|
On March 10 2011 07:16 Half wrote:Show nested quote +Always saddens me that people rationalize recycled stuff down to laziness. Do you have even the faintest idea about the average number of hours a video game developer works? They recycle it because they don't have the time, money, manpower, resources, whatever to create a whole new map for each and every area, not because they don't care. It's an INCREDIBLY time-consuming and tedious process and as a result, level design is one of the two main methods of getting into the industry (the other being QA). Do you have any idea what the development cycle of Dragon Age 2 is? Slightly more then a year. The shit level design is just another result of accelerated development schedules made to regurgitate successively inferior sequels onto the market. You're right, lazy isn't a good word, especially not applied to the Level designers. How about Cheap Corporate sellout Bastards, applied to the lead producers, CEO and design leads. Show nested quote +
And people wonder why developers are moving to consoles in droves. PC gaming houses many of the most over-entitled morons the world has ever seen. Childish behaviour like what you're seeing on metacritic doesn't incentivize the developers to make the changes they want. It just makes them consider the opinions of console gamers more.
So in other words producers sell to consoles because the PC audience has higher expectations of quality. Why the fuck would you want PC games to even exist if it weren't for higher expectations of quality? If your suggestion to make PC gaming more popular is to buy shit and be happy with it, I'd rather it just die off altogether, what the fuck would be the point of 1000$ consoles? And PC games are hardly dieing off.
Development cycle of a year is due to the fact that the engine was already done. Engines are what take the most work. Also BG 2 dev cycle was 1 1/2 years. Was that a 'lazy sequel due to accelerated development'?
|
On March 10 2011 08:46 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2011 07:36 DJEtterStyle wrote:
3) "Combat is so dumbed-down." Would everyone stop acting like you had to be some tactical genius to get through Baldur's Gate or Origins? Coming from a bunch of StarCraft players, it's pretty pathetic. Even if we accept that the combat has been simplified in the sequel (which I don't, but for the sake of argument), is the difference between the two really that great? You needed eight brain cells to beat the original Dragon Age. Now, maybe you only need six.
You have to be kinda decent to play SoA with SCSII ( this is pretty much the standard nowadays for people who want to make another BG run ). If you try to just hack and slash without using pause or bothering to learn the right spells you will get wrecked. Also just fyk "newschool" players usually think that BG 1&2 vanilla are hard ( LOL ) so yea maybe the genius comparison is true for BG modded vs DA2. Why it is so hard to understand that some people here want challenging games ?
Is this the part where we compare Oblivion with 5 (?) years of mods to the amount of content of a newly released game from a development house, under a thin veil of fairness, again? If you're the type to go hunting mods and play through with them, of COURSE, you're going to eventually proclaim a game as damn-near perfect, because you hand-picked the mods that you liked and skipped the ones that you didn't. With a newly-released game you're stuck with whatever the devs thought would please the most people. Why can't they get it perfect out the gate? Because players have all the time in the world to scrutenize what's wrong and change it after its release. Developers don't. And just like DA:O, front-loaded AOE spells into every room you step into made BG1, BG2 and PST trivial as all hell.
What's hard to understand, at least to me, is what isn't challenging about DA2? Maybe I'm not far enough in, yet, but am I missing some magical tactic that would have prevented me having to reload like 5 times last night on Hard mode? I can't Fireball everything out the gate, because they survive the blast and then rape my Mage. I can't CC everything and forget about it, because there are reinforcements to worry about. Aveline, on Hard, is taking buttloads of damage, making me pop a potion on a lot of fights. Am I missing something here? If I made Hawke a Warrior or Rogue, would it be a billion times easier or something?
|
Whatever the factor is, it hasn't kept pace with the amount of time it takes to make something in 3D. Bioware's team is a lot bigger now than it was when they made BG1. Making a 'map' in BG1 required an artist to draw the thing, and one developer to create the invisible collision walls, the overlapping parts and add some ambience (zones for various footsteps sounds like cobble vs grass, what animals were going to tweet, what music was going to play in and out of combat and yadda yadda). By comparison, making a full level in 3D is leagues away from that. I went over a shortlist in an earlier post, so I'm not going to bother reiterating it. It's not really my problem if you don't appreciate the workload involved in going from 2D graphics 20 years ago, to full-3D today. It just makes you look impatient and greedy.
You make an extraordinary claim with no statistical evidence, and goes contrary to reality. From what ethos do you make that claim?
If extensive Environment design was really so unviably costly, how could CD Projekt red, an small studio in eastern europe design a 35 hour game that did not reuse a single level, and how did Bioware design the original DA:O reusing very small amounts of levels?
Are you a game developer? Or are you just spewing shit?
I'm sure if you cared enough about finding such a thing, you'd just Google it yourself, rather than waiting for me to do it for you. Do you need to me hold your hand to click the link, too?
Heres a hint. I do and They don't exist, save maybe age of decadence, which hasn't come out yet. Yet another example of you talking out of your ass.
Riiiiiight. You're going just a teeny bit delusional now. My arguments are perfectly logical as I've defended the game based on its merits. I'm not prancing around the place calling it the greatest thing since sliced bread, am I? Some of the model design is just plain bad. I cringed when the boat landed and the cliffsides were so jagged and clearly polygonal. Some of the voice acting is bad. The guys voicing the first few characters you converse with after reaching Kirkwall were pretty bad. Besides that, no real complaints. They're just silly little cosmetic things here and there. Everything else has me engaged and enjoying the game.
Since your original post, you haven't provided any actual arguments. My criticisms of the game are synonymous with countless others in this thread (Recycled Areas, Difficulty, Disjointed plot, poorly written characters, etc etc). Not once have you provided any actual counterargument, rather, you've provided excuses for why the company could not achieve them.
Excuses that are based on a confused mixture of corporate apologism and naivete.
User was warned for this post
|
Yea i like difficulty and mods. What's wrong with that ?
AoE spam doesn't work btw.
|
On March 10 2011 09:28 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
Whatever the factor is, it hasn't kept pace with the amount of time it takes to make something in 3D. Bioware's team is a lot bigger now than it was when they made BG1. Making a 'map' in BG1 required an artist to draw the thing, and one developer to create the invisible collision walls, the overlapping parts and add some ambience (zones for various footsteps sounds like cobble vs grass, what animals were going to tweet, what music was going to play in and out of combat and yadda yadda). By comparison, making a full level in 3D is leagues away from that. I went over a shortlist in an earlier post, so I'm not going to bother reiterating it. It's not really my problem if you don't appreciate the workload involved in going from 2D graphics 20 years ago, to full-3D today. It just makes you look impatient and greedy.
You make an extraordinary claim with no statistical evidence, and goes contrary to reality. From what ethos do you make that claim? If Environment design was really so costly, how could CD Projekt red, an small studio in eastern europe design a 35 hour game that did not reuse a single level, and how did Bioware design the original DA:O reusing very small amounts of assets. Are you a game developer? Or are you just spewing shit? Show nested quote +
I'm sure if you cared enough about finding such a thing, you'd just Google it yourself, rather than waiting for me to do it for you. Do you need to me hold your hand to click the link, too?
Heres a hint. They don't exist, save maybe age of decadence, which hasn't come out yet.
Yoooou realize that The Witcher was made with a modified Aurora engine, so they didn't have to do the gruntwork of building that silly trivial thing called an ENTIRE GAME ENGINE first, yes?
I aim to be. I'm currently in school for video game engine and physics programming and I've used the modding tools of games such as Unreal, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Unreal Tournament (original and 2003) and most recently DA:O. One thing is very clear: 2D is infinitely easier to work with than 3D. Knowing what I know now, I can make a 'level' in BG in about half an hour. It takes me a week just to build a decently sized map layout using the artwork and models of Dragon Age, that would take you about 5 minutes to run through, let alone get the lighting, rendering and all that crap done - and framerate/optimization be damned! It'll run like complete ass on low-end systems. Going through all of that stuff in my free-time, I'm actually capable of appreciating the kind of workload that goes into this stuff.
Oh, so, if indie game developers haven't made such things, that either means that indie developers are even LAZIER than Bioware are, or building a story-based RPG game is really hard work. Hmm. Let me mull on that one for a bit.
|
On March 10 2011 09:20 oxxo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2011 07:16 Half wrote:Always saddens me that people rationalize recycled stuff down to laziness. Do you have even the faintest idea about the average number of hours a video game developer works? They recycle it because they don't have the time, money, manpower, resources, whatever to create a whole new map for each and every area, not because they don't care. It's an INCREDIBLY time-consuming and tedious process and as a result, level design is one of the two main methods of getting into the industry (the other being QA). Do you have any idea what the development cycle of Dragon Age 2 is? Slightly more then a year. The shit level design is just another result of accelerated development schedules made to regurgitate successively inferior sequels onto the market. You're right, lazy isn't a good word, especially not applied to the Level designers. How about Cheap Corporate sellout Bastards, applied to the lead producers, CEO and design leads.
And people wonder why developers are moving to consoles in droves. PC gaming houses many of the most over-entitled morons the world has ever seen. Childish behaviour like what you're seeing on metacritic doesn't incentivize the developers to make the changes they want. It just makes them consider the opinions of console gamers more.
So in other words producers sell to consoles because the PC audience has higher expectations of quality. Why the fuck would you want PC games to even exist if it weren't for higher expectations of quality? If your suggestion to make PC gaming more popular is to buy shit and be happy with it, I'd rather it just die off altogether, what the fuck would be the point of 1000$ consoles? And PC games are hardly dieing off. Development cycle of a year is due to the fact that the engine was already done. Engines are what take the most work. Also BG 2 dev cycle was 1 1/2 years. Was that a 'lazy sequel due to accelerated development'?
On March 10 2011 09:39 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2011 09:28 Half wrote:
Whatever the factor is, it hasn't kept pace with the amount of time it takes to make something in 3D. Bioware's team is a lot bigger now than it was when they made BG1. Making a 'map' in BG1 required an artist to draw the thing, and one developer to create the invisible collision walls, the overlapping parts and add some ambience (zones for various footsteps sounds like cobble vs grass, what animals were going to tweet, what music was going to play in and out of combat and yadda yadda). By comparison, making a full level in 3D is leagues away from that. I went over a shortlist in an earlier post, so I'm not going to bother reiterating it. It's not really my problem if you don't appreciate the workload involved in going from 2D graphics 20 years ago, to full-3D today. It just makes you look impatient and greedy.
You make an extraordinary claim with no statistical evidence, and goes contrary to reality. From what ethos do you make that claim? If Environment design was really so costly, how could CD Projekt red, an small studio in eastern europe design a 35 hour game that did not reuse a single level, and how did Bioware design the original DA:O reusing very small amounts of assets. Are you a game developer? Or are you just spewing shit?
I'm sure if you cared enough about finding such a thing, you'd just Google it yourself, rather than waiting for me to do it for you. Do you need to me hold your hand to click the link, too?
Heres a hint. They don't exist, save maybe age of decadence, which hasn't come out yet. Yoooou realize that The Witcher was made with a modified Aurora engine, so they didn't have to do the gruntwork of building that silly trivial thing called an ENTIRE GAME ENGINE first, yes?
BG2 was made with a modified IE engine too fyk.
|
On March 10 2011 09:28 Boblion wrote:
Yea i like difficulty and mods. What's wrong with that ?
AoE spam doesn't work btw.
Nothing whatsoever. Until you expect newly-released games to be perfect out of the gate. AoE spam in what? BG1? 2? You kidding? You could kill that Ogre with the gender-swapping belt on the 2nd map immediately after leaving Candlekeep with just one Sleep spell (which usually took a few reloads to get the thing to stick long enough to kill it, but still) and not suffering a hint of damage. Later on you get Emotion: Hopelessness (and right out the gate in BG2) which works on damned-near everything, letting you smash them one-by-one.
BG2 was made with a modified IE engine too fyk.
Yeeeees, and that's why BG2 had a buttload more content than BG1 in a similar development time-frame. Your point?
|
Yoooou realize that The Witcher was made with a modified Aurora engine, so they didn't have to do the gruntwork of building that silly trivial thing called an ENTIRE GAME ENGINE first, yes?
And DA2 uses the same engine as DA:O....Despite that, DA:O was still more detailed, and had less recycled content.
What exactly is your point?
I aim to be. I'm currently in school for video game engine and physics programming and I've used the modding tools of games such as Unreal, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Unreal Tournament (original and 2003) and most recently DA:O. One thing is very clear: 2D is infinitely easier to work with than 3D. Knowing what I know now, I can make a 'level' in BG in about half an hour. It takes me a week just to build a decently sized map layout using the artwork and models of Dragon Age, that would take you about 5 minutes to run through, let alone get the lighting, rendering and all that crap done - and framerate/optimization be damned! It'll run like complete ass on low-end systems. Going through all of that stuff in my free-time, I'm actually capable of appreciating the kind of workload that goes into this stuff.
I trump you then. I have 2 years internship experience and have developed two successful games for the Iphone.  . Anyone trump me?
I understand that level design is hard work. As I said, it isn't the level designers who are lazy. Its the producers who are cheap. You yourself attest to how long it takes to build a level, so you can understand how a game made to operate on a 1.5 year development cycle to satisfy corporate demands would be woefully incomplete and low quality right?
Oh, so, if indie game developers haven't made such things, that either means that indie developers are even LAZIER than Bioware are, or building a story-based RPG game is really hard work. Hmm. Let me mull on that one for a bit.
For reasons altogether unrelated to advancing modern technology. Whose side are you arguing?
|
I'm actually loving the game. Having a fully voiced main character totally outweights the oversimplification, and I like the characters' different motivations. In DA:O it was all about the darkspawn, which was kinda meh for me.
|
Have to say so far i am loving the game :l did not enjoy the first DA:O that much hated the combat but i got through it because i kinda enjoyed the characters and the story, i find the combat in DA2 much more to my liking :o only played a couple of hours so far, but can definatly see where some of the criticism comes from comparing DA2 to the original but from my point of view its a much funner game to me.
|
On March 10 2011 09:43 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2011 09:28 Boblion wrote:
Yea i like difficulty and mods. What's wrong with that ?
AoE spam doesn't work btw. Nothing whatsoever. Until you expect newly-released games to be perfect out of the gate. AoE spam in what? BG1? 2? You kidding? You could kill that Ogre with the gender-swapping belt on the 2nd map immediately after leaving Candlekeep with just one Sleep spell (which usually took a few reloads to get the thing to stick long enough to kill it, but still) and not suffering a hint of damage. Later on you get Emotion: Hopelessness (and right out the gate in BG2) which works on damned-near everything, letting you smash them one-by-one.
Like if i play vanilla ( and even vanilla is harder than DA2 by a fairly large margin lol )
Also how you spam AoE with a lvl 1 mage ? Dude stop to be ridiculous =(
On March 10 2011 09:43 Bibdy wrote:
Yeeeees, and that's why BG2 had a buttload more content than BG1 in a similar development time-frame. Your point?
Well it was kinda funny too see oxxo post and then yours :p
Anyway i'm done. You like DA2 that's fine but don't cry if some people think it is terrible 
|
On March 10 2011 09:44 Half wrote:
And DA2 uses the same engine as DA:O....
What exactly is your point?
...what is yours? You know, the Witcher re-uses a lot of the levels right? You pretty much run through the whole of the wildnerness and Vizima like 2-3 times each in 5 different chapters. I don't see how they've found some magical system whereby they're able to produce more content than Bioware, nor have they applied it.
I trump you then. I have 2 years internship experience and have developed two successful games for the Iphone. . Anyone trump me? I understand that level design is hard work. As I said, it isn't the level designers who are lazy. Its the producers who are cheap. You yourself attest to how long it takes to build a level, so you can understand how a game made to operate on a 2 year development cycle to satisfy corporate demands would be woefully incomplete and low quality right?
Sure, but I'm not seeing it in DA2. I like it. It's genuinely fun. I think the difference is I like the changes. You don't. Who were you shrieking at in your earlier post, anyway? It sounded like you were pointing fingers at Bioware for being corporate sell-outs and 'The Man's' bitch. Wouldn't you prefer to have a steady paycheck from a big-name house? If not, can you appreciate there are those that do?
For reasons altogether unrelated to advancing modern technology. Whose side are you arguing?
The side of reason and common sense. If even indie developers haven't got the cajones to build some big, grand, story-based RPG in some cheap-ass 2D engine, how is it fair to expect some publishing company to gamble millions on a multi-year, deep, involved RPG project of godlike status? That's just reality. RPGs don't sell particularly well because there just isn't a great market for them. At the very least, DA2, with its stylistic changes is making an attempt to reach a wider audience (the kind that like blowing shit up en masse). This in-turn could provide incentive to reach the golden project. Short of some angel investor BG1-loving loony with millions ready to blow is going to pull that off.
Sure, the system breeds mediocrity, but I myself am surprised by DA2. From where I'm sitting DA2 isn't mediocre. It's just plain better than the last incarnation.
Edit: Motherfuck quotes.
|
On March 10 2011 09:55 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2011 09:43 Bibdy wrote:On March 10 2011 09:28 Boblion wrote:
Yea i like difficulty and mods. What's wrong with that ?
AoE spam doesn't work btw. Nothing whatsoever. Until you expect newly-released games to be perfect out of the gate. AoE spam in what? BG1? 2? You kidding? You could kill that Ogre with the gender-swapping belt on the 2nd map immediately after leaving Candlekeep with just one Sleep spell (which usually took a few reloads to get the thing to stick long enough to kill it, but still) and not suffering a hint of damage. Later on you get Emotion: Hopelessness (and right out the gate in BG2) which works on damned-near everything, letting you smash them one-by-one. Like if i play vanilla ( and even vanilla is harder than DA2 by a fairly large margin lol ) Also how you spam AoE with a lvl 1 mage ? Dude stop to be ridiculous =( Show nested quote +On March 10 2011 09:43 Bibdy wrote:
Yeeeees, and that's why BG2 had a buttload more content than BG1 in a similar development time-frame. Your point? Well it was kinda funny too see oxxo post and then yours :p Anyway i'm done. You like DA2 that's fine but don't cry if some people think it is terrible
Sleep is a level 1 D&D spell... you aren't spamming it, but you have access to it right from the word 'go'. One AOE CC spell and its all over. Smack Rest after the battle. Repeat ad winnum. Same as DA:O. It has a cooldown, but all you need is one cast and voila (or you picked a specialized Mage, and than you can do it TWICE...)
And you don't like DA2, so don't go freaking out when some people like it.
|
Good game so far but a couple of small things really bother me.
The map is black, some of the icons on the map(like the merchants) are black as well so you really have to stare at the map for a little bit to figure out where everything is and where you want to go.
The quick launch icons for the map, journal etc. are very small and hard to see. Sometimes still can't figure out what icon is which unless I hold the mouse over it.
The high texture pack gives me significant FPS drop but it's not really a big deal. Just turned it off and the game still looks good.
Other than that, that game is good so far. Love the combat. Very fast paced.
I have a question though. Are there such things as backstabs other than the actual ability itself? Wondering whether i should actually take the time to flank the enemy or just attack them straight on.
Thanks!
|
On March 10 2011 10:10 cynical wrote:
Good game so far but a couple of small things really bother me.
The map is black, some of the icons on the map(like the merchants) are black as well so you really have to stare at the map for a little bit to figure out where everything is and where you want to go.
The quick launch icons for the map, journal etc. are very small and hard to see. Sometimes still can't figure out what icon is which unless I hold the mouse over it.
The high texture pack gives me significant FPS drop but it's not really a big deal. Just turned it off and the game still looks good.
Other than that, that game is good so far. Love the combat. Very fast paced.
I have a question though. Are there such things as backstabs other than the actual ability itself? Wondering whether i should actually take the time to flank the enemy or just attack them straight on.
Thanks!
Flanking enemies gives bonuses to critical, from what I've read. Then there are abilities that a Rogue gets that boosts the crit chance/damage for flanking.
|
On March 10 2011 10:02 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2011 09:55 Boblion wrote:On March 10 2011 09:43 Bibdy wrote:On March 10 2011 09:28 Boblion wrote:
Yea i like difficulty and mods. What's wrong with that ?
AoE spam doesn't work btw. Nothing whatsoever. Until you expect newly-released games to be perfect out of the gate. AoE spam in what? BG1? 2? You kidding? You could kill that Ogre with the gender-swapping belt on the 2nd map immediately after leaving Candlekeep with just one Sleep spell (which usually took a few reloads to get the thing to stick long enough to kill it, but still) and not suffering a hint of damage. Later on you get Emotion: Hopelessness (and right out the gate in BG2) which works on damned-near everything, letting you smash them one-by-one. Like if i play vanilla ( and even vanilla is harder than DA2 by a fairly large margin lol ) Also how you spam AoE with a lvl 1 mage ? Dude stop to be ridiculous =( On March 10 2011 09:43 Bibdy wrote:
Yeeeees, and that's why BG2 had a buttload more content than BG1 in a similar development time-frame. Your point? Well it was kinda funny too see oxxo post and then yours :p Anyway i'm done. You like DA2 that's fine but don't cry if some people think it is terrible Sleep is a level 1 D&D spell... you aren't spamming it, but you have access to it right from the word 'go'. One AOE CC spell and its all over. Smack Rest after the battle. Repeat ad winnum. Same as DA:O. It has a cooldown, but all you need is one cast and voila (or you picked a specialized Mage, and than you can do it TWICE...) And you don't like DA2, so don't go freaking out when some people like it.
I love how you try so hard to find some ridiculous example to explain that BG isn't harder than DA2 lol. I mean yea man you can kill that ogre if you are ready to reload 4 or 5 time, because if he saves vs sleep you are basicly dead.
Now if you were not such a whiner maybe you could try to not be a save/load abuser.
I mean i can beat the most ridiculous arcade games on an emulator too if i can save/reload at will.
Also dude YOU are the one freaking out lol, i was just answering to DjEtter and then you started to quote me and to say wrong things ( see above ).
|
People are just over-reacting, mainly because this game was hyped beyond belief and when it comes out it's simply average to above average with some very glaring shortcuts (primarily the lack of areas in the game) as well as a plethora of DLCs both already released and announced at release ffs.
This game is definitely not the second coming of BG but it does have it's good points, namely the dialogue and character interaction which bioware has shown a knack for time and time again. A lot of people don't like the wheel but I think it works just fine, sure some of the dialogue seems a bit off but there's plenty of good to make up for it. There's enough here to keep me interested and that's what counts.
|
...what is yours? You know, the Witcher re-uses a lot of the levels right? You pretty much run through the whole of the wildnerness and Vizima like 2-3 times each in 5 different chapters. I don't see how they've found some magical system whereby they're able to produce more content than Bioware, nor have they applied it.
Every Chapter takes place in a new quarter in Vizimia, you never return to any place in it twice, except I think the cemetary (one during day one during night). Yeah, you go back to the swamp again in Chapter 3, but only very briefly.
My point isn't that they have a magical system where they develop more content, its just that they have more time to do so.
.
Sure, but I'm not seeing it in DA2. I like it. It's genuinely fun. I think the difference is I like the changes. You don't. Who were you shrieking at in your earlier post, anyway? It sounded like you were pointing fingers at Bioware for being corporate sell-outs and 'The Man's' bitch. Wouldn't you prefer to have a steady paycheck from a big-name house? If not, can you appreciate there are those that do?
I'm not making a moral judgement I'm making a judgement as a consumer. I am saying I'm not paying 60$ for a half ass game. I'd be an idiot to say that they are bad people for making a product that isn't like, killing children and causing autism, I'm just saying there making a bad product that I'm not going to buy.
The side of reason and common sense. If even indie developers haven't got the cajones to build some big, grand, story-based RPG in some cheap-ass 2D engine, how is it fair to expect some publishing company to gamble millions on a multi-year, deep, involved RPG project of godlike status?
All I'd ask of them is that DA2 be as good as DA:O. Is that really impossible?
That's just reality. RPGs don't sell particularly well because there just isn't a great market for them. At the very least, DA2, with its stylistic changes is making an attempt to reach a wider audience (the kind that like blowing shit up en masse). This in-turn could provide incentive to reach the golden project. Short of some angel investor BG1-loving loony with millions ready to blow is going to pull that off.
Sure, the system breeds mediocrity, but I myself am surprised by DA2. From where I'm sitting DA2 isn't mediocre. It's just plain better than the last incarnation
You half conceded your argument right there. Why not go all the way and agree ?
Whether you like DA2 or not wholly depends on how much you value "streamlining", and if notice its glaring drop in quality of writing. But imo it isn't arguable that the game, as a whole cut out a whole lot of crap to be put on the market scarcely a year after the original.
|
On March 10 2011 10:15 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2011 10:02 Bibdy wrote:On March 10 2011 09:55 Boblion wrote:On March 10 2011 09:43 Bibdy wrote:On March 10 2011 09:28 Boblion wrote:
Yea i like difficulty and mods. What's wrong with that ?
AoE spam doesn't work btw. Nothing whatsoever. Until you expect newly-released games to be perfect out of the gate. AoE spam in what? BG1? 2? You kidding? You could kill that Ogre with the gender-swapping belt on the 2nd map immediately after leaving Candlekeep with just one Sleep spell (which usually took a few reloads to get the thing to stick long enough to kill it, but still) and not suffering a hint of damage. Later on you get Emotion: Hopelessness (and right out the gate in BG2) which works on damned-near everything, letting you smash them one-by-one. Like if i play vanilla ( and even vanilla is harder than DA2 by a fairly large margin lol ) Also how you spam AoE with a lvl 1 mage ? Dude stop to be ridiculous =( On March 10 2011 09:43 Bibdy wrote:
Yeeeees, and that's why BG2 had a buttload more content than BG1 in a similar development time-frame. Your point? Well it was kinda funny too see oxxo post and then yours :p Anyway i'm done. You like DA2 that's fine but don't cry if some people think it is terrible Sleep is a level 1 D&D spell... you aren't spamming it, but you have access to it right from the word 'go'. One AOE CC spell and its all over. Smack Rest after the battle. Repeat ad winnum. Same as DA:O. It has a cooldown, but all you need is one cast and voila (or you picked a specialized Mage, and than you can do it TWICE...) And you don't like DA2, so don't go freaking out when some people like it. I love how you try so hard to find some ridiculous example to explain that BG isn't harder than DA2 lol. I mean yea man you can kill that ogre if you are ready to reload 4 or 5 time, because if he saves vs sleep you are basicly dead. Now if you were not such a whiner maybe you could try to not be a save/load abuser. I mean i can beat the most ridiculous arcade games on an emulator too if i can save/reload at will. Also dude YOU are the one freaking out lol, i was just answering to DjEtter and then you started to quote me and to say wrong things ( see above ).
It was exactly that, an example. It's not like its the only place you can use the spell. You know, it works even better on those big packs of hobgoblin archers you run into, too, because they rarely resist. Just one cast and a whole swath of the guys are sitting on their butt waiting to die.
But yeah, let's keep pretending like you had to be a grand master at chess to clear your way through the Naskel Mines and that killing a Ankheg at level 4 was just totally impossible. I certainly never killed the Red Dragon in BG2 with ease by throwing Fire Protection on everybody. It was truly luck itself that made me grab spells like Breach and "insert name of one of six different spell ward removing spells here" to roflstomp every mage I came across. No, that game was just HARD, man.
|
On March 10 2011 10:20 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
...what is yours? You know, the Witcher re-uses a lot of the levels right? You pretty much run through the whole of the wildnerness and Vizima like 2-3 times each in 5 different chapters. I don't see how they've found some magical system whereby they're able to produce more content than Bioware, nor have they applied it.
Every Chapter takes place in a new quarter in Vizimia, you never return to any place in it twice, except I think the cemetary (one during day one during night). Yeah, you go back to the swamp again in Chapter 3, but only very briefly. My point isn't that they have a magical system where they develop more content, its just that they have more time to do so. . Show nested quote +
Sure, but I'm not seeing it in DA2. I like it. It's genuinely fun. I think the difference is I like the changes. You don't. Who were you shrieking at in your earlier post, anyway? It sounded like you were pointing fingers at Bioware for being corporate sell-outs and 'The Man's' bitch. Wouldn't you prefer to have a steady paycheck from a big-name house? If not, can you appreciate there are those that do?
I'm not making a moral judgement I'm making a judgement as a consumer. I am saying I'm not paying 60$ for a half ass game. I'd be an idiot to say that they are bad people for making a product that isn't like, killing children and causing autism, I'm just saying there making a bad product that I'm not going to buy. Show nested quote +
The side of reason and common sense. If even indie developers haven't got the cajones to build some big, grand, story-based RPG in some cheap-ass 2D engine, how is it fair to expect some publishing company to gamble millions on a multi-year, deep, involved RPG project of godlike status?
All I'd ask of them is that DA2 be as good as DA:O. Is that really impossible? Show nested quote +
That's just reality. RPGs don't sell particularly well because there just isn't a great market for them. At the very least, DA2, with its stylistic changes is making an attempt to reach a wider audience (the kind that like blowing shit up en masse). This in-turn could provide incentive to reach the golden project. Short of some angel investor BG1-loving loony with millions ready to blow is going to pull that off.
Sure, the system breeds mediocrity, but I myself am surprised by DA2. From where I'm sitting DA2 isn't mediocre. It's just plain better than the last incarnation
You half conceded your argument right there. Why not go all the way and agree ? Whether you like DA2 or not wholly depends on how much you value "streamlining", and if notice its glaring drop in quality of writing. But imo it isn't arguable that the game, as a whole made a lot of sacrifices to be put on the market scarcely a year after the original.
But...I like RPGs and blowing shit up en masse...that doesn't inherently make it a bad game. It's bad if its not fun. Some archaic old scroll that holds the 'true' formula be damned. I'll pay good money for things that entertain me. People rant and rave about games like Magicka, but I stopped playing after a couple days. It just didn't hold my interest due to the horrendous multiplayer side of it. I'm sure I'll get far more than 6x that with a $60 purchase of dragon age.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
