copy/paste game design has no right to exist anymore. ESPECIALLY from Bioware, they included enough ctrl-c ctrl-v in Mass effect 1 to last a life time. Ditched it for Dragon Age, which is impressive considering it's size, ditched it for ME2 which was totally welcome. Then brought it back for DA2, lazy, rushed and arrogant when considering the leap in quality between ME1 and 2.
Poll: Is there any hope Dragon Age?
- Thread starter Nicholas Woodruff
- Start date
Recommended Videos
*sigh* If there's one thing the internet loves more than hyperbole, it's whinning about things.
I liked Dragon Age Origins, but 2 was better in my opinion. Why? Because they didn't just re-release the same game with different characters. They actually went and made a different game.
A lot of the critisism of DA2 seems to be that it's not DAO. Yet what's good for the goose is not good for the gander because ME2 was hailed as a great game because it was so different from 1, partially because the parts of ME1 they removed for ME2 sucked quite frankly (especially that huge skill tree, because that sucked balls).
Also, people seemed under the impression that Dragon Age was going to be more like Mass Effect in terms of characters going from game to game, failing to realise that Dragon Age allowed you to make some very, very huge choices that quite frankly makes a direct sequal impossible; There's no way to make a satisfying experience while simaltanious writing, modelling, coding and executing every possible outcome from Origins (to put it into perspective: They'd need to do two very different dwavern kingdoms, two very different Mage Circles, three different Dalish choices, two different Redcliff choices, god knows how many different "Whose ruler" choices, etc.).
Now, DA2 is not without faults, but I can blame EA for imposing such a short deadline on this one. But it was still a solid game: You actually had to participate in fights instead of just watching the AI do everything for you, a more local-based story compared to National Scope of the last game, more focus on your characters and their character growth, etc. etc.
So anyone who honestly things this is a franchise killer are the same sort of people who'd say the sky was falling at any given moment.
I liked Dragon Age Origins, but 2 was better in my opinion. Why? Because they didn't just re-release the same game with different characters. They actually went and made a different game.
A lot of the critisism of DA2 seems to be that it's not DAO. Yet what's good for the goose is not good for the gander because ME2 was hailed as a great game because it was so different from 1, partially because the parts of ME1 they removed for ME2 sucked quite frankly (especially that huge skill tree, because that sucked balls).
Also, people seemed under the impression that Dragon Age was going to be more like Mass Effect in terms of characters going from game to game, failing to realise that Dragon Age allowed you to make some very, very huge choices that quite frankly makes a direct sequal impossible; There's no way to make a satisfying experience while simaltanious writing, modelling, coding and executing every possible outcome from Origins (to put it into perspective: They'd need to do two very different dwavern kingdoms, two very different Mage Circles, three different Dalish choices, two different Redcliff choices, god knows how many different "Whose ruler" choices, etc.).
Now, DA2 is not without faults, but I can blame EA for imposing such a short deadline on this one. But it was still a solid game: You actually had to participate in fights instead of just watching the AI do everything for you, a more local-based story compared to National Scope of the last game, more focus on your characters and their character growth, etc. etc.
So anyone who honestly things this is a franchise killer are the same sort of people who'd say the sky was falling at any given moment.
Unlikely. Loved the first. Couldn't stand the second. They are unlikely to revert to the previous formula as that would be admitting they made a mistake (one which isn't reflected in sales). If it the third is more like DA:O in gameplay I may yet get it, but if they insist on the 'action RPG' style I will give it a miss.
It's less that it's a franchise killer (if anything, the sales are going to ensure that we'll see a DA3) and more that it isn't very good.Shaoken said:
And people are pretty annoyed with it not only because of the general lack of quality but also because it represents a lot of things that are wrong with the industry in general and Bioware in particular.
See also:
But apparently, we do! Didn't you know?lithium.jelly said:
Apparently, most of the gameplay decisions across BioWare series are (now?) made in direct response to player feedback on social.bioware.
In spite of all the little tricks to make the fights feel more visceral and engaging, when I last played I still felt the same kind of "oh, this is a bizarre abstraction that I can't make sense of" feeling that I'd occasionally get from DA:O. I often found myself vexed when I couldn't get a good handle on the odds of a monster making a "saving throw" or a shield bash releasing a grab, but it was way worse in DA2 when my two-handed sword just glided through enemies who gave it not the slightest care.
As a disclaimer, I've only played these on consoles. So maybe there's a comforting dialog box that you can open up on the PC that makes the underlying systems transparent a-la BG2 (though now that I think about it, calling 2nd ed. D&D transparent is blatant misinformation).
I hear that there was a tactical view available on PC. Which likely would've set the tone better for the slower pace of combat in DA:O. DA:O is slower than even BG1 and to be honest, I think I like it for that pace. Where blows seemed to be "big" and "have weight", and the swing-and-parry animations of dueling warriors looked like the animations of warriors dueling in 40 pounds of armor. Warriors for whom overextending an attack would have fatal consequences, rather than impervious-until-downed supermen fighting a-la Final Fantasy.
I don't think I mind the change in scope, or tone, or the additional cheap pandering. Maybe the cheap pandering. I do know that I play western RPGs as a means of creepy self-insertion of the most depressing sort, so I guess I shouldn't complain too much about cheap pandering. But I think I will join the hordes complaining about how the elves are now Na'vi.