Why the Dragon Age 2 hate is GOOD

[New Vegas Samurai]

Valid points there, and I totally agree...

but to add a little more bitchslap to this, the story was really REALLY rushed out for me, none of the characters were really only compelling save for varric, and they took out any sort of power of choice the player had!

sure there are defined endings in the game, but at the end of it all nothing was as free as Dage Origins....

I mean, they practically locked you out of ANY real decision, and your left with just two sides anyway.

Also, I don't like the hiding behind the reasoning that it's a more "personal story". Sure, it was well written, but I feel like there was a lot more to it, yet no time was given so that it could really take root.

The combat, while was a little better, is the only thing I can really commend because I'm tired of all the standard fare in RPGs nowadays. The game didn't totally blow balls, but it was NOT worthy of the high praise piled on it.

Overall, that's my bitchslap, and here's to hoping the dev team for ME3 don't make the same mistakes...

 

[mireko]

Bethesda: "Woah, did you see what happened to Bioware when they tried to release a crappy dumbed down rushed console sequel when the original was a deep classic PC RPG?? Let's make sure we don't do the same for Skyrim."

Obsidian Oblivion and DA:O = Deep classic PC RPGs?

Historical revisionism is alive and well, it seems.

EDIT: Wow, now that's a weird typo.

 

[viranimus]

OP I agree with your logic except one massive point. The notion that by bitching about it it will hurt EA financially and get them to put more effort into 3. Problem with that is that people already bought it. Thus from EAs perspective, they see change = profit.

 

[Elamdri]

Girl

Nice touch

one thing Im trying to say is, those people may not be giving suggestions with the game's best interests at mind. Dynasty Warriors, people often say its the same boring thing and they should change it. But I LOVE the way it is, and people want them to remove what I love from my second favorite game series.

Right, I get that. Now what I'm trying to say is, what if you're wrong? What if you're the only one who likes Dynasty Warriors the way it is? Why should you be the one who decides whether something stays the way it is or changes, just because you like how it is now?

We actually see this a lot in politics. Conservatives like how things are now, Liberals want to change things. Both sides argue that they're right, but really it's difficult for either side to actually claim that they are the ones who are right, since it can go either way.

What right do you have to stop someone from changing something you like because they dislike it?

What right do you have to change something you dislike that someone else likes?

Really, there is no good explanation, so we just usually run with Majority rule, which is more a justification rather than an explanation.

With game companies, it's always going to be whether something is going to be perceived well by the majority of gamers. If changing something is going to make Dynasty Warriors sell better, then the makers of Dynasty Warriors are going to doing it, whether or not the fans like it. It sucks for fans yeah, but you don't have a right to keep it the same.

I think this is a good analogy

Spoiler

 

[BlindChance]

I have to chime in with an agreement here.

Dragon Age 2 isn't totally horrible (I actually feel the combat is an overall improvement, although it needs better power scaling so that the lower levels are a bit more interesting and balanced) but it's terribly rushed. The characters are thinner, the resource reuse is awful, and ... yeah, it was just flat out bad. I'm afraid for ME3 now.

Bring on the hate. Hate can be good, when it's backed up with sane, intelligent argument.

 

[teebeeohh]

i dislike all the hate, i like the impact it will have but i do not like people insulting me left and right because i do enjoy the game despite all its flaws.

 

[Elamdri]

I believe he's referring to what amounts to a Black Ops player complaining about Assassin's Creed because it's not modern and isn't an fps, or whatever--essentially someone who had no serious interest in the original because it wasn't to his tastes, but would play the next game in the series if it were homogenized to whatever extent. Expanding your audience that way sounds nice on paper, but by doing this, you also turn your back on the people who actually cared about and enjoyed the first game as it was, even if it wasn't perfect. Improvements are one thing (see AC2 versus AC1), but improving it in such a way that the game takes a different direction (DA2 compared to DA:O) is something altogether different, and I think that's what Saelune was getting at.

I get what his point was; what I was getting at was what right does he or anyone have to dictate the direction of the game. Lets say that it would actually sell more copies of Assassin's Creed if they turned it into like a Medival Venitian FPS in the line of COD. Lets say that it pisses AC1 and AC2 fans off, but a ton of COD fans buy it and Ubisoft makes tons of money. What right do the AC fans have to keep the game the way it is. A developer would stab you in the back in a heartbeat if it would net them more money.

I guess what I'm getting as is why should the established fan base have more say than a potential fan base?

 

[Saelune]

Girl

Nice touch

one thing Im trying to say is, those people may not be giving suggestions with the game's best interests at mind. Dynasty Warriors, people often say its the same boring thing and they should change it. But I LOVE the way it is, and people want them to remove what I love from my second favorite game series.

Right, I get that. Now what I'm trying to say is, what if you're wrong? What if you're the only one who likes Dynasty Warriors the way it is? Why should you be the one who decides whether something stays the way it is or changes, just because you like how it is now?

We actually see this a lot in politics. Conservatives like how things are now, Liberals want to change things. Both sides argue that they're right, but really it's difficult for either side to actually claim that they are the ones who are right, since it can go either way.

What right do you have to stop someone from changing something you like because they dislike it?

What right do you have to change something you dislike that someone else likes?

Really, there is no good explanation, so we just usually run with Majority rule, which is more a justification rather than an explanation.

With game companies, it's always going to be whether something is going to be perceived well by the majority of gamers. If changing something is going to make Dynasty Warriors sell better, then the makers of Dynasty Warriors are going to doing it, whether or not the fans like it. It sucks for fans yeah, but you don't have a right to keep it the same.

I think this is a good analogy

Spoiler

You cant compair this to politics. May seem like you can, but you cant. Unlike games, different views in politics affects everyone. If I dont like a game, I just dont play it. However I am forced to deal with conservative bigots who dont want me to have all my rights.

As for the Dynasty Warrior thing, I know because I know other fans, which there are far greater than youd think. Plus, I buy the games. I continue to buy them because they are the way they are. Also, Dynasty Warrior 6, which changed alot, well, its also one of the most hated games of the series. I know because I am part of its fan community.

 

[Saelune]

Fine. Remove the word real from in front of fan. Point still stands. Really I mean by real fan as someone who is a fan, compared to a fake fan being someone giving improvements for a game they don't even like.
So really, it is you who is missing the point, my point.

1. I could care less about your point I was just being a philosophical nazi and you tripped one of my buttons. Sorry.

2. To address your point anyway: Why is it that someone who doesn't enjoy something can't criticize something or offer suggestions for improvement? It's strange, (and I'm not picking on you here, this is indicitive of society as a whole) but for some reason, people who enjoy something have this bizarre belief that people who criticize what they enjoy have no right to do so. I mean, if you look at a song for example on Youtube, if you see someone who expresses displeasure at what the song is, instantly everyone else jumps on them and starts telling them to leave if they don't enjoy it. What's strange is that it makes no logical sense to exclude people who don't enjoy something from commenting on whatever it is they don't enjoy. What if they actually have a way to improve it? What if it turns out there way of thinking is better? What if it turns out that while you think you don' like their idea, in reality you would like it, you're just unwilling to give it a try? What if the people who dislike something outnumber the people who like it? What right does the minority have to suppress the will of the majority (Honestly this goes both ways, but it's a perfectly fair argument)?

Food for thought

From what I understand, he didn't mean that, to put it in terms of Dragon Age, only people who loved Dragon Age 1 should have had input on Dragon Age 2. I believe he's referring to what amounts to a Black Ops player complaining about Assassin's Creed because it's not modern and isn't an fps, or whatever--essentially someone who had no serious interest in the original because it wasn't to his tastes, but would play the next game in the series if it were homogenized to whatever extent. Expanding your audience that way sounds nice on paper, but by doing this, you also turn your back on the people who actually cared about and enjoyed the first game as it was, even if it wasn't perfect. Improvements are one thing (see AC2 versus AC1), but improving it in such a way that the game takes a different direction (DA2 compared to DA:O) is something altogether different, and I think that's what Saelune was getting at.

You mean she...

 

[Smooth Operator]

TLDR version: if they're going to hijack IPs for mass consumption AND rush them out the door with no concern for quality, it's up to the community to call them on that shit. They do that stuff because it makes them more money. If a bunch of nasty word-of-mouth and user-reviews puts a big enough dent in their sales, there's a chance they might not pull that bs on their future projects. Even if you love DA2, you have to acknowledge that it represents some pretty negative trends in this industry. Flying in the face of those trends means more good games for all of us.

Bingo.
Clearly EA is pushing DA to become another shoddy yearly stamp out, and DA2 really suffers for it immensely.
But if the players won't complain and just eat up all the shit then EA will keep doing it.
Story based RPG's take time to flesh out and unless people want the DA franchise to get butchered they need to step up and say something.

 

[Sabiancym]

Bethesda: "Woah, did you see what happened to Bioware when they tried to release a crappy dumbed down rushed console sequel when the original was a deep classic PC RPG?? Let's make sure we don't do the same for Skyrim."

Obsidian Oblivion and DA:O = Deep classic PC RPGs?

Historical revisionism is alive and well, it seems.

Deeper than current RPGs and definitely a throwback to Baldurs gate.

 

[Sabiancym]

OP I agree with your logic except one massive point. The notion that by bitching about it it will hurt EA financially and get them to put more effort into 3. Problem with that is that people already bought it. Thus from EAs perspective, they see change = profit.

No, they haven't.

The sales for this game are not good for the type of game it is.

Mass effect 2 essentially doubled the amount of sales Mass Effect 1 did in the first couple of weeks.

DA2 is selling about on Par with what DA:O sold in the first couple of weeks.


That's pretty bad.

 

[Murmillos]

I just hope that some of the hatred that Homefront has gotten for its crappy, rushed single player mode slops over onto the CoD franchise. It pisses me off that these smaller IP get called out on stuff that larger franchises have essentially made "industry standard"

I mean don't get me wrong. I do not expect it to really affect CoDs sales but a little less fanboyism and accepting of its bullshit in the next games reviews would be nice.

Well, Homefront had what what was coming to it. I mean they just could not shut up about how "fucking awesome" their plot was. While they didn't say it, they literally promised an epic campaign. Its what they were showing off, it was expected from them and they didn't deliver - that is why Homefront got called out on that. Granted it is still doing decently well from what I understand.

CoD on the other hand has had no problem showing up as the "online only" type of game for the past few revisions. They promise nothing more then the best online gaming experience they they deliver on that. If you are looking for a engrossing single player game, CoD makes its clearly known that they are not the game you are looking for - that's why really nobody cares.

 

[Elamdri]

You cant compair this to politics. May seem like you can, but you cant. Unlike games, different views in politics affects everyone. If I dont like a game, I just dont play it. However I am forced to deal with conservative bigots who dont want me to have all my rights.

As for the Dynasty Warrior thing, I know because I know other fans, which there are far greater than youd think. Plus, I buy the games. I continue to buy them because they are the way they are. Also, Dynasty Warrior 6, which changed alot, well, its also one of the most hated games of the series. I know because I am part of its fan community.

Understand, I'm talking in hypotheticals and abstracts here. Obviously gaming communities are pretty tight knit and if a developer changes something, they're going to be unhappy. The point I was trying to make though is what logical explanation is there for giving an established fan base more say over anyone else? Certainly there are plenty of justifications, but as for explanations, I am not so sure.

 

[mireko]

I just hope that some of the hatred that Homefront has gotten for its crappy, rushed single player mode slops over onto the CoD franchise. It pisses me off that these smaller IP get called out on stuff that larger franchises have essentially made "industry standard"

I mean don't get me wrong. I do not expect it to really affect CoDs sales but a little less fanboyism and accepting of its bullshit in the next games reviews would be nice.

I doubt that'll happen until Activision stops *oiling* critics:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/11/call-of-duty-black-ops-review-event-press-gifts-detailed.ars

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

People have a right to complain about DA2 if they don't think it's up to scratch what really bothers me forum wise is that there seems to be about 6 new threads about it everyday. Some of the old ones aren't even off the front page. Just post in the old threads maybe? Then it would be less annoying.

 

[Saelune]

You cant compair this to politics. May seem like you can, but you cant. Unlike games, different views in politics affects everyone. If I dont like a game, I just dont play it. However I am forced to deal with conservative bigots who dont want me to have all my rights.

As for the Dynasty Warrior thing, I know because I know other fans, which there are far greater than youd think. Plus, I buy the games. I continue to buy them because they are the way they are. Also, Dynasty Warrior 6, which changed alot, well, its also one of the most hated games of the series. I know because I am part of its fan community.

Understand, I'm talking in hypotheticals and abstracts here. Obviously gaming communities are pretty tight knit and if a developer changes something, they're going to be unhappy. The point I was trying to make though is what logical explanation is there for giving an established fan base more say over anyone else? Certainly there are plenty of justifications, but as for explanations, I am not so sure.

Well, on a purely buisness point, as I said before, we buy the games. If you want to sell the game, then people buy it, why ignore their view in favor of people who dont want to buy it? Now, you could say, to get them to buy it, but thats a gamble. What if you change it, but still dont attract them? Now you also lose the people who liked it before too. If Koei wants me to keep buying their DW games, improve them without making them different games. So far, its working, and I actually think Koei is good at making sequals. The new one, 7, has tons of improvements, while still haveing all the stuff I love.
If you really want to have the best of both though, then make different games. Im not completly hateful of change, but you dont need to stop doing one thing to do another. Another game series I love because its the same style, The Elder Scrolls, I would hate for say, Skyrim, to all of a sudden be something other than an open-world RPG. Now, if they wanted to make a different game, an Elder Scroll game thats an RTS, that could be cool, but not if I will have that INSTEAD of Skyrim. Give me that AND Skyrim. (Yes, I understand not every dev can, but usually the ones who cant dont have an established fan base for something and this argument doesnt apply anyways)