635 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

Bibdy wrote...

I think y'all are making the wrong argument. If all you want is more, moar, MOAR dialogue, then that's just not going to happen. If your only request is more, it will never be satisfied and developers attempting to do such, is a lost cause.

Who said more?  I didn't.  More is always nice, of course, but there is so much development packed into the Alistair or Zevran or Morrigan relationship that it's enabled me to talk about it on this forum far more than a sane person with a job and a life should have.  So "same amount as" would be just fine by me.

You can have deep character involvement, interaction and attachment WITHOUT laboriously long dialogue. In my opinion, most of the attachment to characters in DA:O didn't come from these pointless chats in the party camp. They came from dragging them around and hearing their opinions before/after you make your decisions - getting into possible conflict with them, or finding some understanding (such as using Persuade on them).

...which we had in DA:O, as well.  You can't know Zevran or Sten until you've been almost everywhere on the map with them.  So, you're criticizing others for asking for "MOAR," when what you're asking for is less.

Sitting in the camp wading through line after line of dialogue doesn't feel realistic at all. Who are you to walk around asking all these personal questions? The only one who seems to respond in a realistic manner is Sten!

Who am I?  The person who... (take your pick)... sheds blood with them on a daily basis, can't take a crap without them knowing, has sex in their hearing or, you know, WITH them...  But I'm not allowed to ask "so where did you grow up?"

I already feel like I know Anders better, in 4 hours of DA:A gameplay, than I did Morrigan after spending 'hours' listening to her talk.

I've had about the same amount and what I get from Anders is "apostate, hates templars" (snooze) and "wow lots of spells" (the novelty of which wears off after the 10th mob).

Modifié par Addai67, 17 mars 2010 - 05:38 .

[Senalda]

Not to derail too much, but I don't think you have to be too worried about not sticking out for future DLC's. The way Awakening is build suggest pretty strongly that there won't be any before Dragon Age 2 is out.

[dunachar]

Gotta say I am a convert now as well...........instead of having to listen to several stories at a time and losing interest, the stuff unfolds as its going on..........i actually like it , and i take back my previous remarks about it. Hopefully this is the system going forward. Excellent work Mr. Gaider and crew.

[Bibdy]

Addai67 wrote...

Who said more?  I didn't.  More is always nice, of course, but there is so much development packed into the Alistair or Zevran or Morrigan relationship that it's enabled me to talk about it on this forum far more than a sane person with a job and a life should have.  So "same amount as" would be just fine by me.

...which we had in DA:O, as well.  You can't know Zevran or Sten until you've been almost everywhere on the map with them.  So, you're criticizing others for asking for "MOAR," when what you're asking for is less.

Who am I?  The person who... (take your pick)... sheds blood with them on a daily basis, can't take a crap without them knowing, has sex in their hearing or, you know, WITH them...  But I'm not allowed to ask "so where did you grow up?"

I've had about the same amount and what I get from Anders is "apostate, hates templars" (snooze) and "wow lots of spells" (the novelty of which wears off after the 10th mob).

Holy taking comments out of context, Batman.

I'm not asking for less, I'm saying that more isn't synonymous with better.

I like the way they've separated 'getting to know the character' into smaller portions in DA:A. DA:O's system was like 90% sitting in the party camp for 30 minutes at a time, going through each and every dialogue option for each party member. In DA:A those breaks are shorter, and you don't have to spend a stupid amount of time at camp getting at that content, because they spread out these conversations throughout the game instead of unloading a novel of dialogue on you at camp and making you check back every now and then to see if there's a new option.

Of course DA:A is going to have less, in general. Its just plain smaller than DA:O. Its the DISTRIBUTION of WHERE they put these dialogues that I like much better. Less sitting around in camp, more out-and-about in the game world.

I think of it this way, 2 systems to get to know your characters:

System 1) 60% camp dialogue, 0% interaction with the game world, 20% dialogue and confrontation on your decisions, 20% party banter

System 2) 20% camp dialogue, 40% interaction with the game world, 10% confrontation on your decisions, 30% party banter

I'd prefer system 2, that's more even and spread out, rather than system 1 that's just ALL talk talk talk.

Modifié par Bibdy, 17 mars 2010 - 05:47 .

[Ezele Olos]

Brockololly wrote...

As much as I enjoy ME and ME2- that dialogue system wouldn't work with DA, at least as long as we have our unvoiced Warden. The whole point is that the Warden's dialogue choices are what the Warden is actually saying all the time, not implied. Sure Bioware could try that out in a future game if they want, but then you would need to be stuck in a stock character like Shepard from ME or like Geralt from the WItcher.

ME's system works for ME- we don't need to homogenize all games into one way of doing things.

Agree with you on the voice.  Said it on the top of the post. 

Additions onto the system does not imply that DAO should dump what they have now and do it entirely like ME.  ME's dialogue system may only work for ME but it doesn't mean it can't work for other games.  

Homogenizing the best parts of each game sounds like what developers have been doing since day 1.    That argument is only useful when it makes games bland, less interesting, or take too much from the oringinalty of the game IMO.

Modifié par Ezele Olos, 17 mars 2010 - 05:46 .

[Darkannex]

Well, if people were spending that much time at a stretch either 1. They liked it or 2. they were trying to get through as much as possible to 'get on with' the game.
You don't HAVE to spend that much time at a stretch. Origins is a long game, nothing demands you have to do all the conversations immediately.
It's a case of the game forcing you to pace yourself, rather than pace yourself ... yourself, I guess.
I prefer having more power with me, than have the game dictate when I can speak with my characters entirely. Sometimes it works well, when they have relevant or salient things to say about where we currently are or what we are doing. I acknowledge the points in favor of this dialogue option.

I merely state that a hybridization of both worlds would create a more natural feel. Sometimes friends talk to you, sometimes you talk to them. Sometimes it's short, sometimes you really do want to know about their family, their favorite food, their hopes, dreams and digital nightmares.

Sometimes being able to step out of the storyline to pursue personal time in game is a good thing too. Sometimes having to stop in the middle of a quest to 'dialog' can feel more of an interruption. MMO's are popular for more than the game itself-it's now become very much a social hub. A good RPG emulates that craving for gossip and learning about the world you and they are in.

Modifié par Darkannex, 17 mars 2010 - 05:52 .

[Addai]

David Gaider wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
Is it not the place of the people paying money for your game to decide what we want out of it?

"We" meaning the people on this forum? The people who like dialogue? Or all the people who buy our games or might want to in the future?

I didn't realize you were speaking on everyone's behalf. My mistake.

I suppose I should have asterisked "we" meaning "those who share my opinion and who are voicing it on this thread and others."  I assumed that was a given.

From my perspective I just don't consider the aimless chatting a sacred cow -- especially when there can and has been excellent character development in RPG's that did not need to run in one, set method.

I find it very discouraging, and frankly baffling, that you can refer to DA:O follower dialogue as "aimless chatting."  It makes me think that you have no idea the unique and... to go out on a cliche'd limb... special product that you helped produce.

I suppose I should have more faith, having fallen in love with more than one of your characters.  I don't like what I'm hearing, however.  I am sure that there is character development somewhere in [insert any one of dozens of RPG games], but I am what is called a casual gamer and it takes a certain amount of draw for me to put up with the work of learning a game system etc.  Which is why Mass Effect and other games are sitting collecting dust on our shelf, while I am combing DA:O for every morsel of my favorite characters (edit: and why I bought your novels and all the DLCs).  I fear that in the system you describe, I won't ever get beyond the boring bits to find these implanted characterizations because I just won't care enough to bother.

You're a writer, so I'll appeal to the stock of the trade:  You have to catch people on the first page, even better in the first paragraph, and if you can get them on the first line, you've probably got them for the duration.  What I found out about my followers in camp made me care about what they had to say out in the world.  I'm pretty sure it's not going to work the other way around.  And yes, you can feel free to consider my opinion mine alone and not worth the bandwidth, if you care to.

Modifié par Addai67, 17 mars 2010 - 06:48 .

[Tamuril24]

the conversation system sucks, it was my favourite part of the game and now they fudged it up >.> I really enjoyed the rp aspect and now its just so damn boring

[Raiynsong]

First off let me declare very clearly that I LOVED the old system. I would not have played this game so many times if I didn't have the romance and friendship dialog options that DA:O had. I cancelled TWO MMO subscriptions because I found DA:O to be more interesting.



I didn't find camp totally artificial. It would be much more artificial to be in a dungeon fighting darkspawn and ask Zevran to tell me about Antiva. I also don't see how we can do romances if we don't have any private space. And camp was good for that (although, it was frustrating to be in a castle with NICE BEDS and NOT be able to use them )



I am only about 3 hours into Awakenings, and finally figured out how the object-triggered conversations work (I'm trying a spoiler-free game with this first character). I do like how objects and environments trigger dialog. HOWEVER, there is one big question I have about this new system:



Doesn't this system force us to play the game in a more linear way? If conversation is triggered only by objects, rather than by time spent getting to know someone (whether via adventuring or in camp) then doesn't that force you to click on objects in a certain sequence to get each character's story developed in a meaningful way ? I mean, in DA:O there were rare occasions when someone told me something much later in our relationship than I would have expected, but for the most part, as we got closer, or got angrier at each other, our particular relationships evolved. I don't see at all how that is going to work at all under the new system. Instead, what I'm feeling are each object-based dialog gives me a piece of a character, which might very well be totally unconnected to any other piece of a character I might have learned about earlier. I think the earlier, camp-based system, for all its faults, was more organic.



As I said, I'm only 3 hours into Awakening, so I'm reserving final judgment. But I do think that if the developers and writers read through this thread, they will see what IS of value to the players about the old system, as well as what we like about the NEW system, and perhaps think about a hybrid model for the future.

[Bibdy]

Darkannex wrote...

Well, if people were spending that much time at a stretch either 1. They liked it or 2. they were trying to get through as much as possible to 'get on with' the game.
You don't HAVE to spend that much time at a stretch. Origins is a long game, nothing demands you have to do all the conversations immediately.
It's a case of the game forcing you to pace yourself, rather than pace yourself ... yourself, I guess.
I prefer having more power with me, than have the game dictate when I can speak with my characters entirely. Sometimes it works well, when they have relevant or salient things to say about where we currently are or what we are doing. I acknowledge the points in favor of this dialogue option.

I merely state that a hybridization of both worlds would create a more natural feel. Sometimes friends talk to you, sometimes you talk to them. Sometimes it's short, sometimes you really do want to know about their family, their favorite food, their hopes, dreams and digital nightmares.

Sometimes being able to step out of the storyline to pursue personal time in game is a good thing too. Sometimes having to stop in the middle of a quest to 'dialog' can feel more of an interruption. MMO's are popular for more than the game itself-it's now become very much a social hub. A good RPG emulates that craving for gossip and learning about the world you and they are in.

Sure, but how they do it is important, too. If you throw players at characters with huge swathes of dialogue to plow through, players are going to get irritated by it. Throwing in the "Well just pace yourself" card isn't going to cut it in the development world. If players aren't having fun at any point, there's something the developers need to work on.

Its a bizarre concept, I know, but ultimately, the developers are responsible for the player's enjoyment with the product. But, then, isn't that how it works with any entertainment product? Its a clash between art and creative direction vs consumer reaction and sales. Your 'art and creative direction' isn't going to sell well if people get ticked off with it. But, the trick, is if you sacrifice a little depth, for breadth, you can still get all the content in there, just in more user-friendly bite-size chunks without compromising the content.

And the end result, is more constant interaction with those characters and attachment in DA:A (which ultimately isn't even long enough to give you the same level of attachment), as opposed to the kind of system you get in DA:O where you're communicating great in the party camp, but the moment you leave and start roaming around, its like nobody wants to talk anymore.

Modifié par Bibdy, 17 mars 2010 - 06:14 .

[Darkannex]

Bibdy, I acknowledge your point, but I think we are just going to have to have some creative difference. In a totally free-form game, you are given alot of control over your gameflow. If you stop having fun after 10 minutes of dialoug, then stop doing that and move on. It is the players that are making it a chore. I can understand having structure - which I think could be better adjusted to approval levels or previous conversation choices.

But some people crave that freedom, some others are gluttons with it and overgorge and then complain that they ate too much. Who would be at fault if at a banquet you ate everything and then threw up? Is it the fault of the host and hostess for making too large of a banquet with too much food?  Who turns that wonderful feast into a sick-fest? 

The complaints I am hearing from MOST of the people here regarding the old system is that it took too much time at a pop and removed immersion because they had to spend too much time gorging on all the dialog.

Im of the camp that there is never 'too much' freedom. Only 'too much' restriction. Because your pacing and the pacing of others is never going to mesh. For some in a restricted system, the relationships will develop too quickly (Anders at 99 love less than 2 hours into the game? Seriously?) for others it will be too slow. 
In a free system, you are responsible for the pace. Of course, if you burn through it too fast you are going to cry that there's nothing to add 1/2 through the game in terms of character development. Then they cry for 'more'. More isn't the answer, but some people in this thread have offered what they personally feel could help. 

Modifié par Darkannex, 17 mars 2010 - 06:19 .

[Bibdy]

Well with RPGs there's always the compulsion not to miss anything. Stopping dialogue early with the characters, only going through some of the options, only to come back later and find TWICE as many options is kinda irritating if you're a completionist.



At some point a game developer has to stop and ask themselves "how much does this really add to the game? Is this a cost-effective use of my time? Are people even going to find this fun?". If adding tons and tons more dialogue is only going to please a small subset of the die-hard fanbase, then its probably not the best use of their time.



I've been working on a mod of my own since Christmas time and I wanted to create a grand-old multi-choice extravaganza where even some of your earliest choices are going to have a major impact on the story. I recently came to the conclusion, its just not ****in' worth it. Not only are really good dialogue, choices and interesting characters hard to write, its painfully difficult to code and cover all the possible options and scenarios a player might go through. I've since scrapped the story and now working on something else (that uses the same Levels I've already made) with less focus on dialogue and choices, and more on action and puzzles that I think more people are going to enjoy. Its a difficult decision I think every developer/modder has come to at some point.

[Darkannex]

Bibdy wrote...

Well with RPGs there's always the compulsion not to miss anything. Stopping dialogue early with the characters, only going through some of the options, only to come back later and find TWICE as many options is kinda irritating if you're a completionist.

At some point a game developer has to stop and ask themselves "how much does this really add to the game? Is this a cost-effective use of my time? Are people even going to find this fun?". If adding tons and tons more dialogue is only going to please a small subset of the die-hard fanbase, then its probably not the best use of their time.

I've been working on a mod of my own since Christmas time and I wanted to create a grand-old multi-choice extravaganza where even some of your earliest choices are going to have a major impact on the story. I recently came to the conclusion, its just not ****in' worth it. Not only are really good dialogue, choices and interesting characters hard to write, its painfully difficult to code and cover all the possible options and scenarios a player might go through. I've since scrapped the story and now working on something else (that uses the same Levels I've already made) with less focus on dialogue and choices, and more on action and puzzles that I think more people are going to enjoy. Its a difficult decision I think every developer/modder has come to at some point.

I agree, but if you re-read what people are saying, they are not asking for MORE dialog than Origins, they are asking for that same level of interaction and opportunity that was provided. 
Noone says creating such an immersive and choice-driven world is easy. In fact, I think most people realize the complexities of it. Perhaps Bioware is now also aware of how difficult it is, as they initially set the expectation of it. 

But there is clearly a fan-market of large proportions for that sort of game (as evidenced by Origins sales and awards). Trying to 'surf' on that popularity by providing products that become less and less like that game, is going to ultimately disenchant people. They made alot of changes this time around, romances/dlc importation/conversations/choice importation. 

These are core things of the game. And while it is refreshing that they are trying to keep things fresh and shake it up, too much dramatic change on what many see as a winning formula can have the exact effect they want. I am not saying OMG, we want Dragon Age Origins redux!, all I am saying is that don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. 

[Bibdy]

Play_B4_Work wrote...

Darkannex wrote...

Well,
if people were spending that much time at a stretch either 1. They
liked it or 2. they were trying to get through as much as possible to
'get on with' the game.
You don't HAVE to spend that much time at
a stretch. Origins is a long game, nothing demands you have to do all
the conversations immediately.
It's a case of the game forcing you to pace yourself, rather than pace yourself ... yourself, I guess.
I
prefer having more power with me, than have the game dictate when I can
speak with my characters entirely. Sometimes it works well, when they
have relevant or salient things to say about where we currently are or
what we are doing. I acknowledge the points in favor of this dialogue
option.

I merely state that a hybridization of both worlds
would create a more natural feel. Sometimes friends talk to you,
sometimes you talk to them. Sometimes it's short, sometimes you really
do want to know about their family, their favorite food, their hopes,
dreams and digital nightmares.

Sometimes being able to step
out of the storyline to pursue personal time in game is a good thing
too. Sometimes having to stop in the middle of a quest to 'dialog' can
feel more of an interruption. MMO's are popular for more than the game
itself-it's now become very much a social hub. A good RPG emulates that
craving for gossip and learning about the world you and they are in.

I like the idea of a hybridization of both conversation systems as well.

I
find it annoying that I have to drag a character around with me and
hope they have something to say about whatever is in front of us in
order to get a conversation out of them. I get that it's more
'natural'. Really, I do. In fact, I'm not arguing against this as a way
to initiate dialouge (I just don't want it to be the only way). What if
I want to talk to companions when I want to talk to them? In
DAO I rarely took Morrigan anywhere, it wasn't because I didn't like
her, it was because my character was also a Mage and did exactly the
same thing she did ( I prefer to rock 2 warriors, a Rouge, and 1 mage).
Just because I didn't take her along that much didn't mean I didn't
still want the option to get to know her or even hear her thoughts
about what we did on a particular quest.

The same with Zevran
and Leilana. When I played a Rogue, they were twiddling their thumbs a
lot. Do I still want to get to know them? Sure. Do I want the option of
engaging them in a conversation? Absolutely. Do I want to be forced to
bring them along just to get more than some throw away lines? No.

I
get the idea of what they were going for ("trimming the fat" as it
were), but I feel like as a player I've lost the ability to control a
huge part of what made the game so fun.. not that stabbing things isn't
fun. It is.

So yeah, both please. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/grin.png[/smilie]

Well, what I'd like to solve that problem is more reason to switch around party members. ME2, for example, gave the player a lot of freedom to switch around group members, because inventory and bringing the 'Tech Guy' (Rogue) wasn't an issue.

Modifié par Bibdy, 17 mars 2010 - 06:56 .

[Rixxencaxx]

David Gaider wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
Is it not the place of the people paying money for your game to decide what we want out of it?

"We" meaning the people on this forum? The people who like dialogue? Or all the people who buy our games or might want to in the future?

I didn't realize you were speaking on everyone's behalf. My mistake.

I think some people are getting the wrong impression, that my goal is to strip out your ability to initiate dialogue. That's not the case at all. It's more a matter of when and how. I'm not going to get into an argument about it, however, but I do recognize that some people are always going to look at any change as a net negative. From my perspective I just don't consider the aimless chatting a sacred cow -- especially when there can and has been excellent character development in RPG's that did not need to run in one, set method. It's always good to hear some perspectives, however, though you'll have to recognize that yours (meaning "yours" plural) is not the only one we're going to listen to.

well...it's clear that you are really sure that the majority of customers liked YOUR new dialogue system.
I' Italian and every  game forum i visit is full of criticism vs awakening.
Take a look at what gamespot is saying about awakening (and we all know how much money spent EA in advertising on gamespot...)

http://www.gamespot....ing/review.html

• 
  Disappointing story disrespects
  certain elements of the original  
  
  The new characters aren't very
  memorable.

Awakening is not as exceptional as the main game; its story and
characters make little impression, which is a disappointment compared to
Dragon Age's splendid yarn

In Awakening, the ritual is treated so casually that the Grey
Wardens--and the Joining--no longer retain their edge. The story treats
The Right of Conscription with a maddening degree of carelessness; what
was once serious has become almost flippant.


There are no romances to undertake, and while giving gifts to your party
members will lead to new dialogue options and other surprises, you
aren't likely to get too caught up in their personal tales.
Compared to the original Dragon Age: Origins, Awakening doesn't offer
the same kind of outstanding value--$40 for under 20 hours of questing,
as opposed to the 50-plus hours of the $50 main game. Yet the length is
nothing to sneeze at, particularly when the questing is this involving.


Dragon Age: Origins - Awakening doesn't reach the high standards set by
its illustrious precursor, but it's still a great game on its own terms.
The combat and questing are as fun as they ever were and will keep you
involved up until the very end, in spite of the uneven quality of the
story and the characters that fill it.


Mr gaider...we are all whining people...we are all wrong. excuse us we cant understand the new fantastic changes brought by awakening...

[Darkannex]

Agree. Having a niche for each is good. But some people feel the need to HAVE to bring a rogue because not getting all the lockboxes makes them sad. XD



But at the same time, I don't want the game to force me to have to have certain party members. I positively hated having Oghren and Wynne shoved on me.

[PSUHammer]

Um, the review you posted was positive? Or did I miss something?

Since you highlighted some of the review, let me pick a few others:

"Dragon Age: Origins - Awakening doesn't reach the high standards set by
its illustrious precursor, but it's still a great game on its own terms.
The combat and questing are as fun as they ever were and will keep you
involved up until the very end, in spite of the uneven quality of the
story and the characters that fill it."

Modifié par Hammer6767, 17 mars 2010 - 07:03 .

[Creature 1]

David Gaider wrote...
From my perspective I just don't consider the aimless chatting a sacred cow

I thought you were in charge of writing said aimless chatter. 

[Bibdy]

Darkannex wrote...

I agree, but if you re-read what people are saying, they are not asking for MORE dialog than Origins, they are asking for that same level of interaction and opportunity that was provided. 
Noone says creating such an immersive and choice-driven world is easy. In fact, I think most people realize the complexities of it. Perhaps Bioware is now also aware of how difficult it is, as they initially set the expectation of it. 

But there is clearly a fan-market of large proportions for that sort of game (as evidenced by Origins sales and awards). Trying to 'surf' on that popularity by providing products that become less and less like that game, is going to ultimately disenchant people. They made alot of changes this time around, romances/dlc importation/conversations/choice importation. 

These are core things of the game. And while it is refreshing that they are trying to keep things fresh and shake it up, too much dramatic change on what many see as a winning formula can have the exact effect they want. I am not saying OMG, we want Dragon Age Origins redux!, all I am saying is that don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. 

You can't have it all, though. That just boils down to "more, moar, MOAR". Given a finite amount of time to create something, sacrifices have to be made here and there to fit it all into the time budget.

Personally I'm cool with DA:A's system in DA:A. Its an expansion. Its obviously not going to be as big, so the exact same depth wasn't really a requirement for me. I just want a new adventure in the DA world, and I have it. I'm only up to the first major 'multiple choice area' so far, and it dawned on me as I put it down last night how much fun I had along the way.

I'd expect a similar amount of depth as DA:O in DA2, but putting that expectation on DA:A is a little unfair, I think. Although, considering the price, I'm not completely ignorant of people's expectations of something of a similar price to the original. Me? I'm just damn glad I have more DA to play and some new models, textures and what-not to yoink out of the ERF files and use in my mod.

I'm sure there's a crowd of people, who would be happy to sacrifice some dialogue depth, for more dialogue breadth (in my opinion, its more like a bargain). Its the people that abjectly refuse to part with a single morsel of depth, in favour of more variety and different methods of providing dialogue and story that worry me. They're the kind of people who would gladly stagnate the evolution of the game just to hang on to their die-hard ideals. I'm not saying you're one of them, but they ARE out there, and they ARE angry.

Modifié par Bibdy, 17 mars 2010 - 07:07 .

[Ryzaki]

Hammer6767 wrote...

Um, the review you posted was positive? Or did I miss something?

Since you highlighted some of the review, let me pick a few others:

"Dragon Age: Origins - Awakening doesn't reach the high standards set by
its illustrious precursor, but it's still a great game on its own terms.
The combat and questing are as fun as they ever were and will keep you
involved up until the very end, in spite of the uneven quality of the
story and the characters that fill it."

Uh did you read what you just posted?  Or even pay attention before jumping to BioWare's defense? 

He/She's talking about the DIALOGUE system.

And according to that review it wasn't as good as origins.

And frankly after seeing it in action I'm inclined to agree. (Watched a friend play) only being able to talk to the characters on their terms made for pretty lousy interaction. I didn't like in in BG and I don't like it here. Its hand holding at its finest and I don't appreciate being treated like a moron in games. (Honestly those who complain about losing dialogue choices because they used them all up when they were busy gift spamming shouldn't blame the game for their own lack of self control. I'm all for a trigger system where you can choose to either have the dialogue flow the way it did in Origins or Awakening but if it has to be one or the other I'd rather Origins.)

Nothing wrong with a good hybrid though as ME2 proves.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 17 mars 2010 - 07:09 .

[Darkannex]

Overall it was a positive review, but he bolded the salient points. Those being that it was not as immersive as the original. Of course, this is NOT a full fledged game (although the pricing would make one think that). Perhaps that's the core issue. If you are going to charge full game price for an expansion, people are going to be confused for not getting a full game. (don't flame for that, it's what many people say, and even the above review says).



It's what happened to the sims, in an RPG world. Microtransactions are the norm now in many things, even MMO's. Get as much money for as little content as possible. Offer a little more and charge more. Follow the breadcrumbs.



I personally LIKE having DLC's. I would like them more if they were less loot-centric and more storyline-focused. I liked learning about Sofia and seeing Cailan laid to rest, the loot, meh. I liked the WDC the most because it looked good and made me feel all Wardeny.



I can totally get how Mr. Gaider feels prone towards dismissal. Squeaky wheels are obnoxious. But you know what? In my job as tech support, we are told that for every client that complains, there are often 5 others that feel like that and don't.

[ejoslin]

Hammer6767 wrote...

Um, the review you posted was positive? Or did I miss something?

Since you highlighted some of the review, let me pick a few others:

"Dragon Age: Origins - Awakening doesn't reach the high standards set by
its illustrious precursor, but it's still a great game on its own terms.
The combat and questing are as fun as they ever were and will keep you
involved up until the very end, in spite of the uneven quality of the
story and the characters that fill it."

Look, it's not an all or nothing thing.  Do you not understand that?  I don't hate awakenings; I'm enjoying it.  But I agree 100% with that review.  Something can be good, but extremely disappointing at the same time.  The complaint that many are having is that the character interaction is much shallower.  What the poster was pointing out was that it's not only forum posters that think taking away the old dialog system took away something that gave the original game heart.  Even reviewers are saying that.  

That doesn't mean it's a bad game. There are a lot of entertaining games out there that don't have the same depth of DA:O.  The banters and dialogs of DA:A are actually entertaining.  But the system does not allow for the same immersion -- the actually getting to KNOW the characters for good or bad -- that the old system has.

[Darkannex]

Can't have it all? Of course not. Especially not in an expansion 1/2 or less the size of the main game. But what people can ask is not to completely change up everything at once. Really the only thing they kept was the 'generic' thedas (with some flavored dialog based on BROAD choices like king, dlc's played, characters killed), the battle system (which is fun, but not unique), and...well that's it. Everything else was altered pretty significantly.



I am not saying it's all bad. Im not saying it should NOT have been changed. I am merely acknowledging that changing too much too quickly makes people wonder if they are playing the same series.



It's almost like watching Return of the Jedi where the fact that Luke is Vader's son is no longer relevant to the plot