Preview: What's New in Dragon Age II

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

He found "Normal" hard? Weird...

Fumbleumble:

You see needless complexity and a high horse... I see depth and a sidelined opinion.

.. see here we go again.. you say 'people' are happy.. I say the 'masses' are happy... where they NEVER were before... so something has changed, and quite significantly at that.

BTW.. don't get start getting sniipy 'cos you think you have a more valid opinion than mine... ...(edited)...

And I'm neither in the mood to let it pass... or get banned... so keep it nice.

You point of view isn't more valid to you than mine is to me.. and so far in the thread no one has managed to give even partial justification why it's better this new way, apart from that it appeals to more people... then the arguement just gets circular all over again.

It's immpossible to argue seriously over whether or not its better now. I think it is, but thats simply because the current RPGs suit me better.

All I was trying to say is that if something is unpopular its normally because most people don't enjoy it, not because they are too stupid to understand it.

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.

Fumbleumble:

DSK-:
I wasn't overly excited when I saw the combat demonstration video released last week, but reading this has made a slight tad of hope to recoup within me.

I'm still not too sure if pre-ordering it was a good idea. I'll reserve judgement for when I play it.

If I may ask..

What was it you saw that turned you off?.. and what did you read that changed your mind?

Of course you may!

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 :D

blue_guy:

Fumbleumble:

You see needless complexity and a high horse... I see depth and a sidelined opinion.

.. see here we go again.. you say 'people' are happy.. I say the 'masses' are happy... where they NEVER were before... so something has changed, and quite significantly at that.

BTW.. don't get start getting sniipy 'cos you think you have a more valid opinion than mine... ...(edited)...

And I'm neither in the mood to let it pass... or get banned... so keep it nice.

You point of view isn't more valid to you than mine is to me.. and so far in the thread no one has managed to give even partial justification why it's better this new way, apart from that it appeals to more people... then the arguement just gets circular all over again.

It's immpossible to argue seriously over whether or not its better now. I think it is, but thats simply because the current RPGs suit me better.

All I was trying to say is that if something is unpopular its normally because most people don't enjoy it, not because they are too stupid to understand it.

Well all I can do is illustrate from experience.

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.

DSK-:

Fumbleumble:

DSK-:
I wasn't overly excited when I saw the combat demonstration video released last week, but reading this has made a slight tad of hope to recoup within me.

I'm still not too sure if pre-ordering it was a good idea. I'll reserve judgement for when I play it.

If I may ask..

What was it you saw that turned you off?.. and what did you read that changed your mind?

Of course you may!

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 :D

I agree with you about that video.

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.

Another blow to old school PC and RPG players who liked a lot of the stuff they're changing.
Shed a tear, brothers.

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 >.<

I am totally excited for this game.

Susan Arendt:
(During my playthrough, I wanted to just tell someone I thought they were cute and ended up inviting them to bed, but flirting is open to all manner of interpretation, I suppose.)

God-dammit. That's exactly the problem I kept having in DA:O and Mass Effect.

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.

Hmm...looks awesome but a tad worried now. Not sure how much freedom is going to be restricted here. Mass effect series was awesome, but I never really could 'role-play' as Shepherd, because Shepherd is , well, Shepherd

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.

So the most over-rated RPG of 2009 (maybe this gen?) gets a sequel.

Whoop-dee-do!

DA:O left a horrible first impression and Bioware's many peanut gallery comments this year have pretty much sunk them for me. Excellent work guys!

What amuses me is that DA:O was just SO GOOD (to quote the many Bioware fanboys {or Bio-tards}) that they needed to overhaul and/or fix just about every facet of the game. Hilarious!

My 2011 was made with the announcement of TES5 anyway.
After the travesty that was DA:O, Bioware gets no more cash from me, ever.

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

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 :(

Susan Arendt:

Khushal:
''Even on the Xbox 360''... - Oh lord, take cover, the trolls! they are coming!

OT: At first I was worried that the new dialouge would simplyfy the game and remove some of it's roleplay element, but to actually know exactly what you are saying sounds like an improvement... I am officially even more psyched

I don't think even the biggest 360 fanboy can deny that Dragon Age looked like crap on both it and the PS3. I didn't even know the dog was an actual dog (as opposed to some dog-like creature) until I saw the game on the PC.

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.

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:

Fumbleumble:

blue_guy:

It's immpossible to argue seriously over whether or not its better now. I think it is, but thats simply because the current RPGs suit me better.

All I was trying to say is that if something is unpopular its normally because most people don't enjoy it, not because they are too stupid to understand it.

Well all I can do is illustrate from experience.

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.

Everything you just said was junk, everything you have said was junk
Any legitimate point you might bring, is ruined by the fact that your just raving at anything and anyone for some sort of attention
Your the type of idiot who insults people (calling people sheep, saying your superior. Seriously that is hilarious to see how big your ego is and how deluded you are), but then acts like a wounded puppy when its turned right back on him, not understanding why he's been spanked and put in the corner

:( 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.

Woodsey:

Seneschal:

Woodsey:
When was the difficulty balance "way off"?

Well yeah, some areas are set for higher level characters so you have to go back to them later.

Did people not know that?

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...

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.

Fumbleumble:
Praise be to the holy snip, hallowed be his glorious name

To be honest mate... I have to agree with this guy.

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.

Fumbleumble:

s0m3th1ng:

Fumbleumble:
And I haven't even started on the dumbass gameplay.....

Marry me.
Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and ME2 were boring piles of shiny crap with "storylines" the length of the asteroid belt. It felt like a chore to slog through the endless linear corridors.

We're a dying breed... they're killing our games and we can't do a damned thing about it except for bitch on boards and piss off the insecure.

There's still many players who want deep gameplay, but we're getting pushed out of the WRPG scene and have to find our new pet in games like HoMM, King's Bounty, maybe the occasional decent SRPG on finding it's way to the west on a handheld, or even pure strategy games.

I never saw the much reason to get upset about the stories in RPGs though, seeing as they're nearly all bad and gameplay is what it's all about. Do you keep getting disappointed again and again for 11 years since Planescape, or have you lowered your standards?
Ofcourse there's degrees of bad ranging from a weak plot propped up by nice dialogues (Bloodlines) to alround mediocrity (Dragon Age) to a mere premise + godawful monologues (Oblivion) or the incomprehensibly shitty (Final Fantasy).

We should talk more about the dumbass gameplay.
We can also buy the few decent games in our alley. Let the industry know were still in the market for deep gameplay and that this may be a better niche than everyone competing with the same shit over the lowest common denominator.

veloper:

Fumbleumble:

s0m3th1ng:

Marry me.
Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and ME2 were boring piles of shiny crap with "storylines" the length of the asteroid belt. It felt like a chore to slog through the endless linear corridors.

We're a dying breed... they're killing our games and we can't do a damned thing about it except for bitch on boards and piss off the insecure.

There's still many players who want deep gameplay, but we're getting pushed out of the WRPG scene and have to find our new pet in games like HoMM, King's Bounty, maybe the occasional decent SRPG on finding it's way to the west on a handheld, or even pure strategy games.

I never saw the much reason to get upset about the stories in RPGs though, seeing as they're nearly all bad and gameplay is what it's all about. Do you keep getting disappointed again and again for 11 years since Planescape, or have you lowered your standards?
Ofcourse there's degrees of bad ranging from a weak plot propped up by nice dialogues (Bloodlines) to alround mediocrity (Dragon Age) to a mere premise + godawful monologues (Oblivion) or the incomprehensibly shitty (Final Fantasy).

We should talk more about the dumbass gameplay.
We can also buy the few decent games in our alley. Let the industry know were still in the market for deep gameplay and that this may be a better niche than everyone competing with the same shit over the lowest common denominator.

heh. I can't do more that I do, I've been known to drop a mail to comapanies stating my points and I talk at length as loudly as I can get away with at any opportunity.. maybe one day :/

Will I ever lower my standards?.. NEVER, I would rather rail ineffectively for the rest of my days than capitulate or compromise my standards of excellence.

As for being on the look out for older/ different games that meet my standards, I always do... I'm urrently working though GOG's catalogue, they have some good ones.

OhJohnNo:

Fumbleumble:
Praise be to the holy snip, hallowed be his glorious name

To be honest mate... I have to agree with this guy.

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.

I think you messed up your quotes :)

You say you agree, quote me for something I didn't say, then disagree with me. :/

It's not my intention to insult anyone, but if the cap fits.

Is it a FACT, that stuff that interests me isn't 'mainstream'.. YES, is it a fact, that GENERALLY the stuff the mainstream likes doesn't appeal to me .. yes.. you can't agrue with that.

Then you say about 'cult' trying to twist what I say to make it fit with your agenda of telling me what I really mean.. when you don't seem to understand at all. :/

..and here's a shocker.. if the masses intelligence WERE actually as valid as powerful as a few who are at the top of the pile, and I'm not going to say who that few does actually includes..... then the world wouldn't be the pigshit mess that it is. The problems would have been spotted long ago, as certain people have done and have tried to make a difference, and people would have stood up to do something, fully secure in their understanding of the problems.

But they don't.. they bury their heads, claim not be be responsible and generally get on with their disconnected lives, hoping that someone else will take them by the hand and sort out their ever increasing mess for them..... Does that sound very intelligent to you?

As for a truly deep movie, one with complexity that has a point, where it's complexity IS the plot, instead of being a device used to confuse and fudge the issue? one that has something to say and does so uncompromisingly?... Primer, go watch it.. then rush back and tell me how crap you thought it was. :/

EDIT.. Actually, can we get over this particular rut we've fallen into and go back to the topic at hand... I don't particularly want this thread closed and it will be if people continue to say nmothing except defend their hurt feelings, and by getting all bent out of shape about it kinda just makes it sound as if my comments are valid to you and you don't like it. :/

If all that I'm saying really just are deluded rambling, which it is your absolute right to have that opinion, then prove you hold the high gound by laughing it off and ignoring my irrelevence.

If it can be kept on track, the thread still has a few things to say.

"Was the default setting, especially on PC, too hard? Yeah," admits Laidlaw. "'Normal' felt more like 'Hard' to me."

This was a FUCKING GOOD THING! Piss easy mode off entirely, I want my RPG's ball breakingly hard. I don't want to discuss them with people who breezed through in 15hrs...... because they are idiots (*cough* console players).

The tactical side of combat returns, allowing you to pause the game and form a cohesive plan based on your current party, but the quick pace of fights has been ramped up for those favoring a more action-oriented combat style. Combat in Origins often got bogged down by fighting animations - rather than actually throwing a spell or shooting an arrow, a character would go through a big windup and then, eventually, get around to actually doing whatever it was you they were commanded to do. According to Laidlaw, BioWare wanted the fighting in DA2 to feel more immediate and less like "some invisible person rolling D20s behind the scenes."

Bullshit.... this sounds like God of War territory to me.... I BET there is quick time events as well....

The design team also decided to inject a bit of common sense into the combat. "If you're a mage, and you're carrying around this big stick, why can't you hit someone with it?" asks Laidlaw, pointing out that ranged combatants, like mages and archers, had little recourse when the fighting got up close and personal. Now, rogues and mages also have melee attacks - not particularly strong ones, but certainly better than just standing there and getting socked in the face.

You're a squishie mage yeah you gonna get punched in the face..... awwww this is just retarded.....

Sounds to me like they're removing most of the things I enjoyed about Dragon Age :/

Developers these days seem absolutely determined to eradicate any shred of user investment or imagination in RPGs; I LIKE silent protagonists with a large variety of text-based responses, first because they let ME decide what my character sounds like, and second because all-voiced systems clearly suffer in the amount of dialogue available. I LIKE "old" game mechanics like managing inventory items, planning skill choices and stats well in advance to get the late-game character I want, and I LIKE slower more thoughtful combat.

Dragon Age was supposed to be for US. For oldschool PC RPG players, and yet-a-fucking-gain it's being dumbed down for consoles. And don't try and bullshit otherwise, the entire interview was littered with "now it will be better on Xbox". I'm a little sad that Bioware is turning into yet another money-whore, dumbed-down, console-slave developer.

Cuy'vul Dar:
Sure is EA/Sony defence force in The Escapists staff. I know it's hard to try and swallow, but it's true, EA has been Sonys loyal little dog this last time. Who do you think it was that convinced Valve to release Portal 2 on PS3? EA. Who do you think it was that convinced DICE to develop Bad Company 2 with the PS3 as its main platform? EA. Who do you think it was that convinced Bioware to release Mass Effect 2 on the PS3? EA. The facts are obvious, yeah, I used "naughty words" to describe it, but it's true none the less.

you're... really making it sound worse than what you're saying. so EA is putting more games on ps3; whats the problem?

Fumbleumble:

OhJohnNo:

Fumbleumble:
Praise be to the holy snip, hallowed be his glorious name

To be honest mate... I have to agree with this guy.

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.

I think you messed up your quotes :)

You say you agree, quote me for something I didn't say, then disagree with me. :/

It's not my intention to insult anyone, but if the cap fits.

Is it a FACT, that stuff that interests me isn't 'mainstream'.. YES, is it a fact, that GENERALLY the stuff the mainstream likes doesn't appeal to me .. yes.. you can't agrue with that.

Then you say about 'cult' trying to twist what I say to make it fit with your agenda of telling me what I really mean.. when you don't seem to understand at all. :/

..and here's a shocker.. if the masses intelligence WERE actually as valid as powerful as a few who are at the top of the pile, and I'm not going to say who that few does actually includes..... then the world wouldn't be the pigshit mess that it is. The problems would have been spotted long ago, as certain people have done and have tried to make a difference, and people would have stood up to do something, fully secure in their understanding of the problems.

But they don't.. they bury their heads, claim not be be responsible and generally get on with their disconnected lives, hoping that someone else will take them by the hand and sort out their ever increasing mess for them..... Does that sound very intelligent to you?

As for a truly deep movie, one with complexity that has a point, where it's complexity IS the plot, instead of being a device used to confuse and fudge the issue? one that has something to say and does so uncompromisingly?... Primer, go watch it.. then rush back and tell me how crap you thought it was. :/

EDIT.. Actually, can we get over this particular rut we've fallen into and go back to the topic at hand... I don't particularly want this thread closed and it will be if people continue to say nmothing except defend their hurt feelings, and by getting all bent out of shape about it kinda just makes it sound as if my comments are valid to you and you don't like it. :/

If all that I'm saying really just are deluded rambling, which it is your absolute right to have that opinion, then prove you hold the high gound by laughing it off and ignoring my irrelevence.

If it can be kept on track, the thread still has a few things to say.

I think you have a point with that edit. I could construct a massive argument and piss us both off, but this thread does have a topic and we're kinda straying off it (though to be fair, it was pretty much your fault at the beginning...).

And also, I didn't exactly mess up my quotes, I just was a bit silly and decided I'd pick the wrong post to quote. So yeah, I messed up my quotes, but not in the "press the wrong button" sense.

Mypetmonkey:

"Was the default setting, especially on PC, too hard? Yeah," admits Laidlaw. "'Normal' felt more like 'Hard' to me."

This was a FUCKING GOOD THING! Piss easy mode off entirely, I want my RPG's ball breakingly hard. I don't want to discuss them with people who breezed through in 15hrs...... because they are idiots (*cough* console players).

Elitist much? Seriously, get over yourself.

OT: Looks really good. I've always prefered Dragon Age to Mass Effect, so I'm quite pumped up for this one.

Fumbleumble:
Don't care..

Everyone trots out the same tired old BS about Bioware's 'excellent' writing....

Well I say you're all just sheep bleating away and that you wouldn't know HONESTLY good writing if it bit you on the arse.

Bioware's spewings are the same crap reguritated again and again, there isn't an 'original' story in the entire house.

GOOD writing is tight, cohesive and logical, with twists here and there.... Bioware has none of that any longer and haven't had since Jade Empire and that was truly the end of it and it's been sketchy at best since BGII.

Good ISN'T pages and pages of turgidly dry backstory that hopes to beat you down with the sheer amount of irrelevence, and Bioware is now all of that... DA is just the same story they've been telling since BG1... the stage is the same, they just messed around with some of the players backstory. Is no-one surprised they're not sick and tired trotting out the same old wretched fantasy offering, because I'm CERTAINLY sick of the same crap over and over again.. Big evil rears it's head, only one man can stop it and on the way he makes some friends.. Is Bioware really unable to think of another senario? REALLY?.. and DA2 looks more of the same, but this time you don't even get make your own character o.O.

And the less said about the mish mash of broken ends, contradictions and plot holes that CONTINUES to be ME, the better. The first sets a good stage, they fire the writer.. the second goes off at a tangent, taking your char down paths that weren't even cosistant with the char of the first and NOW for the third they can't even stick to the rules for the big bad that they set in the first, good grief it was only a few years agao.. didn't they READ what they were writing?... WAAAA FANBOY ALERT... don't say that, you suck.. lies, WAAAA. I DEFY any of you to find ANY part of their recent storylines that can actually be called original.. or at least not rehashed from the same old same old stories that are constantly and persistantly told again, and again, and again.

If ANY of you are actually interested in good writing and originality, go play Arcanum.. or better yet Planescape: Torment, Bioware couldn't hold a candle to those games in terms of writing, not even in their hayday.

Biowares constant repetition is almost as bad as your constant procamations of their 'leetness'... I suppose it just gives you someything to say, and makes you feel as if you're all a part of something.

And I haven't even started on the dumbass gameplay.....

Baaaaaaa I like being a sheep

Actually, combat in Dragon Age was too easy for me. Just spam this cone-freezing spell and kinetic prison. Worked on everything, even Archdemon, whenever he wasn't out of reach. But maybe that was just me playing mage, since I heard he's more powerful than the rest of the classes.

DA:O was a huge disappointment for me, especially in plot department. Generic fantasy story I read or played thousand of times, and 95% of the plot twists were extremely predictable (Alistair is king's bastard? Gee, who didn't see that coming?). The rest was quite... Decent for me, when I expected super-duper, because it's BioWare. 7/10 if I would have to rate this game. Definitely too weak to receive all the hype it got.

Now, from what I read here, it looks like I MIGHT give DA another chance, because all of the changes looks like a hit instead of a miss, especially that 'friend/rival' thingy, as long as it will have some bigger plot consequences than 'You did good/rah you moron' + the exact same consequence. That being said, before blindly buying it, I'll ask my friend for an opinion about the plot, when he'll buy it on a release day. I really would like to avoid wasting money on another RPG with a boring story again...

I'm just so very worried. Dragon Age II can have the potential in my opinion to become a great game, but I'm worried.

What I am worried about is Bioware's success with Mass Effect, and I think that will affect the game in some way. I am afraid Dragon Age will turn in to a "action blockbuster" type of game Mass Effect is. I do like Mass Effect games, but we don't need a fantasy Mass effect. But there might be signs of Dragon Effect: Mass Age already: Dialogue will be ME's dialogue wheel and the fact that combat can be played as a action game without pausing. These are not necessarily bad things, but it could be easy for them to just take pointers from ME, which is vastly successful.

Edit: Sorry for slight repetition, but i'm tired.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here