MESSAGE POPULAIRE !
I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp. Origins sold well. DA2 didn't. Why would you attempt to improve DA2 instead of improving that which was already a success? Because you wanted to make Skyrim? Bethesda doesn't do story well. Bethesda does open worlds well. You do story well. You don't do open worlds well.
I honestly have no idea who's running the show over there, but it honestly reminds me of this:
If this is going to be the main support thread for us fans who were so let down by DAI, I'm so going to be a permanent fixture in it.
A DAO with improvements would be just about the perfect game.
Out of curiosity, have you thought about the logistics of this? Would a new engine have to be leased/built, would years of research into the market line up with your wishes? How would you handle all the fans who've grown more accustomed to the newer battle system? Is that a market that should be disregarded? Throwing games, especially ones on the scale of DA together isn't something you do over a weekend in your garage. There's a lot of elements working behind the scenes too.
What does Awakenings count as?
Which isn't to say that you're not entitled to your opinion/wants/desires. The process is just a long and involved one.
i think they did a good enough job with inquisition ( though it has some ... 'things' that might have been done differently ) and i think that they shouldn't make origins 2 ... i do think they should make inquisition 2 BUT with more origins in it ... and they should be careful about the path they're going on now ... you're right about the open-worlds vs story-centric thing.
personally ... i like this direction of faster paced gameplay BUT not as simplistic as they've done it.
and better melee combat definitely. for me, dual wielding has been a nightmare. i'm struggling so hard with it.
Again? Really?
I have said this before, and I will say it again. If something isn't broke, then you don't fix it. Witcher never changed their gameplay up so much just to fit with a broader audience.
Now the argument goes, well it would be boring if it was the same game over and over again.
The best way I can counteract this argument is with an analogy.
One night you make spaghetti, DAO, and it taste all right. Some things you need to fix. Then some nights down the road, you want to try that recipe out again and make it better. Instead of following your recipe, you make ravioli, DA2. Well now all your house guest expecting spaghetti are disappointed because they got ravioli and not spaghetti. So you go back to the kitchen down the line, have another house party, you actually make spaghetti this time, DAI, but it taste nothing like the original spaghetti you made and your house guest are happy its spaghetti, its definitely better than ravioli, but it's not better than that one recipe they really liked.
I doubt Origins 2.0 will ever happen.
Especially if Inquisition sells well, which current information suggests that it is.
I doubt Origins 2.0 will ever happen.
Especially if Inquisition sells well, which current information suggests that it is.
And if it didn't sell well the entire series would be thrown out the window. It's a shame, but we just can't win.
I
One night you make spaghetti, DAO, and it taste all right. Some things you need to fix. Then some nights down the road, you want to try that recipe out again and make it better. Instead of following your recipe, you make ravioli, DA2. Well now all your house guest expecting spaghetti are disappointed because they got ravioli and not spaghetti. So you go back to the kitchen down the line, have another house party, you actually make spaghetti this time, DAI, but it taste nothing like the original spaghetti you made and your house guest are happy its spaghetti, its definitely better than ravioli, but it's not better than that one recipe they really liked.
I have said this before, and I will say it again. If something isn't broke, then you don't fix it. Witcher never changed their gameplay up so much just to fit with a broader audience.
Now the argument goes, well it would be boring if it was the same game over and over again.
The best way I can counteract this argument is with an analogy.
One night you make spaghetti, DAO, and it taste all right. Some things you need to fix. Then some nights down the road, you want to try that recipe out again and make it better. Instead of following your recipe, you make ravioli, DA2. Well now all your house guest expecting spaghetti are disappointed because they got ravioli and not spaghetti. So you go back to the kitchen down the line, have another house party, you actually make spaghetti this time, DAI, but it taste nothing like the original spaghetti you made and your house guest are happy its spaghetti, its definitely better than ravioli, but it's not better than that one recipe they really liked.
correct me if i'm wrong ... but weren't there considerable differences from witcher to witcher 2 ? especially in terms of combat ? it's been 1-2 years since i've played but i distinctly remember that it took me some time to get used to witcher 2 and i remember having discussions with a buddy of mine about how the combat is radically changed.
And if it didn't sell well the entire series would be thrown out the window. It's a shame, but we just can't win.
You can win if you like Inquisition.
and if you don't, there's always Pillars of Eternity.
A remastered version of Origins and Awakening, with Inquisition's engine? Sure.
But, " Origins 2 "? Why? About what, the Sixth Blight? Too predictable story-wise, and frankly unoriginal this time around, we've had a Blight-related story, it's called Origins, why that again? Ok, yes it kicked some ass, that game was (and still is) a masterpiece, I get that.
But right now we're already going somewhere potentially very interesting with the whole Dread Wolf / Mythal thing, it's not completely over yet. There's place for a fleshed-out DLC or certainly for another expansion for the main story. If not, the next "big" Dragon Age game that we'll inevitably have in about 4 years from now could well be the "sequel" of Inquisition (I do mean direct sequel; I.E. it starts exactly where Inquisition left off) and maybe we'll have something with a different scale to it, more "Origins-like", something more quantifiable and personal. We'll see I guess.
But honestly, another Blight, another Origins? That won't happen, simply because most developers out there can never replicate/reproduce the "same thing" two times over, especially not when the success comes from the original game of a franchise. That "rule" applies to most developers in the industry and can be extended to the movie industry as well. It seems that on a creativity/originality/artistic level it's almost impossible to create spin-offs or prequels or sequels that are just as good, much less "better" than the original creation. Either it's different but it's still good (not better), or it's different and it's much worse, but it's never "the same", it's never "just as good".
I would, however, certainly pay full price for "Origins HD", definitely.
Combat in W2 was overhauled, people complained that they traded strategy of the stance system for the more action-RPG system of having different strikes.
That's what I have been saying. Sadly us DAO lovers, are in the minority now.
Why does this have to be a one or the other thing? Why do so many in the gaming community have to do this "Us or Them" crap?
I love DA:O and I've been loving Inquisition. There is game play elements about Origins that I preferred, but there is some elements I liked in Inquisition that Origins didn't offer. I can understand the OP's requests, but at the same time this shouldn't be about some sort of bizarre competition between fans of the same series.
A remastered version of Origins and Awakening, with Inquisition's engine? Sure.
But, " Origins 2 "? Why? About what, the Sixth Blight? Too predictable story-wise, and frankly unoriginal this time around, we've had a Blight-related story, it's called Origins, why that again? Ok, yes it kicked some ass, that game was (and still is) a masterpiece, I get that.
When people say Origins 2, I think what they really want is a Dragon Age game that is mechanically very similar to Origins.
Not a rehash of the story.
I'm not sure where this metaphor leads us. Do all of the house guests really want to eat the old spaghetti recipe forever?
I'm not sure where this metaphor leads us. Do all of the house guests really want to eat the old spaghetti recipe forever?
Sounds like you never cooked in your life. I always go back to old recipes and every time I go back to them, I'm always tweaking them. Maybe add cinnamon, maybe less salt, maybe more pepper, etc. But I don't sit there and make something worse than the original recipe and I don't definitely not make rice instead of pasta. It's not the same recipe, you use the same formula, and tweak that formula. People seem to mistake, when we say don't change the formula, we want the same story or the same combat. Instead, what we want is the base, that is slightly tweaked and each game to be better than the next.
DA2 was not better than DAO.
DAI is not better than DAO. DAI is better than DA2 and is definitely better than Awakening if we're talking as its own separate entity. DAI is NOT a Bad Game. It's just a Decent Game. Better than what is out there, sure.
When cooking, you can taste if you're missing an ingredient or there is to much of one ingredient or not. And I know video games and cooking don't seem like the same thing.
But the idea is that DAI is lacking something
When people say Origins 2, I think what they really want is a Dragon Age game that is mechanically very similar to Origins.
Not a rehash of the story.
If that's the case, then yes I would fully agree.
meh Awakening wasn't that bad. It just stripped too much away from the core game. But it was just an expansion.
It is too late.
Every major title in Dragon Age "franchise" was, at its core, designed very differently. As a result BioWare created one giant mess where barely anything makes sense. They might have been experimenting, but it feels more like they either didn't know what they were doing or what they wanted to do, likely both.
meh Awakening wasn't that bad. It just stripped too much away from the core game. But it was just an expansion.
I always said this. The fans of Dragon Age should have been very very cautious with DA2 because Awakening was a big sign to us what the DA series was to become. Did any of us listen to that clear warning sign? No we bought DA2 and became frustrated.
It is too late.
Every major title in Dragon Age "franchise" was, at its core, designed very differently. As a result BioWare created one giant mess where barely anything makes sense. They might have been experimenting, but it feels more like they either didn't know what they were doing or what they wanted to do, likely both.
The thing is that once DA2 hit you had fans of both core mechanics. Inquisition tried to split it and have some of both, but there are people who will never be happy unless it is Origins 2.0
If they did make Origins 2.0 then there would be complaints that they threw all the other stuff away they've done since then and went back to the slow paced combat.
Retour en haut
