The new character approval system is very intriguing. They may have very well figured out how to implement lawful/chaotic alignments successfully into video games at long last. Oh joyous day, I think I'll go dance out in the blizzard now.
Preview: What's New in Dragon Age II
- Thread starter Susan Arendt
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Of course you may!Fumbleumble said:
Seeing this turned me off a fair bit:
Bearing in mind that I'm not daft and am not saying that these things 'break' the game - after all it's still being developed (probably still at alpha), but considering how relatively close to release it is, I still feel a bit dubious.
The combat seems very God of War-ish on first impressions, the animations seem akin to those of Alpha Protocol (jerky/warping).
Whilst it's nice to see some action going on, having characters flying in, out and shaking all about in combat like Yoda fighting Darth Sidious on speed is going to get somewhat boring after the first few hours of the game.
In DA:O it was pretty slow and trudging through some of the battles was down right boring at times, but every now and again you'd get the likes of enemy's heads get cut off, ogres being mounted and slain (slow mo's) and it was used rarely but didn't get 'old' because it wasn't used so much.
The combat in DA:O was far more realistic in terms of hand to hand than say Hawke doing backflips and martial art's kicking stuff at enemies.
These are minor points in general. I guess I'm just not too fond of what little I have seen of the game. As I said I'll reserve judgement until I play it.
I hope that helps you
Well all I can do is illustrate from experience.blue_guy said:
I NEVER knew a dumbass that played 2nd ed AD&D (counting up for some rolls and down for others is honestly beyond some peoples ability to grasp).. how ever when they dumbed it down for 3rd ed I certainly saw a lot of dumbasses suddenly say that they 'got it' (and hey presto, suddenly you only had to count one way amongst other things).. at the same time the 2nd ed players we're scratching their head wondering where all the depth and strategy went... that includes having the ability to work within a set of limitations to achieve a desired result, as oppposed to everyone just being allowed to pick and chose willynilly..
Is the same for a deep, honestly engaging story.. the only one's that don't like it, or can't at least admit it's merits are the one's who unable understand what it's saying.
Fact is.. the more 'accessable' something is the less depth it's going to have (that's an axiom.. that's just the way it is, it's NOT just a snide comment by me), and that in turn is going to appeal less to those who actively seek out something stimulating.. obviously there are a subset of those people who sometimes look for mindless fun (which is fine), but dumb isn't the only string on their bow.
I'm perfectly aware that I come off as elitist, or 'superior'.. but you simply can't get around the fact that we aren't all created equal.. and the ones who are 'more equal than others' are in the minority... So appealing to them isn't going to suit the masses and if you DO manage to suit the masses then there's fantastic chance that you're not going to appeal to the minority.. unless, less than thought provoking is what they are looking for that that particular time.
I'm sorry most people won't like what I'm saying, but I personally can't be blamed for the fact that there are a percentage of us who simply aren't willing to passively gobble up and praise the half chewed rubbish that the majority thrives upon..and that that majority are unwilling to admit certain basic truths about their limitations.
And if you are unable to accept the merits of my comments.. then yes, I'm afraid you are one of the dull majority.
I've put it as plainly and as honestly as I can, and if the majority can't accept that there are other out there who completely see through, what the majority would consider to be 'a wow factor', then that is part of the majorities limitations.
There are parts of the minority who do see, and do understand the points and subjects being illustrated and still don't like the subject matter.. and THAT is where it all get's confusing.. because the limited are too limited to understand that they don't fall into that category and insist that they do.. and as there are more of them, their voices are loudest.
....and THAT is why there are threads like this.
EDIT......Let's put it another way.. let's talk about the movie 'Inception'
In 'GENERAL' there are 3 types of people who saw that movie.. and 3 types of varying limitation... let's keep it as generalisations atm, there are subsets of people involved in the various groups, but without further information you can't sort the chafe from the wheat.
Group 1.. the people who saw it, didn't understand it and admitted that they didn't understand it.
Group 2.. the people who saw it, thought they understood it, thought it was really deep and thought provoking and loved/hated it.
Group 3.. the people who saw it for what it was and felt dumb for sitting through it.
Who is the most limited?.. nope, not Group 1, they at least are intelligent enough to recognise their own limitations...
The answer is Group 2, not only didn't they see what the film actually was (an exercise at confusing complexity for depth.. which they most certainly are NOT equal.. it was 'confusing' BECAUSE it was 'confusing' not because of any supposed depth to the movie, it was made confusing, layer upon layer upon layer, designed to lose you, rather than designed to reveal a hidden truth pointing at some inner depth, and I'm still unsure as to the director's ultimate motives, whether he knew he was substituting confusion and complexity for actual tangible depth or not :/), they are also unable to see their own limited thinking as to the stucture of the piece and fell for the director's (unwitting?) ruse.
..Group 3 saw completely through the movie, recognised the simplicity of the story, didn't fall for the 'confusing equals complexity equals depth' malarky and just left the movie feeling duped out of their seat price.
Group 3 is the least limited.
I hope my illustrations have shone some light...somewhere.
I agree with you about that video.DSK- said:Of course you may!Fumbleumble said:
Seeing this turned me off a fair bit:
Bearing in mind that I'm not daft and am not saying that these things 'break' the game - after all it's still being developed (probably still at alpha), but considering how relatively close to release it is, I still feel a bit dubious.
The combat seems very God of War-ish on first impressions, the animations seem akin to those of Alpha Protocol (jerky/warping).
Whilst it's nice to see some action going on, having characters flying in, out and shaking all about in combat like Yoda fighting Darth Sidious on speed is going to get somewhat boring after the first few hours of the game.
In DA:O it was pretty slow and trudging through some of the battles was down right boring at times, but every now and again you'd get the likes of enemy's heads get cut off, ogres being mounted and slain (slow mo's) and it was used rarely but didn't get 'old' because it wasn't used so much.
The combat in DA:O was far more realistic in terms of hand to hand than say Hawke doing backflips and martial art's kicking stuff at enemies.
These are minor points in general. I guess I'm just not too fond of what little I have seen of the game. As I said I'll reserve judgement until I play it.
I hope that helps you
Also to me all it just says that, yes, you can slow the combat down.. but all I 'get' from it is, why bother? when the results of rushing in and splatting everything quickly is exactly the same..to me, strategy isn't about 'being able to'.. it's 'being forced to'.. or it's not strategic at all.. just slow and ultimately a hinderance to playing the game.
And while I'm certainly not dismissing it out of hand solely on the basis of the combat, that combined with the streamlined everything else.. is just too much to bear :/
Thanks for replying
I'll be blunt, it seems like Bioware is missing the point of an RPG, or simply selling out to a more mainstream action-gaming crowd. I've said that before, but honestly this seems like a lot of the aspects that had me liking Dragon Age are being removed as "problems" and replaced by things that actually make the game substantially shallower.
Understand, "Dragon Age: Origins" was awesome because it did the typical sword and sorcery thing very well. In a day and age when EVERYONE is simultaneously "breaking away from the stereotypes" it's refreshing to see someone that can turn out a good, high quality, elves & orcs RPG game. "Dragon Age: Origins" was cool because while fairly shallow it was one of the few big games in a long time that felt like an actual RPG, rather than handing me some pre-made protaganist like in a Final Fantasy game, it let me make my own character. While limited the stats ultimatly meant something and there are a sense of progression, some abillities were better than others, but nothing was useless, and finding out what everything could be used for was kind of fun, especially with the spells as some very "meh" seeming spells turned out to be quite effective and powerful.
To be honest the lengthy wind up animations and turn based "invisible die rolling" was part of the appeal. That's what an RPG is supposed to be like. I want control and to see the numbers working, not some kind of fast paced pseudo-action game, I want to see how the things I assigned work, and if nessicary be able to tweak performance. If I wanted an action RPG then I'd load up something like "Torchlight".
I understand that a lot of people in the mainstream are going to like the changes to "Dragon Age", I just don't think it's a better RPG for them. What's more I'll be honest in saying that I find it odd that Bioware seems sort of intent on mis-representing things. I wonder if it's because they are trying to convince themselves that they aren't selling out or something.
A company mis-represent itself? What am I talking about? Well, it's quite simple. When we first had "Hawke" mentioned Bioware presented it as feelers, to see if the fanbase were willing to accept such a character. The result was pretty negative, not just here on The Escapist, but also on Bioware's own forums. Oh sure, like anything some people did like the idea, but most responses were along the likes of flat out "bad move" or "Meh, but I'll trust Bioware". I understand that one of the big techniques of marketing is to try and create the audience you want, if you hype something enough, and act like EVERYBODY thinks something, or likes something, then people not wanting to be left out will all gradually change to like something... I don't articulate it well, but it's sort of like a psychological self-fulfilling prophecy. Hype is a powerful force. Sadly, I'm less than enthusiastic about seeing Bioware resorting to this technique, by acting like only a minority of people dislike their changes, when I've seen the opposite with my own eyes. Perhaps they will create the audience they want to some extent, but that doesn't mean they actually had a massive positive reaction.
I'm one of a lot of people who pretty much thinks Bioware is losing it, because when they sent out a feeler like that, and then didn't respond to the feedback they got when they didn't like what they were hearing it's never a good sign. God forbid, if Dragon Age 2 actually DOES succeed on a massive scale we'll probably see more of the same behavior.
On a final note I'll also say that the stuff about voice acting and the protaganist is a load of hooie. See, one of the big things being said here is that by not having a self-generated character it enables them to have a voiced protaganist. That's not true, you CAN have a fully voiced protaganist with character generation, it simply involves having more than one actor read the script, and letting the player choose the voice they want to use. The game "Saint's Row 2" demonstrated this a few years ago, if they did it with that game (full voicing for all cinematics by multiple actors and actresses) the same could be done with Hawke. Thus there is no reason why you couldn't have Hawke be the last name (or a bestowed pseudonym as part of the story) and let people choose whatever first name, race, etc... they want. There is no reason why Hawke shouldn't be able to be an Elf or a Dwarf for example. The stated reason for making him a human (with a simple choice of gender) is the voice acting, but really it's to simplify things, and to do so by removing one of the aspects that made the first "Dragon Age" game cool to begin with.
Heck, I'll also be blunt... with current voice synthetizers and such I also see no real reason why you couldn't pick a surname/what the characters call you in the game as well. I mean back with the Commodore 64 I had voice synthetizers that could speak phonetically in a very crude voice. I've seen demonstrations of audio modification and remixing technology that can fake entire conversations and the like. There is no real reason why they couldn't let you pick a name, have the game read it phoneticaly and then simply synthetize it into the voice tracks of the various cinematics in the voice of the speaking actor. The technology apparently exists, I mean heck today both audio and video records are in constant doubt because they can be faked so easily.
Right now I'm taking a "wait and see" attitude with "Dragon Age 2". I'm honestly not sure if I'm going to buy this one, because I'm just not sure if I'm going to enjoy it, especially given the quality of the first game which I'm going to wind up inevitably comparing it to. Some people will probably be thinking "OMG Theru, that's your loss you'll miss out on a game that will really rock", but in all honesty I'm not sure if that's true. Being able to pause the action aside, when I hear "fast paced, active combat" it hardly brings images of a stat based RPG to mind. If I want an action RPG like that, I can just go rev up Demon's Souls or whatever, there are action-RPGs up the wazoo nowadays. The point of this franchise was to have a REAL, back to the basics, number-crunching RPG sword and spell fest in a pretty typical fantasy world, without bright surrealistic colors and the like (we have Final Fantasy and JRPGs for that). While they can be cool (in Final Fantasy) all they need to do to really deep six "Dragon Age 2" from what I've been hearing so far is to reveal an emo companion dressed in bondage straps and zippers with a gun, oversized sword, or a gun and oversized sword combined.
Understand, "Dragon Age: Origins" was awesome because it did the typical sword and sorcery thing very well. In a day and age when EVERYONE is simultaneously "breaking away from the stereotypes" it's refreshing to see someone that can turn out a good, high quality, elves & orcs RPG game. "Dragon Age: Origins" was cool because while fairly shallow it was one of the few big games in a long time that felt like an actual RPG, rather than handing me some pre-made protaganist like in a Final Fantasy game, it let me make my own character. While limited the stats ultimatly meant something and there are a sense of progression, some abillities were better than others, but nothing was useless, and finding out what everything could be used for was kind of fun, especially with the spells as some very "meh" seeming spells turned out to be quite effective and powerful.
To be honest the lengthy wind up animations and turn based "invisible die rolling" was part of the appeal. That's what an RPG is supposed to be like. I want control and to see the numbers working, not some kind of fast paced pseudo-action game, I want to see how the things I assigned work, and if nessicary be able to tweak performance. If I wanted an action RPG then I'd load up something like "Torchlight".
I understand that a lot of people in the mainstream are going to like the changes to "Dragon Age", I just don't think it's a better RPG for them. What's more I'll be honest in saying that I find it odd that Bioware seems sort of intent on mis-representing things. I wonder if it's because they are trying to convince themselves that they aren't selling out or something.
A company mis-represent itself? What am I talking about? Well, it's quite simple. When we first had "Hawke" mentioned Bioware presented it as feelers, to see if the fanbase were willing to accept such a character. The result was pretty negative, not just here on The Escapist, but also on Bioware's own forums. Oh sure, like anything some people did like the idea, but most responses were along the likes of flat out "bad move" or "Meh, but I'll trust Bioware". I understand that one of the big techniques of marketing is to try and create the audience you want, if you hype something enough, and act like EVERYBODY thinks something, or likes something, then people not wanting to be left out will all gradually change to like something... I don't articulate it well, but it's sort of like a psychological self-fulfilling prophecy. Hype is a powerful force. Sadly, I'm less than enthusiastic about seeing Bioware resorting to this technique, by acting like only a minority of people dislike their changes, when I've seen the opposite with my own eyes. Perhaps they will create the audience they want to some extent, but that doesn't mean they actually had a massive positive reaction.
I'm one of a lot of people who pretty much thinks Bioware is losing it, because when they sent out a feeler like that, and then didn't respond to the feedback they got when they didn't like what they were hearing it's never a good sign. God forbid, if Dragon Age 2 actually DOES succeed on a massive scale we'll probably see more of the same behavior.
On a final note I'll also say that the stuff about voice acting and the protaganist is a load of hooie. See, one of the big things being said here is that by not having a self-generated character it enables them to have a voiced protaganist. That's not true, you CAN have a fully voiced protaganist with character generation, it simply involves having more than one actor read the script, and letting the player choose the voice they want to use. The game "Saint's Row 2" demonstrated this a few years ago, if they did it with that game (full voicing for all cinematics by multiple actors and actresses) the same could be done with Hawke. Thus there is no reason why you couldn't have Hawke be the last name (or a bestowed pseudonym as part of the story) and let people choose whatever first name, race, etc... they want. There is no reason why Hawke shouldn't be able to be an Elf or a Dwarf for example. The stated reason for making him a human (with a simple choice of gender) is the voice acting, but really it's to simplify things, and to do so by removing one of the aspects that made the first "Dragon Age" game cool to begin with.
Heck, I'll also be blunt... with current voice synthetizers and such I also see no real reason why you couldn't pick a surname/what the characters call you in the game as well. I mean back with the Commodore 64 I had voice synthetizers that could speak phonetically in a very crude voice. I've seen demonstrations of audio modification and remixing technology that can fake entire conversations and the like. There is no real reason why they couldn't let you pick a name, have the game read it phoneticaly and then simply synthetize it into the voice tracks of the various cinematics in the voice of the speaking actor. The technology apparently exists, I mean heck today both audio and video records are in constant doubt because they can be faked so easily.
Right now I'm taking a "wait and see" attitude with "Dragon Age 2". I'm honestly not sure if I'm going to buy this one, because I'm just not sure if I'm going to enjoy it, especially given the quality of the first game which I'm going to wind up inevitably comparing it to. Some people will probably be thinking "OMG Theru, that's your loss you'll miss out on a game that will really rock", but in all honesty I'm not sure if that's true. Being able to pause the action aside, when I hear "fast paced, active combat" it hardly brings images of a stat based RPG to mind. If I want an action RPG like that, I can just go rev up Demon's Souls or whatever, there are action-RPGs up the wazoo nowadays. The point of this franchise was to have a REAL, back to the basics, number-crunching RPG sword and spell fest in a pretty typical fantasy world, without bright surrealistic colors and the like (we have Final Fantasy and JRPGs for that). While they can be cool (in Final Fantasy) all they need to do to really deep six "Dragon Age 2" from what I've been hearing so far is to reveal an emo companion dressed in bondage straps and zippers with a gun, oversized sword, or a gun and oversized sword combined.
Not sure what I like better about Bioware: the fact that they make great games, or the fact they actually try to make them better when they slap a 2 on the cover (a design philosophy that seems to be a rarity in say, FPS game design..)
Gosh, dislike over the changes much? anyway, I get how people want a return to the Baldur's gate era of RPGs (BG II being one of the best games of all time IMHO, this is from someone who played it only just this year.)
But, I can't say Bioware is actually messing up the formula here, they're just tweaking it a bit to work with our modern day game engines. yeah BG-esque games were great, but it was never because of the game mechanics (so long as they aren't like getting your eye poked out), at least not for me: for me it was pretending to be a Drow warrior in their capital city, dutifully carrying out tasks for the cruel Priestesses while walking around watching the day to day life of these entirely alien people. In a word: environment. If DA II can get that, then it will have a home on my shelf, even if I have to run it at a miserable 10-15 FPS like I did with DA I >.<
Gosh, dislike over the changes much? anyway, I get how people want a return to the Baldur's gate era of RPGs (BG II being one of the best games of all time IMHO, this is from someone who played it only just this year.)
But, I can't say Bioware is actually messing up the formula here, they're just tweaking it a bit to work with our modern day game engines. yeah BG-esque games were great, but it was never because of the game mechanics (so long as they aren't like getting your eye poked out), at least not for me: for me it was pretending to be a Drow warrior in their capital city, dutifully carrying out tasks for the cruel Priestesses while walking around watching the day to day life of these entirely alien people. In a word: environment. If DA II can get that, then it will have a home on my shelf, even if I have to run it at a miserable 10-15 FPS like I did with DA I >.<
I am totally excited for this game.
God-dammit. That's exactly the problem I kept having in DA:O and Mass Effect.Susan Arendt said:
Did anyone play Dragon Age on Hard or Nightmare without changing it for an entire playthough? There are just some fights that kick my ass, embarrassing me on easy at times (Gaxkang, the High Dragon, Flemeth). Whoever did complete the entire game, without mods and without changing the difficulty at any point, on Nightmare: I owe you a beer.
Well I see some good changes, but they took my favorite part of the game out - the origins. I played the first one as a dwarf and now I'm forced to play as a human. Also, I loved the conversation system it made you DESIDE and not just say the nice of the mean thing all the time, and then there is the whole thing of your companions wont leave I think that is kind of well dumb. While I never had one of mine leave I had to live with that in precaution. I'm still getting it but I'm skeptical, but please next time let me be a dwarf again please. It feels they dumbed it down when it didn't need it
What a horribly wonderful thread, it is the greatest story ever told. Its full of so many wonderful emotions. You can really feel how passionate everyone is about this topic. The sub-plot regarding Dragon Age II is pretty boring though, really drags the narrative down.
Hahahahah...I come back to this thread and lo and behold the number of proud debunkers that just have to express their dissapointment continues to rise, thinking they know how everything works and how they have to tell 'the truth' (tm) about Bioware sucking with namecalling like "Bio-tards" *shakes head and has a good long chuckle about it*
The 'old guard' thinking they know best for everyone and calling all dissenters 'sheep'. It reminds me of this scene, really it does. Whereas all I'm thinking of is Keanu's last lines in the clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVQ6Qp7DPnU
The 'old guard' thinking they know best for everyone and calling all dissenters 'sheep'. It reminds me of this scene, really it does. Whereas all I'm thinking of is Keanu's last lines in the clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVQ6Qp7DPnU
hang on wait, so do you create your own character like in mass effect...cos that beard has looked bloody awfull in every demo preview I have seen of this game...
and I want to be an elf still
and I want to be an elf still
It DID. Omg, I was appalled and confused at the graphics. And I had just finished another playthrough of ME. My father was even pissed at how bad the graphics were (and blamed it on EA but I won't go there). I could tell what things were, but I won't pretend I wasn't disappointed with how stiff and brown everything looked. Especially after being wowed away by ME. I didn't care that it took a bit longer for the background to load. The scenery porn was justification enough.Susan Arendt said:
I can't wait! I have eighty dollars in my little piggy bank, a tent, and a sleeping bag just waiting for the night before March 8th. I'm totally getting this as soon as it comes out, grades be damned.
Thank you for the heads up. Now my lip will be forever bleeding from the anticipation.
AsurasFinest said:
Strike one...... you're in there.You see the limited prove my point for me...I said I knew that I CAME OFF "superior".. NOT that I was, you make me out to be congratulating my self, which is a horribly simple, and limited way at looking at my comments, Do you really propose that there aren't people who have an advantage in the form of the their accidental birth? Am I one of those people?.. It would be nice, but I CERTAINLY will say, I AM above average.... As for people being easily led, easily influenced, who prefer when given a choice to follow the pack and generally unable to think for themselves en masse.. which is what one means when they say 'sheep'... a likeness that has been used countless times by better people than I.. I'm utterly accurate on that.
you're inability to admit it, get over it and improve.. well, delusion is an ugly word to throw around, isn't it?... Refute what I say, put a logical arguement aganst the words that I've said.
Just moaning that you don't like what I've said doesn't really do much in favour of creating your own arguement.
Well I figured it out afterwards when friend told me. After Redcliff and Ashes I headed straight into Orzamar and managed to get by those mercenaries with few tries. Rest of the game felt pretty easy after that. Elven forest and mage tower? Big deal man I've killed golmes with my daggers...Woodsey said:
That new skill tree system looks really good. For archers and mages I really didn't want most of the stuff I got. I actually like all the improvements listed here, but I've never tired that wheel conversation so I'm a bit reserved against it.
To be honest mate... I have to agree with this guy.Fumbleumble said:
You seem very much to just be seeking attention, by being a contrarian.
There was another kind of person who watched Inception: The guy who saw it and loved it for being a great action movie that actually made you think to understand its plot. What movies do you like, exactly? From here it honestly sounds like the one and only form of entertainment you enjoy whatsoever is the old-school RPG you weep for the death of at the hands of us inferior sheep.
I don't know if you were trying to insult the majority of people in this thread, and indeed these boards, but you succeeded. You say that things with depth are less likely to appeal to the masses, so I ask you: define depth, with examples.
What you are is not some sort of infinitely wise god-being who is alone in understanding the greatness of old-school RPGs. You are not better than anyone else, as you seem to be implying. You're part of a cult - not as in the "religious cult" sense, but rather as in the "Red Dwarf has a cult fanbase" sense. And all the people not in your cult are not idiotic sheep, they're just people who hold a different opinion to you - a more common opinion.
You are demeaning the majority of people in the world, implying that you are more intelligent than them because you can "understand the greatness" of your favourite game genre. That's shallow; other people are not misguided for having a differing opinion to you.