848 réponses à ce sujet

[pengwin21]

There is quite a differences between outdated mechanics (like the dialogue initiation you mentionend or like non voiced protagonist (and bad graphics 

or isometric view, no one would want isometric view these days)) and things that are timeless good, like the fact you had: real origins for certain class/race combos, more RPG freedom (attribute distrubtion, choices, extrem consequence, NPC could betray you) etc etc in DA:O

 

I hope you see the clear line between those things,

 

Hmm, sort of but what is 'timeless good' can be subject to debate. I don't really miss the lack of attribute point assignment for instance, because I didn't find there to be many interesting ways to spend them in DA:O or DA2.

 

DA:I has choices, arguably consequences as extreme as DA:O, and companions do 'betray' you in the sense that they leave.

[tmp7704]

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:

DA:O took anything between 7-9 years to develop. As the fidelity of content increases with new hardware, these numbers only grow bigger. Simply put you are never going to see another game with this much time spent on it, because at the end of the day the company owners have to look at their bottom line, if just to keep things afloat. And if games like Skyrim appear to sell well and can be made in reasonable time, this is what you are going to see.

You want to know "who's running the show over there"? People who have to keep paying the bills over the course of years it takes to produce a game, and the salaries for their staff.

[In Exile]

AS one poster stated what are the good parts and what are the bad parts? The problem is that it differs depending on the gamer.
I like the limited healing and emphasis on damage mitigation rather than having almost unlimited healing, others do not. Does that make the mechanic bad or good?

I dislike the fact that you could have 99+ potions of any level of healing in DAO and to a lesser extent DA2. I dislike the fact that DAO lumps healing and offensive power in the mage whereas BG1 (Baldur's Gate) and earlier crpgs had a separate healing class and six party members.(Dragon Age only allows for four). Does that mean the lore in the game is bad?

Does that make DAO's design decisions bad or good?

I wanted Baldur's Gate 3 instead of DAO. DAI comes closer to BG1 than DAO does IMHO.

Also before any one says I do not know what I am talking about. I have been playing crpgs since 1979 starting with Akalabeth and yes I have played MMORPGs. DAI is not an MMORPG again IMHO.

But as I always state YMMV.

I find it really funny that you, Sylvius and I can all agree on DAI being the closest game to BG1 since, well, BG1 and yet people who criticise this game love throwing around the old Bioware sold out on what made BG great rhetoric.

[ironhorse384]

Yes it did.....

Healing, tank, cc.

It wasnt complicated sorry mate.

Edit.

Trying not to sound condescending but there's nothing complicated or interesting about the tactics menu in da. Made the game way to easy.

Wow! you must be a wizard behind the keyboard , not needing any tactics and being able to slaughter the game without, tac cam or pausing. Not to sound too condescending but I'd like to see it. Nightmare with friendly fire on of course.

[Degs29]

DAI is not better than DAO.

 

Like hell it's not! 

 

I never understood why everyone loved DA:O so much.  It was a great game, but some people seem to think it could do no wrong.  I had a hard time finishing it, and it's only half the length of DA:I, if not less.  Compare that to DA:I where I'm 75 hours in, and just getting my second wind!  The only thing I find lacking in DA:I that was in Origins is the tactics.  I'm not sure why they dumbed it down so much.  Frankly, it's annoying.  While in battle I keep saying to myself "gee, that would have been a great time for a specific tactic from Origins!"  But that's it.  Well, that and Sandal!

 

I swear some people's love for Origins and hate for DA:I and DA2 is a result of humankind's tendency to prefer originals over sequels; to judge sequels more harshly.

[keyip]

People love Dragon Age Origins for it's gameplay complexity, and the fact that consequences were dependant very much upon the player's character instead of the player skills. That being said, Origins had plenty of problems. Combat was panned as boring, exploration was limited, companions were boring (Origins had the better story but Inquisitions has the better characters,) combat was broken on consoles (to the point where people were saying you bought a broken game if you bought it on the console,) etc etc. 

[Veruin]

DA:O took anything between 7-9 years to develop. As the fidelity of content increases with new hardware, these numbers only grow bigger. Simply put you are never going to see another game with this much time spent on it, because at the end of the day the company owners have to look at their bottom line, if just to keep things afloat. And if games like Skyrim appear to sell well and can be made in reasonable time, this is what you are going to see.

You want to know "who's running the show over there"? People who have to keep paying the bills over the course of years it takes to produce a game, and the salaries for their staff.

 

Only reason it took 7-9 years was because they change engines multiple times (3 or 4 i think?) and generally couldn't agree on stuff.

 

Da:I only took 4 years.

[Maconbar]

I find it really funny that you, Sylvius and I can all agree on DAI being the closest game to BG1 since, well, BG1 and yet people who criticise this game love throwing around the old Bioware sold out on what made BG great rhetoric.

And Sylvius seems to be coming around on voiced PC, which I never thought I would see.

[tmp7704]

Only reason it took 7-9 years was because they change engines multiple times (3 or 4 i think?) and generally couldn't agree on stuff.
 
Da:I only took 4 years.

And if you notice, there's complaints about DAI's lack of 'cinematic' or 'deeper' content outside of the main plot. If DAI took 4 years despite also having effectively 'engine change' from BW's previous titles, it's because compared to DAO corners were cut and priorities were set differently to make up for it.

[Tensai]

People love Dragon Age Origins for it's gameplay complexity, ....  Combat was panned as boring, 

 

I enjoyed DA:O combat more than DA:I combat. For 2 reasons. 

 

1.more varying Enemies: for instance Mages used proper spells and represented a real threat. 

- Fighting different enemies in DA:I does not require an adjustment of your combat style (no, not even dragons) 

 

2.It wasn't plain button smashing cause of the point mentioned above, it felt challenging, i enjoy challenging games more than no brainers..

[Veruin]

I enjoyed DA:O combat more than DA:I combat. For 2 reasons. 

 

1.more varying Enemies: for instances Mages used proper spells and represented a real threat. 

- Fighting different enemies in DA:I does not require an adjustment of your combat style (no, not even dragons) 

 

2.It wasn't plain button smashing cause of the point mentioned above.

 

I can't wait for the first person to scream about mana clash.

[DemGeth]

Wow! you must be a wizard behind the keyboard , not needing any tactics and being able to slaughter the game without, tac cam or pausing. Not to sound too condescending but I'd like to see it. Nightmare with friendly fire on of course.

Lol doesn't take a wizard da:o wasn't difficult. It's a very simple game with horrid ai.

[Veruin]

Lol doesn't take a wizard da:o wasn't difficult. It's a very simple game with horrid ai.

 

You're forgiven, the I and O keys are very close together.

[Tensai]

I can't wait for the first person to scream about mana clash.

Can you explain mana clash? Because i think i am missing something here. ty

[Asturok]

What about judging DAI for what it IS instead of what you wanted it to be?

 

Because it's not Origins 2.0 but it's a pretty good game

[DemGeth]

You're forgiven, the I and O keys are very close together.

So what impressed you about the enemy ai in origins?

[ironhorse384]

Lol doesn't take a wizard da:o wasn't difficult. It's a very simple game with horrid ai.

certainly if you cheese it

[Veruin]

So what impressed you about the enemy ai in origins?

 

Nothing really, but the notion that Inquistion AI is superior is just as much of a joke.

 

Can you explain mana clash? Because i think i am missing something here. ty

Mana clash was renowned for one hitting mages, making them trivial to fight.

 

It was pretty much the closest thing  DA had to a story mode option.

[DemGeth]

It does have one though at least. Your back row gets targeted by cloakiesd. Mages cast barriers to protect guys and use runes defensively.

[TheChris92]

Nostalgia is indeed a double edged sword sometimes.

[WillieStyle]

DA:O "only" sold 5 to 6 million copies, which obviously wasn't enough.

I guess EA thought that a "Dragon Age: Sykrim" would sell better, which would explain why they completely changed everything. I don't think DA:I will sell anywhere near as good as DA:O though.

 

I commend you, my friend, for making an actual falsifiable prediction.  Bookmarked for posterity.

[Maverick827]

I find it really funny that you, Sylvius and I can all agree on DAI being the closest game to BG1 since, well, BG1 and yet people who criticise this game love throwing around the old Bioware sold out on what made BG great rhetoric.

 

BG1 had almost no player characterization options in dialog?

[Zanallen]

Origins would have never been made if Bioware "moved on" from Baldur's Gate. Bioware wouldn't even exist today if they tried making "action" games 10 years ago. The fact is, this developer hasn't put out a product worthy of their reputation in a very long time. No idea why people defend them.

 

Bioware has been steadily moving away from BG since BG II. Every game they made was farther and farther away from the kind of game BG was. DA:O was actually a throwback in many ways. When you come right down to it, the kind of game Bioware likes to make, and the kind they have most often made, is cinematic action-RPGs.

[Viidicus]

People are missing the point, people don't want dao2 with the original slow combat, we want the good things from the origin dao.

If bioware came up with dao2 with dai combat I'd be fine, so long as it's not basic and streamlined like, can't talk to companions whenever I want, 8 slot combat etc like I could go on and on

[In Exile]

BG1 had almost no player characterization options in dialog?

Yes. That's exactly right. You had 0 conversation options effectively with companions and very few dialogue options overall by a modern Bioware game standard.