Dragon Age 2

[WorstUsernameEver]

As for the top down view, I find it to be horribly broken, especially since one of the design guys had the great idea to make a big 'pause' sign right in the middle of the screen. As for top down view for CRPGs, both Morrowind, Mass Effect and Oblivion as well as some other games did away with the top down view. It didn't hurt them much. The Witcher did it, too, I think?

 

Completely different combat mechanics. Comparing apples to oranges, basically.

[Wrath of Dagon]

It's as poorly done and so obviously as garbagey as the silly fanboy type reviews. 'what it actually deserves' is such a silly phrase that only a loser punk would use it in a review.

That wasn't a review, it was a list of games they considered overrated, therefore they gave the consesus score and the score they thought it deserved.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[entrerix]

top down view is pretty much required for strategic rpg games like this. if the sequel is more like mass effect (ie an action game with rpg elements) then it certainly doesnt need a top down view.

 

i like mass effect and dragon age. I think mass effect 2 is better than dragon age, but I will be sad if they change dragon age to be more like mass effect because i think there is room for both styles of game. still, if the console version of dragon age was a mess then I can (sadly) understand why they would change things, but still, it makes me sad that so few good rpgs are being released nowadays.

 

I'd love it if a good final fantasy would come out again, and a good turn based rpg (ala fallout), and a good crpg (ala planescape torment, but I'll take dragon age and the witcher i guess in the meantime)

 

at least diablo 3 is coming to satisfy my action rpg itch (and borderlands was good for this too, torchlight not so much for me)

 

and my strategy itch is being doubly satisfied this year by civ 5 and starcraft 2.

 

atmospheric shooters incoming as well (Rage and Fallout NV)

 

.... there i go... rambling again... what was this thread about??

 

oh yeah, dragon age. keep dragon age seperate from mass effect, but I'll be happy enough if it's good. i'd rather 2 good action games than 1 good action game and one ****ty garbagefoot game

[Orogun01]

As for the combat, I'd wait for the trailer to be released...that combat trailer that is. As for the top down view, I find it to be horribly broken, especially since one of the design guys had the great idea to make a big 'pause' sign right in the middle of the screen. As for top down view for CRPGs, both Morrowind, Mass Effect and Oblivion as well as some other games did away with the top down view. It didn't hurt them much. The Witcher did it, too, I think?

Those are action/RPG not CRPGs.

[Gromnir]

I'd say that little "article" would've been apt for any Bioware game *except* for Dragon Age and possibly the Baldurs Gates (good games but rather overrated still).

 

90% is too high, but am thinking that 65% is too low to be taken serious. yeah, am understanding that some people genuine hate da:o, but the game were solid crpg fare. complain 'bout crpg plot? HA! might as well complain 'bout fantasy plot cross genres: books, film, games, etc. as soon as we sees somebody complaining 'bout crpg plot, we know that we can safely ignore their opinion regarding story development. one o' these days somebody is gonna have to explain to "game journalists" that plot is not the entirety o' story. regardless, is loads o' valid complaints regarding da:o, but the game is large with a solid cast o' characters, and engaging (if repetitive) gameplay... not to mention a well-developed game world and history. again, like it or not, the craftsmanship is deserving better than 65%... even if it ain't your cup o' tea.

 

actually, one o' the greatest faults o' the game when considering replay is its size. we has been tempted to replay, but the size o' da, coupled with so many repetitive combat encounters, is making us recall the original BG and not in a good way.

 

65%? trying too hard to make a point.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Thorton_AP]

Those are action/RPG not CRPGs.

 

There's very little consensus on what specifically is a "CRPG" or an Action RPG.

 

Personally I consider games like Morrowind, Mass Effect, and Oblivion RPGs.

[Volourn]

"65%? trying too hard to make a point."

 

Grom wins this time. Fellow would have been better off saying that DA 'deserved' a 0% rating. It would have gottent he same point across, and at least would have been hilarious.

[Orogun01]

Those are action/RPG not CRPGs.

 

There's very little consensus on what specifically is a "CRPG" or an Action RPG.

 

Personally I consider games like Morrowind, Mass Effect, and Oblivion RPGs.

They are RPGs; Action RPGs

[Thorton_AP]

There's very little consensus on what specifically is a "CRPG" or an Action RPG.

 

You'll not convince me otherwise, so there's no point in even trying. I consider these games, and games like Bloodlines and whatnot, to be CRPG games.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Thorton_AP

[Zoraptor]

I hear you, but why cut so much costs when the formula they used before proved to be the most successful yet? Shareholder demand? Laziness?

One other thing to bear in mind is that DAO sat around being converted to consoles for months after it was finished. No doubt some of the people involved went to DAO:A but others will have started work on DA2 pre production. At that time they would probably have expected Mass Effect 2 to sell better than DAO, which it didn't end up doing of course, but since EA apparently considered canceling DAO as being too oldschool it seems very likely that was their expectation. As such, making a 'Dragon Effect' would at the time have looked like an eminently sensible idea as well as most of the changes saving money.

[Niten_Ryu]

65% rounded up is 7 / 10 and that's the same score I'd give to the game after 4 full runs and rest of origins done. A solid 7 / 10. Cut encounters down to 1/2 or 2/3, fix balance issues and do few storyline changes I'd give it 8 / 10.

 

Personally I'm not too worried about losing top down view, as Dragon Age ain't most tactically challencing game. For it to be the console game first and PC game distant second, also means that difficulty curve is tuned to minium.

[Gromnir]

As for the combat, I'd wait for the trailer to be released...that combat trailer that is. As for the top down view, I find it to be horribly broken, especially since one of the design guys had the great idea to make a big 'pause' sign right in the middle of the screen. As for top down view for CRPGs, both Morrowind, Mass Effect and Oblivion as well as some other games did away with the top down view. It didn't hurt them much. The Witcher did it, too, I think?

Those are action/RPG not CRPGs.

 

 

am thinking that aries using morrowind AND oblivion as separate examples is kinda funny.

 

distinction between action and traditional crpg not seem important when there is some obvious and glaring differences 'tween those games mentioned and da. ease of combats coupled with non-existent party members and an absence o' large-scale area effect spells made a top-down pov complete unnecessary in morrowblivion. does anybody genuine want da2 combat stupefied to the level o' morroblivion? me, on the other hand, simply made combat ridiculous ez.

 

*shrug*

 

not matter action v. traditional.

 

I hear you, but why cut so much costs when the formula they used before proved to be the most successful yet? Shareholder demand? Laziness?

One other thing to bear in mind is that DAO sat around being converted to consoles for months after it was finished.

 

 

is our understanding that the above statement is manifestly untrue. yeah, pc version o' da were complete first, but the console versions were developed parallel; there was no conversion or porting.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 5, 2010 by Gromnir

[Wrath of Dagon]

but since EA apparently considered canceling DAO as being too oldschool

I strongly suspected that when EA bought Bio, but where did you get this info?

[Thorton_AP]

I figure part of the reason why a game was able to be in development for 7 years was because the company making the game was bought twice.

 

How long did EA have BioWare before DAO was finished? I always suspected that for them it was easy money (kind of like the PC version of Mass Effect) since much of the financing had already been done.

[Zoraptor]

EA bought Bioware in Oct 2007, so two years basically.

 

WoD: There is no solid source for it that I know of- there was a lot of speculation from some very knowledgable sources though that the key factor was the feasibility of console versions. IIRC DA was left off some EA lists of upcoming games which is where a lot of the speculation came from and someone from Bio said that EA were reviewing their active projects but I may not RC and unfortunately that's the sort of thing Google is very bad at searching for.

 

is our understanding that the above statement is manifestly untrue. yeah, pc version o' da were complete first, but the console versions were developed parallel; there was no conversion or porting.

Up to July 2008 DA was still a PC exclusive game, it was announced for consoles then. While they would have been working on it for a while prior to that I see no way that it wasn't 'ported'. EA themselves ('During its call with investors, Electronic Arts CEO John Rictiello [sic] said that the [PC] delay was due to marketing' per Shacknews) said that the PC version was completed to time, since content wise the two versions were identical that leaves, well, what? as an alternative to what the extra time was spent doing. It's certainly not unreasonable to think that many of the storyline/ artists/ designers etc did not sit around twiddling their thumbs for the six months of the delay.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Zoraptor

[Volourn]

"Mass Effect 2 to sell better than DAO, which it didn't end up doing of course,"

 

Except, it likely has. DA at last count had sold 3.2 mil copies in the months its been released. ME2, at last count, was at 2.8mil in 1-2 month or so at the time. DA was release months before ME2.

 

 

"65% rounded up is 7 / 10 and that's the same score I'd give to the game after 4 full runs and rest of origins done. A solid 7 / 10."

 

You played the game 4 times which is more than me... and, only rate it a 7/10. Heh. I wonder what you'd rate a game you only played once...

[Gromnir]

EA bought Bioware in Oct 2007, so two years basically.

 

WoD: There is no solid source for it that I know of- there was a lot of speculation from some very knowledgable sources though that the key factor was the feasibility of console versions. IIRC DA was left off some EA lists of upcoming games which is where a lot of the speculation came from and someone from Bio said that EA were reviewing their active projects but I may not RC and unfortunately that's the sort of thing Google is very bad at searching for.

 

is our understanding that the above statement is manifestly untrue. yeah, pc version o' da were complete first, but the console versions were developed parallel; there was no conversion or porting.

I see no way that it wasn't 'ported'.

 

you mean other then the fact that they developed different engines for the respective platforms?

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Thorton_AP]

BioWare developed different engines for each platform?

[Zoraptor]

Well, they had different default views and different control schemes. Different engines would be news though.

 

"Mass Effect 2 to sell better than DAO, which it didn't end up doing of course,"

 

Except, it likely has. DA at last count had sold 3.2 mil copies in the months its been released. ME2, at last count, was at 2.8mil in 1-2 month or so at the time. DA was release months before ME2.

EA disagrees with you (as you've been told multiple times the figure they have is 1.6 million sold after three months, 2 million shipped, the link has been provided multiple times too) and in a battle of credibility between an EA quarterly report and some random guy on the Codex via Volo filter it's, well, not even a contest.

[sorophx]

top down view is pretty much required for strategic rpg games like this

 

only it's not a strategic game

 

Those are action/RPG not CRPGs.

 

the only difference between action-rpg and plain rpg is the number of mouse clicks. if in traditional rpgs you click your mouse once to make your character kill something, in action-rpgs you click once for each action, hence the prefix. everything else is the same. today the "action" part is there to sell the game better. I like both and don't care whether it's ARPG or RPG, because you still can't jump in any of 'em

[WorstUsernameEver]

It's certainly not unreasonable to think that many of the storyline/ artists/ designers etc did not sit around twiddling their thumbs for the six months of the delay.

 

Plausible (though I'm pretty sure they first worked on the cut content that was reintroduced as day 1 dlc, aka The Stone Prisoner), but then again, when GameInformer went at Bioware studios they didn't even have the armor set props in the game build..

Add the unpolished screenies to that, and it's pretty clear that they revealed DAII when they were still not that far in the development cycle.

[Orogun01]

Those are action/RPG not CRPGs.

 

the only difference between action-rpg and plain rpg is the number of mouse clicks. if in traditional rpgs you click your mouse once to make your character kill something, in action-rpgs you click once for each action, hence the prefix. everything else is the same. today the "action" part is there to sell the game better. I like both and don't care whether it's ARPG or RPG, because you still can't jump in any of 'em

What about console RPGs what do you click there?

 

I though that the difference was the focus on real time action rather than strategy.

I actually prefer ARPGs, but DA I know to be a CRPG and I like the game's core mechanics. Now it's just turning into another ME game which is a disappointment since DA's story are much better and more worthier of focus than a change in mechanics.

[Thorton_AP]

Well, they had different default views and different control schemes. Different engines would be news though.

 

Yeah, but that's hardly a new engine.

 

 

Civ 4 uses the same engine as Fallout 3, for example.

[WorstUsernameEver]

Dragon Age 2 podcast episode 2

 

This time with art director Matt Goldman.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I think they also added all those job board quests while waiting for the console ports (btw, as I recall Bio wasn't even the one that did the ports).