241 réponses à ce sujet

[Fishy]

Well

[Wulfram]

There's definitely a bigger audience for a game series like Mass Effect. Does not mean it's superior. DAOrigin was for a more ''niche'' market.

 

DA:O sold comparable amounts to any Mass Effect game.

[Fishy]

DA:O sold comparably amounts to any Mass Effect game.

 

So I wrong to think he was right about sales. My bad.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Which is a wreck for newcomers. It gives them a bunch of choices with very weak context.

 

And really the characters got far nmore development in the later games in Mass Effect, something ME1 did not do well. So much for your duming down argument.

So you say. Again, that is your opinion. 

 

More development? Have you played the mass effect series? 2 and 3 reset the character development of many characters for the sake of newcomers. Reset. 

[Shark17676]

Why are we feeding the troll?

[Applepie_Svk]

I end up reading after your first point, where you described DA2 as a superior to DAO...

[Jaron Oberyn]

Why are we feeding the troll?

I'm all out of bread crumbs. Heading to bed, you guys have fun with yosemite sam. 

[taranoire]

I am enjoying it, I said the game was good.

 

However, the series could be a lot better than it is right now.

Ah. 

 

Then I have misinterpreted. Please carry on. 

[Todd23]

Anders was exactly the same Anders as the one from Awakening that went through changes that were very clearly explained on a number of occasions, lol.

... This is just a completely false statement. Everything he is against in DA2 he was not against in Awakening, he criticizes and outright damned anyone who considers using blood magic in DA2, but in awakening, he didn't say a negative thing about it. He only even mentions it, if you teach him blood magic and bring it up, he will laugh about it and be completely okay with it. He criticizes lyrium smugglers and how they're doing such an evil deed. While in awakening, he says how it was interesting and he even considered doing it himself. I hope you are at least aware of his feelings about mages being in the circle and under Chantry control, and what he does at the end of DA2 (as it seems you may not have played the games at all from what you said). In Awakening, when he heard that mages might try to separate the circles from Chantry control, he got very angry and said how the very idea of it was insanity. That's just his beliefs, not one single detail about his personality (aside from the fact that he is able to make jokes, even those changed dramatically) survived to DA2. Almost as if the devs had completely forgotten he was even in awakening. This is made more apparent, if you see the interviews on the special features of the Dragon Age movie, where one talks about the mage that travels with Cassandra in the movie, then makes a perfect description of the Anders that's in awakening, followed by the statement that they've never had any mage in the series like that before and how it was nice to have one for once. This is why many people on these forums feel the need to add either (Awakening) or (DA2) after they type the word Anders to make clear which one they're talking about.

[berrieh]

First of all, I think DA:I is innovative. Also, I think the OP doesn't know what "innovative" means and is using it as "inventive." DA:I is not necessarily inventive. I don't think it introduces any completely new concepts per se. The only "inventive" game I can think of this year is Shadows of Mordor because I've literally never seen anything that works like the nemesis system before, and I see no influence from previous games, but even that is probably innovative, and I just don't know where they got their inspiration. 

 

However, innovative comes from innovation, which in technology (like the games field) means an improvement of something already invented. And DA:I improved on the open world through innovation. The regions thing, the war table, the way regions unlock that makes the game world actually feel bigger than if you could run from one edge to the other (which would shrink Thedas as it does Tamriel). That's an innovation. Utilizing the lack of healing or regen to craft encounters with persistent damage in the way they did and make barrier/guard meaningful as well as make damage meaningful over time - that's innovation (we've seen it before, but not precisely the same mechanics). They could've gone further with that one; there's still no areas where you really have to turn back extremely, but they tried. The use of a mix of 3rd person and cinematic scenes, that's an innovation of their previous ideas on how to use NPC dialogue.

 

But innovation means tweaking and changing things, and those are the things some people hate in the game. (I like a lot of the changes, but I've seen the complaints.) How much innovation do you want?

 

Now, invention, no. This game does not re-invent the RPG wheel. Neither does Skyrim. Neither do most RPGs. The RPG wheel is pretty solid, and there is no need to really do so. It does re-introduce a blend of older and newer RPG concepts in innovative ways that make marked changes from the earlier games. 

 

If the idea is that Dragon Age is not a good franchise because it's inconsistent with itself in terms of mechanics, fair enough, but that's because they are choosing to innovate and change up their gameplay as the market evolves in order to improve the game. To me, that doesn't make a series bad. Mass Effect did this too (and for the better, each game has better combat than the previous). It makes a series viable. Games need to evolve. DA does. The world still gives it a distinct franchise feel, and the way you can create your world state and continue it from game to game (now without even needing the save file) is innovative as well and a great way to tie the franchise together. 

[Kantr]

I bit the hook! Feed the troll! (insert disgusted noise)

 

How about we all agree to add the op to the ignore list until he comes up with a consistent argument.

 

Also if its not a good franchise why buy the game?

 

-snip-

I like the way you think

[berrieh]

An innovation is an improvement to an already existing system. What you listed are new features. A different way of doing things, not necessarily a better one. New features are not innovations.

 

I have a hard time imagining how unlocking regions through power is an "innovation" in open world. Also, as it's been stated before, the only thing that the lack of healing did was shift the focus of importance of healing to utilization of barrier/guard. It's not "innovation", it's not an improvement, for all intents and purposes, the role of guard and barrier now replaces healing as a mechanic which focuses on keeping your party alive. It is same **** in a different package. And, again, I would like to know what is so "innovative" about using a mix of 3rd person and cinematic scenes. Innovation means it improved on something. Thus, you have to provide an example of objective improvement on a previous system. What you listed were not improvements, they were just features done differently that you like.

 

I mean, you're fine thinking DA:I is a good game, but it's not an innovative one. It didn't improve upon anything. It just did some things differently.

 

What is an improvement and what is a "change I don't like" is going to vary from person to person. 

 

Take healing. Clearly, their goal was to introduce better balance to encounters (they basically said this). They did so. 

 

Take open-world. They expressed a desire to not make Thedas feel small and to implement open world in a way that still allowed them to tell a BioWare story. They did so.

 

They did so by adapting a range of existing strategies and innovating to find strategies that worked to fulfill their goals.

 

Now, you may not like their goals or their results, but that does not mean they are not innovations toward the goal. Improvement in this case means moving towards the goal. 

 

Some innovations, like all change, will be unpopular or unpleasant to some people. Features done differently and combined in new ways = Innovation. 

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

Are people actually taking the OP seriously? he's made what, 2 or 3 threads talking about how BW & DA (DA:I especially) sucks now? is just trying to get reactions

[MisterJB]

[joejoe099]

1. DAO's approach on the cliche was alright though. it was like they were thinking 'alright, let's take a cliche, but add a bunch of other stuff to make it cool looking'. and it some how showed and worked. True, it might be a cliche at its core, but it was a fun cliche.

 

2. I can't agree with this more. I mean, it shows in the title alone, but also how each game feels. ME 1-3 changed each time sure, but it felt like an upgrade rather than swiping the board clean and starting from scratch.

 

3. I don't know how to respond to this. Kinda true since bioware did admit to be taking influence from skyim in interviews, but I don't know.

 

Honestly, if they stopped pandering and focused on having intense moments they had in the main story things more often, i'd enjoy it a lot more.

[Ashagar]

Please, the racism against Elves, the Witcher did it sooner and a lot better. And the Witcher does the mature dark fantasy better as well.

 

Except racism against elves or by elves has done before the Witcher games so its hardly new and wither Witcher does the mature dark fantasy better is a matter of opinion.

 

As for the series in General I will say that Mass Effect is the only Bioware series I didn't finish, the first game was good but the second game was blah, just couldn't get into it while I enjoyed every entry in the dragon age series even if I disliked the over simplified elements of DAII.

[Trickshaw]

Using an opinion to back up another opinion does not make it a fact.

I lol'd.

Hard.

Best post in thread.

[berrieh]

submerged24, my claim isn't that DA:I is a particularly innovative game (like that it should be lauded for it's unique innovations); my claim is that it innovates, as most games do, to improve specific features, for specific goals. That it is not as derivative as the OP suggests and that being derivative doesn't even negate the idea of innovation. You seem to have taken my claim further than I intended. 

 

I do think it does things other games have not that I particularly enjoy - like the War Table game-within-a-game and how well it tells those small vignette stories. Yes, it's similar to Brotherhood in theory, but it's much richer, and an innovation on the concept, for instance. Innovations can be very small improvements. They aren't big. And by improvement, again, I mean meeting a specific goal. Some people may not see it as an improvement at all. This happens with innovations across all fields. You're using a different idea of "better" than I am. "Better" meaning it meets the goal vs. "Better" meaning people like it more. (Though whether people like these things more is really hard to say since loud complainers on the internet =/ majority.) 

 

Innovation, as taught in technology context, is generally taking things from various places and combining them in new ways to make them "better" in terms of your overall goal. Perhaps I should have been more specific with "better" in my first post. To me, it clearly has to do with the goals intended, but I understand others see it different. 

 

I'm only going to take one part and address it, for time's sake. 

 

For a game to be considered innovative it has to have an example of an objective improvement on a previous system. If you think they are innovations, then you have to prove how they objectively improve on something.

 

"Take healing. Clearly, their goal was to introduce better balance to encounters (they basically said this). They did so. "

 

Define and provide examples of "better balance to encounters". As explained above, for all practical purposes, guard/barrier is now fulfilling the same role as healing. It's the same system functioning differently. What you said innovation is is an improvement to of something already invented. That same something functioning differently is not an improvement. This example is moot.

 

In DA:O, everything tries to kill you outright OR is absolutely pointless. There is no in between. Trash encounters don't matter, and some hit way too hard on certain builds as a result (mages are way OP and can cheese this). Additionally, the balance for classes is terrible. (Similar issues exist in DA2, but less problematic there.) What BioWare tried to do - and it seems like succeeded in at least getting much, much closer to their goal - with this change is that they created a system where smaller encounters, where you aren't likely to die, still matter because of persistent damage, and where the classes are better balanced and multiple combinations work better. No healer necessary. No mage or barrier is even necessary. I've played on Normal with all-class parties of every class except WAR so far (because I haven't made a PC WAR) and not had trouble, except the spots some classes can't open you have to backtrack to, etc. DA2 was slightly more balanced, but a healer was still way more valuable than many other classes. 

 

I also simply disagree that you have to spam Barrier in this game. You don't. There are lots of strategies you can use. I have used them. Again, this is all on Normal. I have no idea of Nightmare. Haven't gotten there yet. Guard/Barrier fulfilling a similar role is at least twice as good as before - that's two classes utilizing skills vs. one and balances the classes and encounters better. Rogues still need a little work in DA:I, but they have some evasion and movement skills that make it doable, if you micromanage as well, especially with specializations unlocked and armor customized for it. 

 

The way the various potions work also supports this. You have offensive, defensive, and healing potions in addition to the regular health potions. It gives you a range of ways to play encounters. But even after playing the encounters a range of ways, while some are slightly easier, it's a much more balanced range than previous games.

 

The game improved balance via this method. Did it perfect it? No. But it is vastly improved over previous iterations. Now, some people hate it, because they want healing (there is still a heal spell in the game, but it's rare). So I'm not saying "improved" as in "made it better for everyone" - you can't please everyone. But I think they improved it in terms of their goal, and I think the goal of balance is objectively "better" in terms of game design principles (like what they'd teach makes a good game), though not objectively "better" in general. 

[Dabrikishaw]

Why does FFXII always crop up in these kinds of threads...? DAI and FFXII are nowhere near the same type of game to merit comparison.

The Gambit system in XII works similarly to the Tactics in Origins, that's literally the only reason.

[berrieh]

The Gambit system in XII works similarly to the Tactics in Origins, that's literally the only reason.

 

What I love about this is how much FF players hate on the gambit system vs. how much DA players loved the tactics (I liked both, personally, and FF12 is one of my favorite FFs gameplay wise, though not story wise, and I miss the tactics, too). Like when FF12 came out, I remember so many complaints of being able to let the AI win the fight, game plays itself, lame, etc, etc. But DA:O and DA2 tactics were never dismissed that way, despite being very, very similar. 

[Vox Draco]

 

The OP has liked to court drama for the longest time. I don't understand the appeal but it is what it is. 

 

Heck, the topic he posted before this one was "The most boring, predictable, cliched, and lazy Bioware plotline ever." He throws out the lure, people bite and the cycle continues.

 

Hey, I actually remember that OP now! I am pretty sure he was one of the few staunch defenders of ME3's ending being pretty damn good and other weird stuff. My memory might fail me though, but that name does sound familiar....already gave me a good bunch of chuckles back inthe days as well ...

[DeLaatsteGeitenneuker]

Hey, I actually remember that OP now! I am pretty sure he was one of the few staunch defenders of ME3's ending being pretty damn good and other weird stuff. My memory might fail me though, but that name does sound familiar....already gave me a good bunch of chuckles back inthe days as well ...

Your name should be Vox Draconis if you intended to be voice of the dragon? Right now it just means voice dragon. Sorry, former classicist here...

[DanAxe]

Well my opinion is that Dragon Age franchise is the best fantasy franchise out there.

 

There. Its my opinion against yours.

 

Its a tie. How many thousands want to voice their opinions? Lets make a poll. Whoever wins go back to be able to do nothing about it. The franchise sells. The franchise will go on. Lucky for those who absolutely love it. For the ones that dont? - There's other franchises out there.

[Mecha Elf]

DA is my favorite franchise. But there are too many flaws i agree. Im getting tired of the same storyline and fetch quests. But i do love the characters and their story. 

[ZipZap2000]

Nobody ever lets a bait thread die with 3 only replies around here do they?