Doesn't mean that i'm one of them who wants to see the Warden again which i frankly don't care at all. I'd rather hear references about Oghren seeing that he got no mention at all regardless of the choices the keep has and in my playthough had.
Do you think you could stop responding to nonexistent statements?
Guest_ShadowHawk28_*
Do you think you could stop responding to nonexistent statements?
How about you stop responding to me seeing that you don't like my posts!! 
i'd say why not, theadas needs a break
...what're you saying? We should just go back and tear up Kirkwall some more and leave the rest of Thedas alone? LOL
...what're you saying? We should just go back and tear up Kirkwall some more and leave the rest of Thedas alone? LOL
That Thedas doesn't need another potential doomsday so soon, more like.
i'd say why not, theadas needs a break
...what're you saying? We should just go back and tear up Kirkwall some more and leave the rest of Thedas alone? LOL
You kidding? Thedas needs a swift kick in the ass and maybe a purging here and there.
Funny, I'd have thought a Blight and whatever went down in Inquisition sufficed as enough swift ass-kickings for at least a generation or two.
im saying in general..
Not sure how another game like DA2 would give Thedas a break, since during the last DA2 we sparked off a worldwide magical conflict, religious upheaval, and led to a massive rift in the Fade. Just sayin' . . .
Out of curiosity, do you have a direct link to where they state that? Not because I do not believe you, Darrah's acceptance speech is the only time a developer's comment on a game has really felt dismissive, but it would be often good to see what was actually said.
I don't have a direct link, no. But it was stated in many DAI pre-release interviews where they continually acknowledged DA2 as a kind failed experiment.
Actually, here's one where it's discussed.
http://gamerant.com/...sition-romance/
Funny, I'd have thought a Blight and whatever went down in Inquisition sufficed as enough swift ass-kickings for at least a generation or two.
In Ferelden, sure. But there's so much more out there for something to ravage!
Got a bit of a destructive streak, do you?
Hawke was tailor made for DAI but BW does what it always does when they hear complaints. They burn down the entire house instead of improving on the problems. DAI has a weaker story and PC because of this.
Anyway, I would love it if they told a more down to earth story instead of yet another "save the world" plot. How many times does Thedas need to be saved? And how many new heroes can rise up to save it before heroes become a dime a dozen? I can see the premise getting old fairly quickly with me.
Got a bit of a destructive streak, do you?
Technically, whatever calamitous whatchamacallit is the one with the destructive streak, but you can't save the day if it's already safe. 
I don't have a direct link, no. But it was stated in many DAI pre-release interviews where they continually acknowledged DA2 as a kind failed experiment.
Actually, here's one where it's discussed.
http://gamerant.com/...sition-romance/
Thank you. I realized that I probably read those comments before the publication, but didn't pay so much attention to it. I guess my viewpoint on Darrah's comments changed after he commented that DAI was a return to form for Bioware. Which was a really bizarre comment not just because the previous large single-player publication by Bioware did not include Farrah, but also because it seems to indicate the actual people who liked DA2 liked the non-form Bioware product.
Still, reading those comments is kind of funny afterwards. Apparently they wanted to make a clearer central story by removing any kind of deep morally challenging situations from it. However, what I cannot understand is their dumping on DA2 as a failed experiment considering that how rushed it was is common knowledge.
Hawke was tailor made for DAI but BW does what it always does when they hear complaints. They burn down the entire house instead of improving on the problems. DAI has a weaker story and PC because of this.
Anyway, I would love it if they told a more down to earth story instead of yet another "save the world" plot. How many times does Thedas need to be saved? And how many new heroes can rise up to save it before heroes become a dime a dozen? I can see the premise getting old fairly quickly with me.
I do not know if it is Bioware in general. The Mass Effect team actually held their ground pretty strongly after ME2 and expanded the system from that despite all the cries after ME2.
However, I do agree that at least on the surface the DA team seems to react mostly to those with the loudest voice. The removal of the Day 1 DLC was for me the greatest example of it.
DA2 was a good game. They just rushed it out the door when the game was 80% done.
I agree.......really enjoyable, aside from the same caves and walls....................Burn kirkwall, burn
There was no problem with Dragon Age II considering the time frame it was given to develop and release. (emphasis mine)
Dragon Age Origins was announced at E3 in 2004 and was released in late 2009. Dragon Age II was announced in July 2010 and the game was released in March of 2011. So while Origins had almost 5 years of development time, DAII only had a little over a year (if work began right immediately after Origins' release but remember that work was being done on Dragon Age Awakening as well).
I could understand all the negativity thrown at Dragon Age 2 if it had the same development time as DA:O and still ended up what the game is in its present form. But DA2 only had about 20% of the development time that Origins had. It's like your boss telling you that a report that usually takes 5 hours to prepare has to be on his desk in an hour.
Yeah, not a pretty picture. 
There was no problem with Dragon Age II considering the time frame it was given to develop and release. (emphasis mine)
Dragon Age Origins was announced at E3 in 2004 and was released in late 2009. Dragon Age II was announced in July 2010 and the game was released in March of 2011. So while Origins had almost 5 years of development time, DAII only had a little over a year (if work began right immediately after Origins' release but remember that work was being done on Dragon Age Awakening as well).
I could understand all the negativity thrown at Dragon Age 2 if it had the same development time as DA:O and still ended up what the game is in its present form. But DA2 only had about 20% of the development time that Origins had. It's like your boss telling you that a report that usually takes 5 hours to prepare has to be on his desk in an hour.
Yeah, not a pretty picture.
And considering that they built the game from basically the ground up instead of pushing out a DAO clone, it is astonishing what they accomplished in that time. Which is why I find it so curious they view it as a failed experiment as they never got to do what they really intended in the first place, yet managed to still do so much.
I could understand all the negativity thrown at Dragon Age 2 if it had the same development time as DA:O and still ended up what the game is in its present form. But DA2 only had about 20% of the development time that Origins had. It's like your boss telling you that a report that usually takes 5 hours to prepare has to be on his desk in an hour.
I think a more apt work analogy would be doing a project that normally takes you a week to complete, but your boss wants it done first thing after your lunch break.
I'd say it's time to explore new things like DA2 did, now that Inquisition sold very well.
DA2's main problem was how short the dev cycle was ( heard ballpark number of around 7-8 months or so thrown around elsewhere on the internet), imagine what DA:I would have looked like if production began in february 2014 .
With more time they could easily have avoided the main flaws of DA2.
Pfft, a failed experiment my ass. It was the blatent rush job, dev's denial, wtf orsino moment, that made most people mad. DA2 did not completely fail,: people liked the characters, most of the story, humerous Hawke, and ect.I don't have a direct link, no. But it was stated in many DAI pre-release interviews where they continually acknowledged DA2 as a kind failed experiment.
Actually, here's one where it's discussed.
http://gamerant.com/...sition-romance/
Guest_ShadowHawk28_*
Pfft, a failed experiment my ass. It was the blatent rush job, dev's denial, wtf orsino moment, that made most people mad. DA2 did not completely fail,: people liked the characters, most of the story, humerous Hawke, and ect.
They should just come out and admit that they did a half-assed job, and thought people wouldn't notice. It backfired on them, and long term sales suffered.
Ultimatly the fault was with Bioware/EA and not the games concept, or characters.
Knowing Bioware they will never admit that they did a half-assed job. They are too stubborn to acknowledge this sort of thing regardless of the good arguments that are presented.
Knowing Bioware they will never admit that they did a half-assed job. They are too stubborn to acknowledge this sort of thing regardless of the good arguments that are presented.
Sadly, you are right. I just get so sick of people saying DA2/Hawke is bad, when it wasn't even really finished. The concept was good, the execution was horrible, and far too rushed. If they gave DA2 the time Inquisition had, it would have been much better received.
But for all of DA2's faults, it has one thing that is vastly superior to Inquisition..and that is the protagonist. Hawke made me laugh, through the entire game, and then Inquisitor comes along: and never have I actually thought, that a game would be better without the protagonist; until Inquisition.
Retour en haut