My post was poorly conveyed snark, which is why I added my admission that I don't buy into the whole "halcyon days of RPG's" notion. You must've quoted me before I had the time to do so.Sjakie said:
Dragon Age II and the decline of the classic RPG
- Thread starter Undead Dragon King
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This.DTWolfwood said:Further proof that developers of games can never win.(at least the big AAA studios with hyped franchises)
You make the same game twice, and ppl ***** about it being the same.
You make a different game as a sequel and ppl ***** about it not being the same as the original.
MAKE UP YOUR GODDAMN MINDS!
I personally love both games, and love them for 2 very different reasons. I don't need to compare one over they other, i just took them as they're given to me.
love them both.
I swear, people are trying harder and harder to be offended by things these days, particularly gamers.
Sure, in DA2 there were a whole bunch of recycled 'dungeons'. I read in an interview with the DA team that they got to a point and realised that if they recycled dungeons, they could fit more quests and side-storylines in. That's their choice. It's their game to make. I think once a game becomes popular enough, the 'fans' take it upon themselves to decide they then own the rights to the game and should be making the decisions.
Get over it. Please. You can waffle on all you like about why your expert opinion defines a particular game as backwards or rubbish or a copout or a sellout or disloyal to nostalgic personal preferences. But in the end, you aren't making the game, and if they company tries to make a game better for you, as fans, then you are getting something special and you should be grateful.
Thumbs up for effort, instead of thumbs down for disappointment. I feel like gamers nowadays have a nasty habit of English Class Criticism. You know when you watched movies in English and started deconstructing them, and you got so drilled in it that you forgot how to enjoy something for what it was?
Yeah.
Coincidently...Jennifer Hepler did say that Twilight was one of her favourite books and inspiration for the dialogue.D0WNT0WN said:
I'm just glad that Bioware isn't the only developer company that makes RPGs because what they've been churning out haven't been it. Yeah, I'll just go play Baldur or Arcanum again and forget about new titles.
If i remember correctly, the general consensus about the first game was that it was too difficult <.<MaxPowers666 said:Can somebody tell me why a dialog wheel with 3 choices is better then 3 choices simply written out below each other. Because if you couldnt tell there is no difference, oh other then they actually had to tell you if a choice was good or evil, because people are to stupid to actually read.
Despite all its flaws and steamlining that was in origins I actually still loved that game and played through it many times, probably 5 or 6 full playthroughs. Dragon age 2 I didnt even finish the first chapter, mabey 6 hours in and I have absolutely no desire at all to ever play the game again. I am a person who loves RPGs as well.
Honestly I think if the game had not been named dragon age then it wouldnt have done nearly as well. I bought the game because origins despite its flaws was an amazing game, and im rather annoyed about that fact.
I shouldnt have to purposly put stat and ability points into things that are 100% useless for my character in order to make the game challanging, that is rediculous. Putting points into strength as a warrior isnt being twinktastic its called not being retarded.JMeganSnow said:
If somebody say complains that your game is to easy, and then in the sequal they make it even easier then that person has a right to be annoyed. What they did in dragon age 2 was get rid of everything that we liked and went ever farther with the stuff we disliked. Although I didnt really have any complaints about origins, other then it was too easy, which is an issue they went in the wrong direction with in the sequal making it even easier.DTWolfwood said:Further proof that developers of games can never win.
You sir is an exception to that rule apparently.
I got over it, but on normal i wiped a few times the first time i fought a mage, and the game forced you to pause constantly to micromanage everyone of your teammates to win a fight. Which is both a good thing and bad. Its great that its so tactical, but its a terrible game flow breaker. (Well the PC version was hard, don't know about the console versions. But if your in an argument about RPGs and you're playing it on a system with a limited input device such as a controller pad, you've already gone wrong.)
Also, there is a difficulty slider <.< If the insane and nightmare difficulties were too ez for you, than im sorry, you are going to be disappointed by every AAA game that will be released ever.
See, that's not true at all. Calling it Dragon Age 2 is, technically, a lie. Because despite the setting its not a sequel. It's this that fans of Origins get mad about becuase they felt like they were sold somthing that wasn't Dragon Age 2.GiantRaven said:
I can understand why people could find Origins an innaccessible game not all of us have the knowledge of tank, healer, dps, turn the dragon away from the raid, take the casters and adds out first etc.
It requires a knowledge set that I think alot of RPG and MMO players take for granted. I'm not saying that we are more intelligent or anything just that maybe we think in way that's different from someone who has only played games like Devil May Cry or Half Life up until that point. I think this is what Bioware realised and tried to make it more accessible for all gamers.
Anders was a bit keen though, boy needs a cold shower and I was playing a female character dating the elf...
Frankly if you would give nowadays gamers a game that is too much like the classic RPGs they would hate it. Why ? Because neither Baldur's Gate, nor Planescape nor Fallout were praised for the technical elements of gameplay. The games were limited by what was possible back in ye old times.
As an old time RPG fan i really don't see what's the problem with new iterations of the genre. It evolved just as the technology and possibilities did, but what i always considered the point of RPG genre remained the same - the character and story building.
Seems however that for the vocal part of the gamers scene character building is just about thousands of stats and putting points into skill trees to no end, for me that's not RPG, that's spreadsheets i can as well use in excel.
Character sheets and dice rolls in tabletop exist because the form is limited, there is no other way to fairly decide outcome of actions other than weighting stats against each other. You can't otherwise check the swordsmanship or magic potency of your players because there is none.
When RPGs started showing up on computers they used the same schemes, they were easy to transfer because computers are pretty much just very advanced calculators, but since those early days we moved forwards. We can actually have responsive and fluid combat with all sorts of fancy choreography, why stick to "press button, wait for effect, wait next turn" formula when technology offers much more complex and engaging way of doing things?
The article linked by OP has one major flaw. It assumes that the differences in mechanics were the reason behind DA2 poor reception rather than looking at a more technical and obvious shortcomings in development. DA2 was bad because of recycled locations, limited locations that felt always like tunnels rather than parts of open world, a plot that was rather pathetic and all those small little elements like endless waves of enemies falling from sky for no reason each combat phase. It simply was badly designed.
As an old time RPG fan i really don't see what's the problem with new iterations of the genre. It evolved just as the technology and possibilities did, but what i always considered the point of RPG genre remained the same - the character and story building.
Seems however that for the vocal part of the gamers scene character building is just about thousands of stats and putting points into skill trees to no end, for me that's not RPG, that's spreadsheets i can as well use in excel.
Character sheets and dice rolls in tabletop exist because the form is limited, there is no other way to fairly decide outcome of actions other than weighting stats against each other. You can't otherwise check the swordsmanship or magic potency of your players because there is none.
When RPGs started showing up on computers they used the same schemes, they were easy to transfer because computers are pretty much just very advanced calculators, but since those early days we moved forwards. We can actually have responsive and fluid combat with all sorts of fancy choreography, why stick to "press button, wait for effect, wait next turn" formula when technology offers much more complex and engaging way of doing things?
The article linked by OP has one major flaw. It assumes that the differences in mechanics were the reason behind DA2 poor reception rather than looking at a more technical and obvious shortcomings in development. DA2 was bad because of recycled locations, limited locations that felt always like tunnels rather than parts of open world, a plot that was rather pathetic and all those small little elements like endless waves of enemies falling from sky for no reason each combat phase. It simply was badly designed.
Oblivion and FF12 were the last titles I enjoyed as pure escapism fantasy RPG. I miss them, it would seem that fantasy is being taken out of RPG.
No the RPG genre will never die so long as there are still indie games. Dead State and Age of Decadence are coming out this year or early next year. Indie developers will always be there for the minority.
Also DA:O was at one point, Bioware's best selling game. It only cost so much money to make because it was a new IP and they had to make everything from scratch.
Also DA:O was at one point, Bioware's best selling game. It only cost so much money to make because it was a new IP and they had to make everything from scratch.
All I can respond to this is why I didn't like DA2. I play an RPG to roleplay. To chose, to define who I am. DA2 was unsuccessful in this regard. The illusion of choice is really all you get. You want to help the mages? Hawke is never given a chance to talk to the escaped mages on many occassiosn and even arbirarily tasked with hunting them down. Hawke fights some templars and then kills the mages then the Knight Commander. You want to side with the templars, Hawke kills the mages then the Knight Commander. Nothing changes. Hawke flees from the blight to Kirkwall, Hawke live in Kirkwall despite the blight ending. Hawke save Kirkwall, and Isabella runs regardless of whether you were going to give her the relic or not. She comes back due to a stat Hawke has and YOU actually get to defeat and chose how to defeat the Quanri. Hawke chose to go on an expedition, Hawke loses his family regardless of where they are or why.MacOfDonald said:I swear, people are trying harder and harder to be offended by things these days, particularly gamers.DTWolfwood said:Further proof that developers of games can never win.
You make the same game twice, and ppl ***** about it being the same.
You make a different game as a sequel and ppl ***** about it not being the same as the original.
MAKE UP YOUR GODDAMN MINDS!
I personally love both games, and love them for 2 very different reasons. I don't need to compare one over they other, i just took them as they're given to me.
love them both.
Sure, in DA2 there were a whole bunch of recycled 'dungeons'. I read in an interview with the DA team that they got to a point and realised that if they recycled dungeons, they could fit more quests and side-storylines in. That's their choice. It's their game to make. I think once a game becomes popular enough, the 'fans' take it upon themselves to decide they then own the rights to the game and should be making the decisions.
Get over it. Please. You can waffle on all you like about why your expert opinion defines a particular game as backwards or rubbish or a copout or a sellout or disloyal to nostalgic personal preferences. But in the end, you aren't making the game, and if they company tries to make a game better for you, as fans, then you are getting something special and you should be grateful.
Thumbs up for effort, instead of thumbs down for disappointment. I feel like gamers nowadays have a nasty habit of English Class Criticism. You know when you watched movies in English and started deconstructing them, and you got so drilled in it that you forgot how to enjoy something for what it was?
My favourite moment in the whole game was a conversation with Isabella asking ME to run off and go sailing, to seek MY destiny. I thought for just a brief moment I thought i had a chance at my story. Instead it went back to Hawke's.
Also, why cant you criticise something, why should a game be infallible? Why should we not treat something critically? How will the medium grow and mature if we do not chose to treat it on a the level of maturity that allows fault to exist?
Yes the Game Development team can chose what they want in the game, just as the consumer has the right to criticise and complain that the game is not what they want. Thats the balance every industry has to deal with. Its called quality control.
I think this is the nut of the problem. If the game had the freedom and plot of something like Baldur's Gate or Planescape Torment, I could easily have loved it.Keava said:
Good article, doesnt make it any better than Origins but for me shows the kind of promise that game had.LiquidGrape said:
yes but have you read the complaints about DA2? most of it has nothing to do with the game, the complaints are all the same bullshit any review bomber will put down for any game they pre-judge. "Its too ez" (devs specifically said they made it easier) "Story is generic, predictable" (so was DA:O) "characters are forgettable" (more so in DA:O)Dexter111 said:It's more a case of "Make the same game twice and make it awesome and people will want more". (Baldur's Gate1+2, Fallout 1+2, Monkey Island or just lately Witcher 2, Portal 2 etc., I don't think anyone complained about those much...)DTWolfwood said:Further proof that developers of games can never win.
You make the same game twice, and ppl ***** about it being the same.
You make a different game as a sequel and ppl ***** about it not being the same as the original.
MAKE UP YOUR GODDAMN MINDS!
I personally love both games, and love them for 2 very different reasons. I don't need to compare one over they other, i just took them as they're given to me.
love them both.
"Make a sequel to a game shit and people will kindly ask you to not keep feeding them anymore because it just wasn't good."
You just seem to be failing to understand them...
Which in all respect applies pretty well to DA:O and DA2 both.
The Witcher 2 isn't on the radars of your typical pad player. Portal 2 doesn't match the greatness that was Portal. (note the review bombing Portal2 got on Metacritic much like DA2)
Baldur's Gate and Fallout are all games i did't play so i will not say, but ppl often have nostalgia goggles on when talking about classics.
I love what Yahztee said about listening to fans, DON'T. We haven't a clue what we want.
just wanted to say thanks for misquoting the WRONG person <.<kingcom said:
try not to "edit" a quote if you can't do it right
From the cursory review of sales figures I've seen, DA:O outsold DAII by 2:1 in the first ten weeks of sales on the XBOX360 (1.4m units as opposed to 700,000 units). That may suggest that the market for more traditional RPG fare (represented by DA:O) may be healthier than a more pacey console-friendly arcade RPG (like DA II)? Or it might mean that players are more savvy about spending their dollars on a game that has received patchy reviews or has been rushed out?
I realise that each game will have its advocates because they essentially pander to different people's needs - and it could be said that both are good games. However I think we all recognise that DA II suffered from being rushed and I feel sure that everyone involved would have preferred to increase the sales achieved by DA:O.
I realise that each game will have its advocates because they essentially pander to different people's needs - and it could be said that both are good games. However I think we all recognise that DA II suffered from being rushed and I feel sure that everyone involved would have preferred to increase the sales achieved by DA:O.