have control over your character's actions and dialogue/personality - in essence, are you playing *your* character, or are you taking Bioware's character through their story. DA2's decision to make Hawke "surprise" the player by interjecting his own dialogue or doing some fairly notable actions proactively went a long way to undermine the idea that it was *your* character. Bioware electing not to show full dialogue in the wheel also doesn't help, and while I recognise they do this for the valid reason that people tended to skip the voicing when the line was written in full, this presumes that supporting a voiced PC is more important than ensuring the PC feels owned by the player as their own character - not a sentiment I agree with personally.

Brent Knowles understood this need for (and value of) ownership intuitively, and was a master at overseeing game world's and stories where the player became deeply attached to their own unique version of their character as the story was told. DA:O was his masterpiece. Mike Laidlaw is much better at crafting action-driven RPGs, forging iconic characters and taking them through iconic stories. And, though I say it begrudgingly, he's probably got his finger closer to the pulse of what will appeal to the wider gaming community rather than just the hardcore Old Bioware and New Bioware fans. DA:I is his masterpiece.

A deeply flawed masterpiece, granted, but a masterpiece all the same.

[JJ Likeaprayer]

I don't see what's wrong with it.....when I first started it,both the world state problem and the new jumping system pissed the hell outta me! But as I got into it,it's still nothing less than amazing!! I think it's very hard for BioWare to do wrong,since they put all their focus on only two game seires,unlike other studios. And both of them are incomparable! Especially Dragon Age Origins and Mass Effect 3,game like these are just a bless from above! But anyway,back to DAI,I love it and I'm not easy to please......I'm a Scorpio! 

[In Exile]

I don't agree with your linking role-watching purely to the voiced protagonist, though. Sure, it certainly doesn't help, but it's not actually the driving factor. What's far more important is whether you feel that you have control over your character's actions and dialogue/personality - in essence, are you playing *your* character, or are you taking Bioware's character through their story. DA2's decision to make Hawke "surprise" the player by interjecting his own dialogue or doing some fairly notable actions proactively went a long way to undermine the idea that it was *your* character. Bioware electing not to show full dialogue in the wheel also doesn't help, and while I recognise they do this for the valid reason that people tended to skip the voicing when the line was written in full, this presumes that supporting a voiced PC is more important than ensuring the PC feels owned by the player as their own character - not a sentiment I agree with personally.

Brent Knowles understood this need for (and value of) ownership intuitively, and was a master at overseeing game world's and stories where the player became deeply attached to their own unique version of their character as the story was told. DA:O was his masterpiece. Mike Laidlaw is much better at crafting action-driven RPGs, forging iconic characters and taking them through iconic stories. And, though I say it begrudgingly, he's probably got his finger closer to the pulse of what will appeal to the wider gaming community rather than just the hardcore Old Bioware and New Bioware fans. DA:I is his masterpiece.

 

I have to disagree with you entirely in this regard. I do not recall Hawke "interjecting" particularly often. They had the "dominant personality" auto-dialogue, but that's no different from the random expressions plastered over the face of the HOF during multiple scenes in DA:O (e.g. horror at the collapse of Wynne, etc.). More to the point, the character is not "yours" because your range of actions is always restricted. What most RPGs do to address this is to make the PC an incredibly passive actor - but that's not "freedom" if you want to have a proactive character, who does not defer to the NPCs and others in scenes. 

 

A voice allows a character to be proactive. This is important. As KoTOR and DA:O illustrate, you cannot have a proactive character in a 3D, VO'd world. There is a general failure of design in showing a proactive protagonist - almost every Bioware protagonist is very passive - but the addition of VO creates a means through which the player can actually drive the scenery instead of being driven by it. 

 

As for "Old Bioware" and "New Bioware", there is no such thing. KoTOR and JE represent quite clearly the design choices in ME1-ME3 and DA2/DAI. KoTOR made many moves toward "cinematic" to re-create the Star Wars experience. And even if we go back further, we see Bioware follow the same theory beforehand with BG1 and BG2. The made significant changes to create a far more narrative driven game at the cost of what were then considered features of RP - like the prototype open world, or the stronger and narrower characterization. 

 

I also disagree, fundamentally, with your description of DA:O. I think DA:O completely failed in its goal to realize a unique character. Rather, I think DA:O was as rigid as DA2 in the very narrow swath of characters it allowed. The view that DA:O supports multiple characters just comes from fallacious reasoning tied strongly with the lack of VO, but unsupported both by the way the story is structured and the way the dialogue for the PC was written. But these design points aside, the single greatest failing in DA:O is the complete failure to tie in the Origin stories with the Grey Warden plot. If you do not design a character who from the start wants to be a Grey Warden, the game just breaks down. 

 

A useful contrast here is ME1. In ME1, becoming a Spectre is automatic. But Shepard is never forced to identify as a Spectre. The game invests a great deal of resources in straddling the Systems Alliance/Council divide, and thus the Military/Spectre line. But DA:O does not do this - the dialogue, story, plot, structure, is all written with the absolute and unqualified decision that the PC is a GW, in the sense of identifying and adopting the role (ala Alistair, and unlike Anders). 

 

That's not per se a design flaw - DA:I does the same with the title of Inquisitor - but DA:O fails because 1) there is no actual option to react to the title in any meaningful way, apart from two simplistic statements to Wynne; and 2) the Origin story actively undercuts the idea of being a GW by giving you a great deal of flexibility in motivation. 

 

The other way in which DA:O does a poor job of character connection (not that DA:2 does better, though DA:I is absolutely far superior) is in expression. Very rarely will a PC get to react, emotionally, and express feelings. But DA:I built an entire system around it. 

[straykat]

 

 

Reminds me of a singleplayer MMO.

 

He says unironically.