521 réponses à ce sujet

[Cobra's_back]

I agree with this so much while also being someone who consider DA2 to be the best game in the series as well. I was recently thinking over another discussion how our perspectives on games are really based on three things: What is in the game, what we expected to be in the game and what we wanted in the game. The first thing is somewhat immutable, but the second and third change so subjective, yet often also color how the first part is viewed. That makes discussion on the actual features extremely difficult, for example with DA2 the constant insistence that system had been streamlined or simplified from DAO while it was actually a much more complicated system.

 

To me, what made discussing DA2 so difficult before was that the reaction was so toxic and there was very little interest to actual examine DA2 component-wise and see what it succeeded and failed at. All of the game was horrible and garbage, which led to these really weird and factually incorrect statements on what the game did which somehow became the required truth for the game discussion. Not surprisingly something very similar happened with DA2. Thus I was kind of happy to see these discussions after DAI where it was possible to actually honestly discuss the game without a horde of posters descending in to the thread to make it clear that nobody in their right mind should like DA2.

 

 

Well if they didn't state what they didn't like correctly than that is toxic.

 

Some of the comments did seem to fit and Bioware fix it.

 

I remember people complained about small world and reused dungeons. They fixed it.

 

Some people really like to play hero and have control of the situation. They totally fixed that.

 

Some people complained the ending was the same. That was changed as well.

 

As far as I'm concern they were listening and delivered a product that did address those issues.

[Cantina]

<snip>

 

 

I remember people complained about small world and reused dungeons. They fixed it.

 

 

To a much larger landscape devoid of nothing but pretty scenery. Not to mention getting attacked by the same enemies. At least in The Witcher 3 with open landscapes I am constantly surprised as to who or what is attacking me. Not this getting attacked by 3 bears followed by a few assassins, while a companion hits a goat and the tank runs off to chase it while my character is left eating the pretty designed grass.

 

Dungeons? There were dungeons in Inquisition? Where? While DA2 did reuse dungeons at least in those dungeons I was not in and out within 1-5 minutes. Oh and by the way, reused dungeons did happen in Inquisition. The whole, "Go into the Deep Roads." Yeah, reused.

 

 

 

Some people really like to play hero and have control of the situation. They totally fixed that.

 

A true hero is along the lines of a Warden. You had to earn your respect from people as the game went on. With Inquisition your thrown in to be the Herald early on in the game, then the Inquisitor -which is fine. However as you progress your character seems to do no wrong no matter what you do. The consequences of your actions are minimal at best. Hell, The Inquisitor could jump on the War Table, drop his/her pants and take a dump right there and your Advisers would smile, nod and clap their hands in approval.

 

 

Some people complained the ending was the same. That was changed as well.

 

 While the game did end, I would not call that an ending. I personally enjoyed the endings from DAO and DA2. At least those endings did not drop you off right where the final boss was and the announcer from "Mortal Kombat" came on and yelled, "FIGHT!" Hell, even when you fight Cory and his dragon it not much of a challenge or even close too.

 

 

As far as I'm concern they were listening and delivered a product that did address those issues.

 

Just because the developers say "We addressed and fixed those issues" does not mean it is fixed. They could have improved on it, made it far better than the previous two games; instead they made it worse. Saying you fixed the issue(s) and actually following through are two different mattes. These so-called "fixes" are nothing more then dropping an egg in a radiator.

 

 

 

[Ariella]

Well if they didn't state what they didn't like correctly than that is toxic.
 
Some of the comments did seem to fit and Bioware fix it.
 
I remember people complained about small world and reused dungeons. They fixed it.
 
Some people really like to play hero and have control of the situation. They totally fixed that.
 
Some people complained the ending was the same. That was changed as well.
 
As far as I'm concern they were listening and delivered a product that did address those issues.

It actually was rather amazing that Bioware could get anything considering the signal to noise ratio.

And it wasn't toxic because people had trouble stating things. It was toxic because of the rants that pretty much accused Bioware of every horrible thing since the fall of man. And if you didn't agree, you were a 'fanboi' and your opinion was dismissed. Anyone who liked the game was practically branded a traitor.

This also doesn't mention the calls for firing Mike Laidlaw among others and general personal insults and slurs made at Bioware.

[Cobra's_back]

It actually was rather amazing that Bioware could get anything considering the signal to noise ratio.

And it wasn't toxic because people had trouble stating things. It was toxic because of the rants that pretty much accused Bioware of every horrible thing since the fall of man. And if you didn't agree, you were a 'fanboi' and your opinion was dismissed. Anyone who liked the game was practically branded a traitor.

This also doesn't mention the calls for firing Mike Laidlaw among others and general personal insults and slurs made at Bioware.

 

Good point. I'm glad you used  signal/noise ratio. Clearly is an excellent analogy. The sad thing is when people raise the noise floor so high good data can be missed.

[Heimdall]

It actually was rather amazing that Bioware could get anything considering the signal to noise ratio.

And it wasn't toxic because people had trouble stating things. It was toxic because of the rants that pretty much accused Bioware of every horrible thing since the fall of man. And if you didn't agree, you were a 'fanboi' and your opinion was dismissed. Anyone who liked the game was practically branded a traitor.

This also doesn't mention the calls for firing Mike Laidlaw among others and general personal insults and slurs made at Bioware.

And even among the genuine issues, there was division about what Bioware did right and wrong. I roll my eyes everytime someone says Bioware doesn't listen to fan feedback. They clearly do, even if they missed your personal preferences and tend to overcorrect. Gleaning useful feedback from the divisive screaming mess that is fan opinion is a feat unto itself.

[Ariella]

Good point. I'm glad you used  signal/noise ratio. Clearly is an excellent analogy. The sad thing is when people raise the noise floor so high good data can be missed.

Agreed, and unfortunately it also made gamers miss things as well.

The biggest one that I can think of was how the whole unreliable narrator could shape things in subtle ways like combat.

One if the major complaints was the combat animation was over the top. Okay, maybe, unless you stop for a moment and realize that this is Varric telling the story, not us seeing it first hand. It then makes a little more sense.

Cantina-

Revisiting a dungeon and reusing the same two maps for every cave and dungeon, or building and sewer are two different things.

Every single dungeon in DAI uses a different map, and is of a different theme. They all have their own stories.

[Ariella]

And even among the genuine issues, there was division about what Bioware did right and wrong. I roll my eyes everytime someone says Bioware doesn't listen to fan feedback. They clearly do, even if they missed your personal preferences and tend to overcorrect. Gleaning useful feedback from the divisive screaming mess that is fan opinion is a feat unto itself.

Agreed, especially on the overcorrect, but that's always struck me as being because they value the fanbase. I kind of wish they'd listen slightly less at times because the fans ( and I certainly include myself when I say this) aren't always going to know what will work best.

I love DA 2 because I've always been a fan of the classic city campaigns in rpgs. Ones as much about intrigue and politics as fighting monsters. I hope they may take another crack at it at some point. Thereare several cities that I can see at least building a dlc story around if not a full game.

In the end, and for myself, I try to take each DA game on is own merits, and not compare them, since while they all take place in Thedas and pretty much chronologically, they aren't the exact story continued, if that makes sense?

[Cobra's_back]

Agreed, and unfortunately it also made gamers miss things as well.

The biggest one that I can think of was how the whole unreliable narrator could shape things in subtle ways like combat.

One if the major complaints was the combat animation was over the top. Okay, maybe, unless you stop for a moment and realize that this is Varric telling the story, not us seeing it first hand. It then makes a little more sense.

Cantina-

Revisiting a dungeon and reusing the same two maps for every cave and dungeon, or building and sewer are two different things.

Every single dungeon in DAI uses a different map, and is of a different theme. They all have their own stories.

 

 

Good point makes sense now. Varric by design is the great storyteller.

 

I believe players can be biased on their take of the story as well. I like characters with a whole lot of mystery. DA1, I wanted to know more about Flemeth and now Solas is the big question mark.

 

All these games are good. I certainly purchased all of them and the DLC as well. DA2 was the only one I just played through twice. That is still getting what I paid for and then some.

[Torgette]

 

I remember people complained about small world and reused dungeons. They fixed it.

 

 

To a much larger landscape devoid of nothing but pretty scenery. Not to mention getting attacked by the same enemies. At least in The Witcher 3 with open landscapes I am constantly surprised as to who or what is attacking me. Not this getting attacked by 3 bears followed by a few assassins, while a companion hits a goat and the tank runs off to chase it while my character is left eating the pretty designed grass.

 

Dungeons? There were dungeons in Inquisition? Where? While DA2 did reuse dungeons at least in those dungeons I was not in and out within 1-5 minutes. Oh and by the way, reused dungeons did happen in Inquisition. The whole, "Go into the Deep Roads." Yeah, reused.

 

 

 

Some people really like to play hero and have control of the situation. They totally fixed that.

 

A true hero is along the lines of a Warden. You had to earn your respect from people as the game went on. With Inquisition your thrown in to be the Herald early on in the game, then the Inquisitor -which is fine. However as you progress your character seems to do no wrong no matter what you do. The consequences of your actions are minimal at best. Hell, The Inquisitor could jump on the War Table, drop his/her pants and take a dump right there and your Advisers would smile, nod and clap their hands in approval.

 

 

Some people complained the ending was the same. That was changed as well.

 

 While the game did end, I would not call that an ending. I personally enjoyed the endings from DAO and DA2. At least those endings did not drop you off right where the final boss was and the announcer from "Mortal Kombat" came on and yelled, "FIGHT!" Hell, even when you fight Cory and his dragon it not much of a challenge or even close too.

 

 

As far as I'm concern they were listening and delivered a product that did address those issues.

 

Just because the developers say "We addressed and fixed those issues" does not mean it is fixed. They could have improved on it, made it far better than the previous two games; instead they made it worse. Saying you fixed the issue(s) and actually following through are two different mattes. These so-called "fixes" are nothing more then dropping an egg in a radiator.

 

 

 

 

Take it for what you will but warts and all DAI did get me back into Bioware's games - after DA2 I just stopped paying attention to the company's games completely (didn't even touch ME3). In the end I had a lot of ideas for what they could do to make the game better, but I enjoyed my time, went back and replayed ME1-3 and now look forward to ME:N. Progress can be painful and not every game is going to be perfect - to me DAI was an adequate answer to the failings of DA2 (they can always make more Dragon Age games that address whatever warts DAI had).

[Cantina]

Take it for what you will but warts and all DAI did get me back into Bioware's games - after DA2 I just stopped paying attention to the company's games completely (didn't even touch ME3). In the end I had a lot of ideas for what they could do to make the game better, but I enjoyed my time, went back and replayed ME1-3 and now look forward to ME:N. Progress can be painful and not every game is going to be perfect - to me DAI was an adequate answer to the failings of DA2 (they can always make more Dragon Age games that address whatever warts DAI had).

 

Its not like DAI was Bioware's first DA game, if it was I'd gladly give the faults a pass. I've already stated my reasons several pages back as to why DA2 was better then DAI. Thus I will not repeat myself nor justify my opinions any further because it tends to lead into repeat mode.

 

I for one am not interesting in half ass done, poor story and hand-holding games. But many people are and thus to each their own.

[Torgette]

Its not like DAI was Bioware's first DA game, if it was I'd gladly give the faults a pass. I've already stated my reasons several pages back as to why DA2 was better then DAI. Thus I will not repeat myself nor justify my opinions any further because it tends to lead into repeat mode.

 

I for one am not interesting in half ass done, poor story and hand-holding games. But many people are and thus to each their own.

 

Well, to me DA2 was a 3/10 game so i'll gladly take a 7.5/10 sequel, but to each their own.

[Hiemoth]

Hiemoth,

 

I remember David Gaider saying something similar. Though IIRC he put it that the people who were so toxic about the game built a game in their heads which wasn't the game they got.

 

I'm paraphrasing a bit, and I'll try and find the quote if you want but God I'd rather not go swimming in the Legacy BSN for it.

 

I think I remember that quote and, if I recall correctly, it was also one of his quotes really misrepresented in a lot of comments. No need to dig for the comment, especially since I really wouldn't anyone to go the old DA2 forums as those were not pleasant times.

 

I agree with him and it was one an excellent example of how difficult it was to discuss certain matters. People had a strong perception of what the game should have been which led to almost suffocating response to the game.

 

This isn't to say that people couldn't dislike DA2, but rather that forcing the discussion constantly to how it was not DAO2 was not really discussing what the game was.

[Hiemoth]

Well if they didn't state what they didn't like correctly than that is toxic.

 

Some of the comments did seem to fit and Bioware fix it.

 

I remember people complained about small world and reused dungeons. They fixed it.

 

Some people really like to play hero and have control of the situation. They totally fixed that.

 

Some people complained the ending was the same. That was changed as well.

 

As far as I'm concern they were listening and delivered a product that did address those issues.

 

I am not quite certain what this is in response to in my comment. I wasn't implying that one couldn't dislike the game or ask for changes, and that Bioware shouldn't make changes to those requests.

 

 

Take it for what you will but warts and all DAI did get me back into Bioware's games - after DA2 I just stopped paying attention to the company's games completely (didn't even touch ME3). In the end I had a lot of ideas for what they could do to make the game better, but I enjoyed my time, went back and replayed ME1-3 and now look forward to ME:N. Progress can be painful and not every game is going to be perfect - to me DAI was an adequate answer to the failings of DA2 (they can always make more Dragon Age games that address whatever warts DAI had).

 

Well, to me DA2 was a 3/10 game so i'll gladly take a 7.5/10 sequel, but to each their own.

 

Yes, to each its own? While I'm glad that you found the games again after DA2 apparently destroyed your enjoyment of Bioware games, how is this a response to those who enjoy DA2 over DAI?

[Ariella]

I think I remember that quote and, if I recall correctly, it was also one of his quotes really misrepresented in a lot of comments. No need to dig for the comment, especially since I really wouldn't anyone to go the old DA2 forums as those were not pleasant times.

 

I agree with him and it was one an excellent example of how difficult it was to discuss certain matters. People had a strong perception of what the game should have been which led to almost suffocating response to the game.

 

This isn't to say that people couldn't dislike DA2, but rather that forcing the discussion constantly to how it was not DAO2 was not really discussing what the game was.

 

Exactly. It made me so frustrated because I would have loved to be able to actually talk about the good and bad of the game without feeling like I was putting a target on myself for liking it. I stopped coming to the forums for a LONG time because of that mentality. 

 

Having strong opinions is wonderful, and it makes for good debate, but it seemed the loudest voices were determined to be utterly inflexible and prone to think that anyone who disagreed with them was the enemy. 

 

I'm a lot more careful about the threads I post in too now a days.

[Akrabra]

Dragon Age II has some redeeming qualites, but it feels lackluster because of its short development time and trying to be a full game. Had it been an expansion, the bridge to DA:I that it was supposed to be it could have been excellent.

 

I just didn't like that Hawke is a spectator, watching everything going to bleep and not doing anything about it. The dialogue is also very stiff at certain points, Kirkwall is very dull, not even the textures of the city is interesting. Poor atmosphere. Companions feel lacking in their content and execution, not true for DA:I. The combat was decent, but the enemy AI and spawn system was poorly implemented. It was also abit more childish and cartoony, which i don't like that well in general, DA:I is also guilty of  that. Atleast they tried telling a new type of story, to bad it didn't really catch my attention, but i can see why people like the game, i just can't relate. 

 

I would really like a new DA game with that type of story, with the areas from DA:i and dragon fights, combined with the combat from DA:O (tactics system etc) and multiple races to choose from. Put all the 3 games together and you got something. 

[ESTAQ99]

DA2 was a good game but with major flaws and I can't see a true DA fan who would prefer it to DAI. Absolutely crazy talk!

 

 

"A true DA fan" should prefer DAI!!!??? Realy? That sounds pathetically desperate. 

[Torgette]

Yes, to each its own? While I'm glad that you found the games again after DA2 apparently destroyed your enjoyment of Bioware games, how is this a response to those who enjoy DA2 over DAI?

 

Objective improvements are improvements even if they aren't fully realized, that's more or less my point. Regressing to DA2 does nobody any good, that game had some good ideas that unfortunately weren't brought along, but this idea we should go back to that game as a model is bizarre. I fully anticipate people saying Mass Effect 5 should go back to ME3's ending for inspiration at this point.

[Hiemoth]

Objective improvements are improvements even if they aren't fully realized, that's more or less my point. Regressing to DA2 does nobody any good, that game had some good ideas that unfortunately weren't brought along, but this idea we should go back to that game as a model is bizarre. I fully anticipate people saying Mass Effect 5 should go back to ME3's ending for inspiration at this point.

 

But what exactly of the objective improvement? And what is the thought to regressing to DA2? DA2 was obviously rushed and had flaws I wouldn't like to see replicated, but I liked its core a lot more than I do of DAIs, even though I still think the latter is a good game. So while I accept many of the changes between the games as subjective improvements, I don't think of them as objective improvements as I preferred the combat system, skill trees, approval system, story approach, etc. in DA2.

 

Besides, I still don't get your argument. DA2 had good ideas, but we should never revisit those ideas because the game itself was rushed?

[sandoval]

tactics.

 

no tactics makes DAI an inferior game no matter what. I't almost insulting.

[Ariella]

tactics.
 
no tactics makes DAI an inferior game no matter what. I't almost insulting.

I thought that was what tactical camera was for. A feature implemented because of DA2's lack of any tactical combat.

Or are you talking about the lack of advanced behaviors in the ai settings?

[Elhanan]

tactics.
 
no tactics makes DAI an inferior game no matter what. I't almost insulting.

While I do prefer the Tactics menu from the prior DA games, DAI actually was the best game thus far for utilizing tactical decisions in combat, IMO. From higher elevations, bottlenecks, ability combinations, casting foes from bridges and cliffs, choosing cover, etc; all were available in the most current title.

Am a fan of DA2, but I do like the overall results of the other DA games more. Also, a return to Elves that are alluring and Darkspawn that are terrible to behold is quite refreshing.

[Graywolfe]

While I have not finished DAI yet so far I am enjoying it more than DA2. I was never able to finish DA2 I just couldn't do it. I tried several times to sit down and play it but in the end I could not get past what was to me the worst animation ever. I wanted to experience to story line as it sounded really good. There were other things I did not like about DA2 but I could deal with them, there will always be something about a game that you don't like just like there is always room for change. I hope in future installments of DA that the world does not get any bigger, the size it is now or maybe a bit smaller. The main thing I hope that keeps coming back it the interaction with the npc companions. I love the romance options, the banter between the group. I think they need more romance between the npcs, they sort of touched on it in DAO a couple times but would love to see more. All in all I am at this time enjoying DAI the most of the three, that is of course just my personal opinion. 

 

Also no matter what I do not want DA to try and be like the the witcher or TES. I enjoy all 3 series but I like each for different reasons and want them to stay different.