PDA

View Full Version : Dragon Age 2


Kaylore
03-29-2011, 08:01 AM
Anyone playing this? I'm enjoying more than some of the reviews but wanted to see if anyone here has been playing with it. I'm in act 3 and can already tell I'll play it through at least one more time.

PRBronco
03-29-2011, 08:13 AM
I'm just getting started in it, posting so I can find this thread again when I get further on in the game. So far I like it a lot though, looks so much better, and I appreciate a lot of the simplifications, like how it actually tells me how changing a piece of gear will affect my dps, making companions' gearsets basically one piece, stuff like that.

Willynowei
03-29-2011, 08:17 AM
Big fan of Bioware, will get the game once i get enough free time to play it. If its anything like the first I'm sold. When it comes to RPGs, they do the best gameplay, which matters a lot to me.

rugbythug
03-29-2011, 08:17 AM
Fun rouges are better. I wish it were bigger. Likes original better. Played on casual because I was pressed for time. Also prefer to put armor on my crew.

Killericon
03-29-2011, 08:30 AM
It's being ripped apart online. I'm not gonna touch it with a five foot pole.

Check out this example of the terrible level design.

http://i.imgur.com/aVAbe.jpg

DarkHorse30
03-29-2011, 09:08 AM
Big fan of Bioware, will get the game once i get enough free time to play it. If its anything like the first I'm sold. When it comes to RPGs, they do the best gameplay, which matters a lot to me.

My kid's all over it. He likes Bioware games and is also big into oblivion and KOTOR also.
I'm a COD guy, myself

Jesterhole
03-29-2011, 09:14 AM
It isn't a bad game, but isn't a sequel to Dragon Age 1 in any way. It is a very different game, streamlined and dumbed down to perform and fit on consoles.

The first game was an epic RPG like Baulder's Gate or Fallout. It let you explore a whole world.

This game lets you explore one city and the same cave over and over 15 times.

The combat is less tactical. You just wait for your super powers to recharge then smash the button as waves of enemies appear out of nowhere. Hey guess what, if I'm in that last group of 4, and the first 20 guys just got ripped apart in front of me, I aint jumping out of the shadows...

Still, the characters are cool, and the dialogue and moral options the game give are top notch. I'll go back and finish it one day, but right now I'm playing the hell out of Crysis 2 and Shogun 2.

DrFate
03-29-2011, 09:30 AM
Great game, not the same epic feel as the first.

I disagree with people who complain about the level design - the design is fine, but they are recycled way too often.

In a way I'm happy that they didn't play the normal game of one-upsmanship

game 1 - save the world!
game 2 - save the universe!!
game 3 - save the multiverse!!!

Same setting, but in a parallel storyline to DA1. More restricted to the city of Kirkwall, but that isn't a bad thing, as you didn't have that 'run across the continent for some random reason' feeling like DA1.

I felt they toned down some of the tactics and turned up a little of the button mashing, but the writing and characters are quite solid (although I didn't really care about a couple of the characters)

They took a page from Mass Effect 2 by simlifying the inventory system (as one poster already said, you can't put armor on your friends). It simplifies things, but some people like that micromanagement. It's a give/take.

I liked the overall story, as it wasn't the same 'kill the big monster and save the world'.

DenverBroncosJM
03-29-2011, 09:34 AM
Its on my list to play but honestly after playing demons souls I doubt Ill be wowed by the game.

Right now I am playing Dc Universe online and having a blast, its really a lot of fun especially the pvp servers.

enjolras
03-29-2011, 09:52 AM
It just feels rushed.

Dexter
03-29-2011, 10:36 AM
I played through Dragon Age Origins 3 times, got all the achievements, and just loved the game. I've had this one pre ordered for awhile, and I think I'm only 2/3rds through after having it for maybe 3 weeks?

The combat is WAY better than Origins, and I actually enjoy the graphic changes. Unfortunately, I don't have a sense that I'm doing anything important. I also hate the changes they made with the gear. You can't give each party member custom gear except rings, amulets weapons and belts. BORING.

I'll probably still play this one through 2-3 times since I'm an achievement whore, but it probably won't be as fun as origins. It seems to me that Bioware has actually made a game with a mediocre story, something that they almost never do. Hopefully that doesn't become a trend.

Overall good game, not great which is disappointing.

Boobs McGee
03-29-2011, 11:21 AM
I've only tried the demo, wasn't too crazy about it. I've never played rpg's, and understand that there's probly a learning curve that isn't really portrayed well in such a small demo, so I can't give an honest opinion.

Anybody have a recommendation for someone who'd like to get INTO Rpg's but doesn't have the formula down? Like, a beginner's rpg?

Kaylore
03-29-2011, 11:29 AM
Most of you have the same views as myself. Except I like more than I don't.

Don't like

Not being able to put armor on your characters
Being locked in Kirkwall. I miss the world of Ferelden.
Having to revisit the same areas for different quests. I understand when you're in a city things happen in the same places over and over, so it makes sense but they should have let us "get out"
Virtually zero connection to the last game, with the exception of a few cameos.


Like's

The game is clean. I strongly disagree with the idea the game is rushed. I think they kept it simple and ironed out kinks and produced a solid story that progresses steadily and is well ballanced.
It's a good game if you aren't expecting a sequel. They should have called it "Kirkwall" and made it an offshoot game and not a true sequel. DA 2 is as much victim of high expectations. If they had not made it THE sequel people would be loving this.
The combat system is better. I agree it gets button mashy on easier difficulty, but try it on a higher setting. Your characters build's, keeping agro, and how and when you use power becomes much more important.
The story and characters are much better. I also like the main character having a voice. I am eager to play this through several times.

Prodigal19
03-29-2011, 11:39 AM
It's being ripped apart online. I'm not gonna touch it with a five foot pole.

Check out this example of the terrible level design.

http://i.imgur.com/aVAbe.jpg

The level designs are pretty repetitive, but it is still a fun game. Not quite as good as the first, and definitely not as good as Mass Effect 2, but still fun.

Also, I wouldn't trust most of the user ratings online. It is being review bombed by /v/ and a couple of other sites because of how much the game play was changed from DAO. Most of the low reviews are by people that haven't played that game and are just riding the hive mind express.

Willynowei
03-29-2011, 11:44 AM
I've only tried the demo, wasn't too crazy about it. I've never played rpg's, and understand that there's probly a learning curve that isn't really portrayed well in such a small demo, so I can't give an honest opinion.

Anybody have a recommendation for someone who'd like to get INTO Rpg's but doesn't have the formula down? Like, a beginner's rpg?

Mass effect series

Archer81
03-29-2011, 11:56 AM
I've beaten it twice, so obviously I like the game. It is true that you cannot change what your companions wear, but each Act has armor upgrades for each character. I suppose that's something. I dig the story, a much smaller focus coinciding with the events of DA:O. The fact the characters emote actually pulled me in a bit more to care about the story and made dialogue choices tougher.

Out of all your companions, Isabela and Merrill are my favorites. Anders...I dont dig whiners, and that is what the guy does. Alot. Fenris' constant I am angry ARGH bit got old, too. Varric is pretty awesome. For a dwarf. I have the distinct impression we see the Champion of Kirkwall in DA:3.

:Broncos:

Kaylore
03-29-2011, 12:07 PM
I disagree with the idea you aren’t doing anything important. It opens with you saving your family from the blight and then having earn off your debt from being a refugee for two years. You start at the bottom, sure, but how is that different than any other RPG? As the story progresses you gain in importance and your actions influence the city more and more. Do you save the world? No, but I agree with what was said earlier. I don’t need to save the universe every time I play a game and to be honest “saving the world” has been beat to dead millions of times in games. Saving a city, one that you spent a lot of time in, hits closer to home and is easier to conceptualize. It also progresses very well. I have several issues with the game, but the story and overall objectives were not among them.

And the online reviews are mostly garbage. Ones that say the game outright sucks, anyway. Ratings of 7-9/10 are closer to correct.

Archer81
03-29-2011, 12:15 PM
I disagree with the idea you aren’t doing anything important. It opens with you saving your family from the blight and then having earn off your debt from being a refugee for two years. You start at the bottom, sure, but how is that different than any other RPG? As the story progresses you gain in importance and your actions influence the city more and more. Do you save the world? No, but I agree with what was said earlier. I don’t need to save the universe every time I play a game and to be honest “saving the world” has been beat to dead millions of times in games. Saving a city, one that you spent a lot of time in, hits closer to home and is easier to conceptualize. It also progresses very well. I have several issues with the game, but the story and overall objectives were not among them.

And the online reviews are mostly garbage. Ones that say the game outright sucks, anyway. Ratings of 7-9/10 are closer to correct.


I'd give DA:II an 8.5, has some technical issues but nothing serious, and the game could have branched out a bit more into the FreeMarches, but that was not the focus of the game so its not that big a deal. Sound track was awesome, voice work was awesome. Story and character development was awesome.

:Broncos:

rugbythug
03-29-2011, 12:15 PM
Mass effect series

Knights of the old republic. The best period.

rugbythug
03-29-2011, 12:17 PM
I like his when I bang the elf her armour turns color. Let's me. Know how awesome I am.

rugbythug
03-29-2011, 12:18 PM
I'd give DA:II an 8.5, has some technical issues but nothing serious, and the game could have branched out a bit more into the FreeMarches, but that was not the focus of the game so its not that big a deal. Sound track was awesome, voice work was awesome. Story and character development was awesome.

:Broncos:

Do you play gay?

Archer81
03-29-2011, 12:18 PM
I like his when I bang the elf her armour turns color. Let's me. Know how awesome I am.


Only means she is a pariah and her people hate her. But I'm sure its all due to your elf banging skills.


:Broncos:

Archer81
03-29-2011, 12:20 PM
Do you play gay?


I've played this game three times. The first time I pursued the connection with Anders. The novelty of the relationship wore off as the game's story unfolded.

Isabela is my favorite. If I had a type of girl, it would be her.

:Broncos:

rugbythug
03-29-2011, 12:20 PM
Only means she is a pariah and her people hate her. But I'm sure its all due to your elf banging skills.


:Broncos:

Well what do think she was going to say were are private people.

Archer81
03-29-2011, 12:21 PM
Well what do think she was going to say were are private people.


I liked the contrast. Normally when women wear white in the context of that type of relationship, she is reflecting purity. Not so with Merrill. Dalish are friggin odd.

:Broncos:

Boobs McGee
03-29-2011, 12:23 PM
Mass effect series

thanks I'll check it out

rugbythug
03-29-2011, 12:23 PM
I've played this game three times. The first time I pursued the connection with Anders. The novelty of the relationship wore off as the game's story unfolded.

Isabela is my favorite. If I had a type of girl, it would be her.

:Broncos:
I've only played once. Isabella was a little easy for my taste. I tried advances on all 3 worked on 2 but the guard chic hated me.

Archer81
03-29-2011, 12:25 PM
I've only played once. Isabella was a little easy for my taste. I tried advances on all 3 worked on 2 but the guard chic hated me.


Aveline is easy to make friends with. I dont think you can go after her romantically. There is a mission called the long road...odd mission. Fenris is impossible to be on good terms with. I managed it on my second playthrough. Got him to learn how to read, but he is a very angry elf.


:Broncos:

Dexter
03-29-2011, 12:36 PM
I disagree with the idea you aren’t doing anything important. It opens with you saving your family from the blight and then having earn off your debt from being a refugee for two years. You start at the bottom, sure, but how is that different than any other RPG? As the story progresses you gain in importance and your actions influence the city more and more. Do you save the world? No, but I agree with what was said earlier. I don’t need to save the universe every time I play a game and to be honest “saving the world” has been beat to dead millions of times in games. Saving a city, one that you spent a lot of time in, hits closer to home and is easier to conceptualize. It also progresses very well. I have several issues with the game, but the story and overall objectives were not among them.

And the online reviews are mostly garbage. Ones that say the game outright sucks, anyway. Ratings of 7-9/10 are closer to correct.

I can agree with this. I think the people who are die hard bioware fans, and were huge fans of Origins are a bit more prone to be disappointed. I'm not saying its a bad game at all, its just not what I was hoping for story wise, at least so far. I hear the story picks up towards the end which is good. I guess one more criticism I have is the inability to pick a race. Being stuck as a human kinda sucks. I loved playing the dwarf and dalish elf races in origins.

Kaylore
03-29-2011, 12:37 PM
The hottest for me is Hawke's sister. Since you play her brother that's obviously a no go, so I went for Isabella sine she was the second hottest even if she is a skank. When she sees Anders about her crotch rot...yuk. Ha!

Archer81
03-29-2011, 12:44 PM
I found by the end of my 2nd playthrough that I really didnt switch out companions. I always had Aveline, Merrill and swapped out Isabella and Varric. The banter between the companions is pretty funny, too.


:Broncos:

rugbythug
03-29-2011, 12:55 PM
The hottest for me is Hawke's sister. Since you play her brother that's obviously a no go, so I went for Isabella sine she was the second hottest even if she is a skank. When she sees Anders about her crotch rot...yuk. Ha!

How did you get a sister? She dies. I bet you were playing as a warrior. I was a mage. And fennris never showed for me.

rugbythug
03-29-2011, 12:56 PM
I found by the end of my 2nd playthrough that I really didnt switch out companions. I always had Aveline, Merrill and swapped out Isabella and Varric. The banter between the companions is pretty funny, too.


:Broncos:

Same with me. 2 mages a warrior and a rouge

rugbythug
03-29-2011, 12:58 PM
Aveline is easy to make friends with. I dont think you can go after her romantically. There is a mission called the long road...odd mission. Fenris is impossible to be on good terms with. I managed it on my second playthrough. Got him to learn how to read, but he is a very angry elf.


:Broncos:

I did the long road and she negg repped. Me.

Doggcow
03-29-2011, 01:00 PM
I still want to know what happened to mine and Morrigan's doom baby when I bent her over the bed that last night.

Archer81
03-29-2011, 01:20 PM
I still want to know what happened to mine and Morrigan's doom baby when I bent her over the bed that last night.


Maybe we find out in DA:3.


:Broncos:

Kaylore
03-29-2011, 01:22 PM
How did you get a sister? She dies. I bet you were playing as a warrior. I was a mage. And fennris never showed for me.

Male Warrior. Bethany's one of the best characters IMO. She's tough without Avaline's butchness and smart and not a slut like Isabella. You end up losing her no matter what. If you take her to the deep roads, she dies. If you do not, she is taken by the Chantry when you get back.

I like Fenris too. Sure, his brooding, bitter, I hate the world attitude is cliche, but the rest of the party pokes fun at him for it. He has some funny comments and if you take him to the Arishok encounters he has some cool things to say. Anders is whiny liberal. He'd be that kid that walks around campus handing out fliers for protests wearing his Rage Against the Machine or Che Guevara shirt.

Merrill is funny and if you deck her out putting all her stats into con and magic and go full on blood mage build, with all the blood magic staff's, rings, etc. she is one of the best players in the game. The only guy I have trouble using is Sebastian. I like his character and his back-story, the whole religion vs civic duty is cool. But In combat I don't have a lot of success with him.

enjolras
03-29-2011, 03:55 PM
I essentially went through the game with a Male Warrior, Aveline, Merrill, and Anders and completely dominated all the way through. By the end of the game Merrill was essentially some kind of elven god, Anders was a big-time healer, and my two tanks could just control everything. The final battle's weren't even challenging (second-to-highest difficulty).

Natedog24
03-29-2011, 03:57 PM
Yeah I couldn't stand Anders either, but I always needed his healing magic so he was usually in my party.

This game would have been much better received if it had been named Dragon Age: Kirkwall instead of Dragon Age 2 because it really isn't much of a sequel to Origins, more of a separate spinoff with some cameo's from the first game.

UberBroncoMan
03-29-2011, 04:46 PM
Pathetically rushed and corner cut designed game.

You repeat the same dungeons for your side quests in upwards of ten times because they clearly had a deadline and budget that didn't allow for expansive "fresh" content design. You run around the same city the entire game. NPC's don't react to a fight in the streets. ****ty animation and voice acting when it comes to the loss of a character. I was literally facepalming about 12 hours in.

Enemy variety can be counted with both hands. It's a theme.

The game came out less than a year and a half after the first and less than a year since the expansion was released.

Graphics cut corners all over the place. Isometric view was removed since it would have added to dev time (and again would only be useful on PC).

Clear move to console. Which I understand since it's a business...but again, the amount of lazy as **** design choices can't be forgiven.

Easily the worst game ever created by BioWare...a company which before this game (and probably the last expansion) was nothing but "buy's."

If you want to play this game, rent it. Don't waste your money.

This game is an atrocity in the game development community and a symbol of "money over quality" that's consumed most bought out companies. (EA in the case of BioWare).

If you're the kind of person who likes doing the same repetitive task over and over again like your taxes, then this is the game for you.

28 hours of stop the generic mage, templar, or slaver is what you're going to get.

Oh, and it's 15+ hours shorter than the first game.

If you want an epic experience play Origins on PC.

Mass Effect 3 should be fine though since that's one IP they can't afford to **** up.

rugbythug
03-29-2011, 06:34 PM
Pathetically rushed and corner cut designed game.

You repeat the same dungeons for your side quests in upwards of ten times because they clearly had a deadline and budget that didn't allow for expansive "fresh" content design. You run around the same city the entire game. NPC's don't react to a fight in the streets. ****ty animation and voice acting when it comes to the loss of a character. I was literally facepalming about 12 hours in.

Enemy variety can be counted with both hands. It's a theme.

The game came out less than a year and a half after the first and less than a year since the expansion was released.

Graphics cut corners all over the place. Isometric view was removed since it would have added to dev time (and again would only be useful on PC).

Clear move to console. Which I understand since it's a business...but again, the amount of lazy as **** design choices can't be forgiven.

Easily the worst game ever created by BioWare...a company which before this game (and probably the last expansion) was nothing but "buy's."

If you want to play this game, rent it. Don't waste your money.

This game is an atrocity in the game development community and a symbol of "money over quality" that's consumed most bought out companies. (EA in the case of BioWare).

If you're the kind of person who likes doing the same repetitive task over and over again like your taxes, then this is the game for you.

28 hours of stop the generic mage, templar, or slaver is what you're going to get.

Oh, and it's 15+ hours shorter than the first game.

If you want an epic experience play Origins on PC.

Mass Effect 3 should be fine though since that's one IP they can't afford to **** up.
But other than that you liked it right?

Willynowei
03-29-2011, 08:21 PM
Pathetically rushed and corner cut designed game.

You repeat the same dungeons for your side quests in upwards of ten times because they clearly had a deadline and budget that didn't allow for expansive "fresh" content design. You run around the same city the entire game. NPC's don't react to a fight in the streets. ****ty animation and voice acting when it comes to the loss of a character. I was literally facepalming about 12 hours in.

Enemy variety can be counted with both hands. It's a theme.

The game came out less than a year and a half after the first and less than a year since the expansion was released.

Graphics cut corners all over the place. Isometric view was removed since it would have added to dev time (and again would only be useful on PC).

Clear move to console. Which I understand since it's a business...but again, the amount of lazy as **** design choices can't be forgiven.

Easily the worst game ever created by BioWare...a company which before this game (and probably the last expansion) was nothing but "buy's."

If you want to play this game, rent it. Don't waste your money.

This game is an atrocity in the game development community and a symbol of "money over quality" that's consumed most bought out companies. (EA in the case of BioWare).

If you're the kind of person who likes doing the same repetitive task over and over again like your taxes, then this is the game for you.

28 hours of stop the generic mage, templar, or slaver is what you're going to get.

Oh, and it's 15+ hours shorter than the first game.

If you want an epic experience play Origins on PC.

Mass Effect 3 should be fine though since that's one IP they can't afford to **** up.

reviews do indicate this, although in Bioware's defense, its not that they have "sold out" as it is the fact that they are being spread thin by EA.

I mean, they're working on the most anticipated MMO since World of Warcraft, and one of the most anticipated console games of this generation.

I think Bioware has ballooned as a company since being bought by EA, its helped them make multiple games at once, but there's bound to be some reduced quality.

That said, my limited experience with the game still indicates that voice work was good and so was combat, and thats still areas that sit well above other games in the genre (For example, it doesn't matter how many years and millions of dollars Bethesda spends with a game, it seems their graphics can be a generation ahead, but the damn combat mechanics and animations are always monotonous and dull)

Archer81
03-29-2011, 08:31 PM
reviews do indicate this, although in Bioware's defense, its not that they have "sold out" as it is the fact that they are being spread thin by EA.

I mean, they're working on the most anticipated MMO since World of Warcraft, and one of the most anticipated console games of this generation.

I think Bioware has ballooned as a company since being bought by EA, its helped them make multiple games at once, but there's bound to be some reduced quality.

That said, my limited experience with the game still indicates that voice work was good and so was combat, and thats still areas that sit well above other games in the genre (For example, it doesn't matter how many years and millions of dollars Bethesda spends with a game, it seems their graphics can be a generation ahead, but the damn combat mechanics and animations are always monotonous and dull)


DA:II is fine. Its not DA:O, but people would complain if it were. The character design was fine, voice work and sound were awesome. If they are going to a DA:III, they should take a bit more time. A game that takes place in Orlais or Ferelden or Tvinter or the Free Marches or all of them would be interesting. The story of Hawke was a good one. I'd like to see him in DA:III.

:Broncos:

Kaylore
03-29-2011, 09:19 PM
Pathetically rushed and corner cut designed game.

You repeat the same dungeons for your side quests in upwards of ten times because they clearly had a deadline and budget that didn't allow for expansive "fresh" content design. You run around the same city the entire game. NPC's don't react to a fight in the streets. ****ty animation and voice acting when it comes to the loss of a character. I was literally facepalming about 12 hours in.

Enemy variety can be counted with both hands. It's a theme.

The game came out less than a year and a half after the first and less than a year since the expansion was released.

Graphics cut corners all over the place. Isometric view was removed since it would have added to dev time (and again would only be useful on PC).

Clear move to console. Which I understand since it's a business...but again, the amount of lazy as **** design choices can't be forgiven.

Easily the worst game ever created by BioWare...a company which before this game (and probably the last expansion) was nothing but "buy's."

If you want to play this game, rent it. Don't waste your money.

This game is an atrocity in the game development community and a symbol of "money over quality" that's consumed most bought out companies. (EA in the case of BioWare).

If you're the kind of person who likes doing the same repetitive task over and over again like your taxes, then this is the game for you.

28 hours of stop the generic mage, templar, or slaver is what you're going to get.

Oh, and it's 15+ hours shorter than the first game.

If you want an epic experience play Origins on PC.

Mass Effect 3 should be fine though since that's one IP they can't afford to **** up.

:rofl: Really you hated it that much?

FYI it's not anywhere close to as bad as this. There are definitely some major disappointments in terms of scope of story, watered down gear and repetitive questing locations. There is more good than bad. Much more, I'd argue.

jutang
03-29-2011, 11:49 PM
I've been on the fence in getting this title. Loved Origin's narrative and story the most. Combat was fun, but the characters and unique dialogue choices really drew me in the most. I also liked how dialogue choices in Origins were not so clear cut, while the conversation tree for DA2 seems dumbed down.

Probably will get it once the price falls down I'll buy it... but imo it seems like EA is trying to milk the DA franchise for it's money without improving on its quality.

UberBroncoMan
03-30-2011, 01:13 AM
:rofl: Really you hated it that much?

FYI it's not anywhere close to as bad as this. There are definitely some major disappointments in terms of scope of story, watered down gear and repetitive questing locations. There is more good than bad. Much more, I'd argue.

You can't be serious? Are you a crazed BioWare fan or simply not that big of a gamer. I could understand someone who doesn't play games much assuming this game is good or something, since they haven't experienced what a clear cut epic game is.

If no...this attitude for accepting clearly diminished quality is what propels game companies to feed **** to the masses rather than taking 2.5-3 years to ship a complete product.

As someone who goes to conferences like E3 every year and literally lives "games," I fully believe this game is a slap in the face of the player-base that propelled Origins to success. It was rushed. There's no, if's about it. I am still disgusted by the blatant repetition of dungeons. Something that BioWare NEVER did so blatantly before. Do you remember running in the same area over and over again in KotoR? Jade Empire? Mass Effect 1/2?...how about Origins??? NO.

I'll give you a metaphor for how ****ty Dragon Age 2 is. I'm going to turn a great BioWare game into Dragon Age 2.

Imagine if all of Mass Effect was in the Citadel (which may actually be bigger than Kirkwall distance wise). So, in this remade Mass Effect all you do is run around trying to solve some dispute between the alien races. Often you'll enter in instanced area within the Citadel where you'll kill a bunch of x a few of y and maybe a z. You interchange between these 5 dungeon zones for 28 hours. You never go to the vast and unique worlds, you never go on a ship. Maybe you get to go onto one of the randomly generated planets with the identical buildings for a change of pace (kind of like the coast, etc) to kill the same **** you've been killing in dungeons all damn game.

If this was just any old dev that made this game, I'd probably shrug it off.

When you purposely go to the ****ter in quality just so you can pump games faster out you deserve the flak.

This game was, and is, an absolute pile of dog crap compared to BioWare's past products. Anyone who thinks otherwise simply hasn't experienced it or is built for playing Asian MMO's.

The ONLY major improvement DA2 had was the combat. It had a faster pace which was needed. THAT'S IT. Everything else was a downgrade...and the ONLY reason for that improvement was to make it a better console experience (Origins was not very fun for console players due to the combat).

If you want to play a surefire hit Action/RPG from a dev that's actually taken their ****ing time between games, get The Witcher 2 this May.

Doggcow
03-30-2011, 01:18 AM
Imagine if all of Mass Effect was in the Citadel (which may actually be bigger than Kirkwall distance wise). So, in this remade Mass Effect all you do is run around trying to solve some dispute between the alien races. Often you'll enter in instanced area within the Citadel where you'll kill a bunch of x a few of y and maybe a z. You interchange between these 5 dungeon zones for 28 hours. You never go to the vast and unique worlds, you never go on a ship. Maybe you get to go onto one of the randomly generated planets with the identical buildings for a change of pace (kind of like the coast, etc) to kill the same **** you've been killing in dungeons all damn game.

If X, Y, and Z were Nazi Zombies, it would be an all time best seller :D

UberBroncoMan
03-30-2011, 01:23 AM
If X, Y, and Z were Nazi Zombies, it would be an all time best seller :D

Touché

Kaylore
03-30-2011, 05:33 AM
You can't be serious? Are you a crazed BioWare fan or simply not that big of a gamer. I could understand someone who doesn't play games much assuming this game is good or something, since they haven't experienced what a clear cut epic game is.
Solid opening! I'm clearly a noob. You're a real gamer.
If no...this attitude for accepting clearly diminished quality is what propels game companies to feed **** to the masses rather than taking 2.5-3 years to ship a complete product.
It's not that bad. You can read my review earlier in the thread.
As someone who goes to conferences like E3 every year and literally lives "games," I fully believe this game is a slap in the face of the player-base that propelled Origins to success.
Well, touch you with a gold hairpin!

It was rushed. There's no, if's about it. I am still disgusted by the blatant repetition of dungeons. Something that BioWare NEVER did so blatantly before. Do you remember running in the same area over and over again in KotoR? Jade Empire? Mass Effect 1/2?...how about Origins??? NO.

Oh ho ho! NOW who's the noob? I never played Jade Empire, but I have played all the others and this is absolutely something they always do! In ME1, what do you call driving the Mako around for hours and hours? What do you call going in the same damn building up the same damn ramp into the same damn room on every planet? How about the same underground bunker map in every single planet and moon? Unless you think rearranging the containers qualifies as "new levels." And it's not like you spend a lot of time questing in the same location. Oh wait a minute! The Citadel! Durrrrr! Never repeating maps? KOTOR repeated the same hallway design for every freaking city you were in: wide, slow curving crescents. And the rooms were the same too. Even the forests and plains felt like you were in nature museum hallway. And you complain the minions were repeated and then pretend that's so beneath Bioware? You had the same six types of enemies in KOTOR they just leveled with you. Same thing with DAO. You fought the same kinds of enemies from the beginning to the end. Technically there were more enemy mobs in DA2 than in Origins, but don't let facts get in the way of your ranting. This style is patent Bioware. Even ME2 repeats enemies, and while they did a good job of not repeating level design as much, there were still a lot of areas you went back and forth too. So, no. You are absolutely wrong.

Holy crap! I sure know more than you do for being such a, poor, pitiful inferior gamer. I guess my points are all moot because you go to E3, though. Right?


This game was, and is, an absolute pile of dog crap compared to BioWare's past products. Anyone who thinks otherwise simply hasn't experienced it or is built for playing Asian MMO's.
Absolutely false. It is a solid game in it's own right that is a victim of too high expectations from fanboys like yourself. Saying it is "dog crap" is like saying it is unplayable. It's not. As I said before, if you hadn't played the first one, you would have thought it was a decent game. You talk about it like it's ET on Atari.

The ONLY major improvement DA2 had was the combat. It had a faster pace which was needed. THAT'S IT. Everything else was a downgrade...and the ONLY reason for that improvement was to make it a better console experience (Origins was not very fun for console players due to the combat).[quote]
Totally disagree. The character development, narrative style and voice acting were at least as good if not better than DAO. Hawke has a voice now and it's a well acted one. The story wasn't as "epic" but it was till good and progressed well. The fluidity with which you can rotate your characters is improved as well.

See the negative reviews are from uber-gamers like you who built the sequel up in their minds as the greatest game in the world and then re-imagine Bioware's past games as better than they were. They weren't as awesome as you assert here. I agree that DA2 is disappointing in some ways: It doesn't feel like a sequel, it doesn't reach is high in terms of impact, and they box you in to one location. However repeated level designs, repeated enemies and simplified, boxed in feeling locations are all Bioware's style. Fortunately so is strong character development, great voice acting and good story telling as well as easy combat and character customization. I got all that again in DA2.

[quote]If you want to play a surefire hit Action/RPG from a dev that's actually taken their ****ing time between games, get The Witcher 2 this May.

I just might do that.

And before you play the "you are a bioware fanboy" card. I am not. I actually find them a little overrated which is why this whole argument is ironic to me. It's usually the fanboys I'm arguing with about your biggest gripes. All of sudden people have a problem with things they've been doing for years mostly because the expectations for DA2 were too high.

DrFate
03-30-2011, 06:23 AM
If you play a warrior, you get Bethany as a mage in your group (at least to start)

If you play as a mage, you get Carver the warrior in your group (at least to start)

(I'm pretty sure that's correct)

I'm not sure what UberBroncoMan's problem is, but saying this game is 'terrible' is pretty silly. I've played RPGs from this company for over a decade and while this game doesn't have the epic 'save the world' feel of DA:O, it is certainly an excellent fantasy RPG. It isn't a sequel to the first game, it's a separate story with a different hero in the same timeframe as the first.

I don't quite understand people's complaints about being confined to Kirkwall - Lowtown, Hightown, the Docks, etc. were each their own separate board. It isn't like you were confined to a single map the entire game. The story is more of a 'local' story - it isn't better or worse than DA:O on this charge, it's just different. I mean, how much sense does it make that your Warden will ignore the blight and travel across the continent to go find some random sidequest item? The city of Kirwall felt much more 'real' than say the city of Denerim, where almost the entire city can be viewed by standing in the market square. (the only part of the city I remember being separate was the alienage).

I'm not sure how you have the same 'epic' feel from the first game in DA:2 without it feeling overly contrived. The intrigue in this game is solid as well, as it isn't easy to decide which faction to favor.

DrFate
03-30-2011, 06:26 AM
I'm also a little surprised that people have so much issue with the inventory simplfication. It can be cool to play dress-up with your party members like in DA:O but I don't think it detracted from the game all that much (it also removed potion and poison making, runecraft from the expansion, etc.)

Kaylore - curious - did you dislike the ME2 inventory simplification also?

Drek
03-30-2011, 06:34 AM
And before you play the "you are a bioware fanboy" card. I am not. I actually find them a little overrated which is why this whole argument is ironic to me. It's usually the fanboys I'm arguing with about your biggest gripes. All of sudden people have a problem with things they've been doing for years mostly because the expectations for DA2 were too high.

Bioware used to be underrated. Baldur's Gate 2 + Throne of Bhaal is still the best RPG ever made and most "gamers" have never played it. Sadly their path to mainstream popularity involved them giving up actual RPG gameplay.

The problem with DA2 can be summed up by what one of the devs said when promoting the game. "whenever you press a button something awesome happens". Best translated as "for all you ADHD kiddies out there, this game doesn't require you to think or put yourself in the role of a character. Just smash 'dem buttons and watch cool **** happen. Winning!"

This is Bioware for the last several years though. Once they saw that KOTOR had a bit more mass appeal than the stellar true RPGs they had been making they've gradually sold out their core fanbase for the johnny come lately's gaming dollars. Slow, strategic battles that offer a challenge don't sell? Then replace it with button = awesome. In depth character plot lines that develop over multiple side quests and tens of hours of gameplay don't sell? Replace it with being able to sleep with all your party members regardless of gender within 10 minutes of meeting them. Oh, and threesomes.

DA:O was a small step in the right direction away from the KOTOR/ME watered down faux RPG **** they've been pedaling. DA2 is two big steps backwards.

DrFate
03-30-2011, 06:36 AM
DA:O was a small step in the right direction away from the KOTOR/ME watered down faux RPG **** they've been pedaling. DA2 is two big steps backwards.

Why is KOTOR/ME 'watered down faux RPG ****' ?

2KBack
03-30-2011, 06:41 AM
Why is KOTOR/ME 'watered down faux RPG ****' ?

Because "RPG" might as well be "Alternative music" now. Everyone has their own definition of a "true RPG" and it is very important that all others be ridiculed for the abominations they are.

DrFate
03-30-2011, 06:45 AM
Because "RPG" might as well be "Alternative music" now. Everyone has their own definition of a "true RPG" and it is very important that all others be ridiculed for the abominations they are.

:)

I grant you such 'analysis' as Drek provided is certainly subjective. But I also know that genre's evolve to fit the ever-changing audience. I have a pretty broad history to fall back on (starting with Pool of Radiance and Questron on the Commodore). Yes current games have more sex, have more RPG/action/shooter crossover than days past. But the games have to evolve to appeal to the buyers. I'm not sure why BG is awesome but KOTOR or ME is terrible...

Drek
03-30-2011, 07:31 AM
Why is KOTOR/ME 'watered down faux RPG ****' ?

Simplistic combat that in no way rewards/punishes you for player development choices.

A storyline where "moral choice" is black and white extremes that even a 5 year old can see coming.

No real freedom of exploration. "Size" is simply a product of filler material and your use of in game objects is limited to the narrow purview that the designers wanted.

You just need to really meet the opposite spectrum from just one of those three to be a real RPG in my opinion. Otherwise everything Zelda to Dead Rising is an RPG because they all have some form of experience based character progression.

So for example what Bethesda makes is an RPG. Not what I'd call a very good one mind you, but you can A. totally nerf your character with bad design choices and B. you can interact with almost any object in the game world at your discretion. They somewhat moved backwards from Morrowind to Oblivion because they took out the ability to craft your own magic spells and by proxy greatly limited item creation.

Now with the most recent Bioware games its "pick pack X, Y, or Z. It allows skills A, B, and C. We'll offer you clear cut black/white choices and even represent those choices on a "good/bad" moral bar. All of these minor inputs you have in the game will in no way prevent you from breezing through all combat with no strategy applied and will result in a 95% identical gameplay experience with a few slightly different quest outcomes and cut scenes that will in now way string into a cohesive whole. The sequel will use an equally ambiguous beginning too so we don't offend you and your choices from the first game, even if that makes the storyline generic filler".

Thats not really much of an RPG. Even less so than the old console games like Dragon Warrior where you start off a quest with the dialogue of "Will you save the princess?" No "But you must! Will you save the princess?" Until you finally pick yes. Eventually those games offered some kind of challenging gameplay equipment collection. Now you can't offend gamers with challenging gameplay, potentially developing a ineffective character, or a storyline that requires thought and time to develop.

Its not adapting to the buyers, its adapting to who they think has the most money. The Witcher is a first class RPG. It does almost everything right. It sold over a million copies and has a much anticipated, heavily pre-ordered, sequel on the way. So why could a Polish studio pull that off with their very first game while Bioware can't get back to that core mechanic even when making some effort to do so with DA:O? Because ultimately they feel like they have to appeal to as wide a spectrum as possible. And in trying to please everyone they make a game that fails to appeal to the core constituency they claim to care the most about.

Bioware is effectively the guy who publicly plays the role of a loving husband while at the same time spending all his time away from her trying to bang skanks in hotel rooms.

2KBack
03-30-2011, 07:33 AM
:)

I grant you such 'analysis' as Drek provided is certainly subjective. But I also know that genre's evolve to fit the ever-changing audience. I have a pretty broad history to fall back on (starting with Pool of Radiance and Questron on the Commodore). Yes current games have more sex, have more RPG/action/shooter crossover than days past. But the games have to evolve to appeal to the buyers. I'm not sure why BG is awesome but KOTOR or ME is terrible...

I am a huge fan of western RPG's, and love KOTOR (and 90% of KOTOR 2), and ME is probably one of my favorite series ever at this point. I know a lot of others though that hate the streamlining of the genre. It used to be a lot more tactical from a combat perspective, a ton more micromanaging of items and companions. There has been a shift away from the classic stat centric nerd form of RPG, to games with more mass appeal and fast twitch action elements. They also are shrinking from 80-100 hour games to more like 30. None of that bothers me (except I do love managing a good inventory), but I have friends that are furious.

Drek
03-30-2011, 07:36 AM
I am a huge fan of western RPG's, and love KOTOR (and 90% of KOTOR 2), and ME is probably one of my favorite series ever at this point. I know a lot of others though that hate the streamlining of the genre. It used to be a lot more tactical from a combat perspective, a ton more micromanaging of items and companions. There has been a shift away from the classic stat centric nerd form of RPG, to games with more mass appeal and fast twitch action elements. They also are shrinking from 80-100 hour games to more like 30. None of that bothers me (except I do love managing a good inventory), but I have friends that are furious.

What you call "stat centric nerd form of RPG" is what an RPG actually is. What you describe Bioware's games moving towards is something akin to Devil May Cry, Dead Rising, Bayonetta, Metal Gear, etc.. A wide array of games that no one has ever called RPGs.

2KBack
03-30-2011, 08:01 AM
What you call "stat centric nerd form of RPG" is what an RPG actually is. What you describe Bioware's games moving towards is something akin to Devil May Cry, Dead Rising, Bayonetta, Metal Gear, etc.. A wide array of games that no one has ever called RPGs.

There is no clear cut definition of what an RPG is. Freaking ZORK was an RPG, and you were completely confined to parameters of the basic text storyline, Wizardy was nothing but a series of corridors with random encounters with a shell of a storyline. D & D (yes I played it), you were limited by the imagination of the DM or the pre-made campaigns in the books. Sure, you could dream up whatever character you wanted in your head and play with stats to your hearts content, but the actual playing was just as restrictive as it always has been. RPG's are about playing a role, simply as that. You have the control over the creation and evolution of the Character whose role you have chosen. How much control is based on the storyline and campaign, it has ALWAYS been that way. Japanese RPG's have all but eliminated the custom character in favor of having the player control a premade character on a predestined build, but an elaborate storyline. The majority of Western RPG's have been full customization, but only shell storylines to offer the feeling of freedom. All these Bioware RPG's are doing is marrying the two, having full fleshed stories, and offering as much choice as possible without ruining the tale they wish to tell. DA:2 was a far better crafted story than DA:1, which was a basic fantasy reduex (Dark is rising, better gather some companions and fight it). That is what Bioware is known for, storytelling, not making great super-customizable open worlds for people to craft their own stories in.

And this is why I say, that people define RPG's by what they like, because there simply isn't a definition. Honestly clinging to an abstract notion of a "true" genre does you a disservice because you are focusing on the wrong elements. You should be enjoying all games for what they are, not what they are not. It's a lot like when people call Mass Effect a ****ty Shooting game...those people are kind of missing the point.

DrFate
03-30-2011, 08:11 AM
Drek,
I appreciate your thoughts (and the time you took to provide them) but I can't agree with your entire post. A lot of people enjoy micromanagement of equipment (should I wear the armor that give me 5% fire resistance or the armor that gives me 10 health points?) but a lot of people don't. I won't say the DA:2 inventory system is better/worse than DA:1, I'll simply say it is different. On that note, I don't think moving away from that model is less 'RPG', it simply is designed towards a larger audience.

I realize a lot of the 'moral' choices in some games are cartoonish (I remember KOTOR where the light side choice was 'help the guy' and the dark side choice was 'take his credits') but I'm not sure I agree that all the choices are really that 'clear cut' in the current Bioware crop.

DrFate
03-30-2011, 08:16 AM
There is no clear cut definition of what an RPG is.

agreed

RPG's are about playing a role, simply as that. You have the control over the creation and evolution of the Character whose role you have chosen. How much control is based on the storyline and campaign, it has ALWAYS been that way.

agreed

DA:2 was a far better crafted story than DA:1, which was a basic fantasy reduex (Dark is rising, better gather some companions and fight it). That is what Bioware is known for, storytelling, not making great super-customizable open worlds for people to craft their own stories in.

agreed - I found the story 'tighter', although the game is less tactical, more of a button masher, and has complexity removed (equipment options, crafting options, etc.) It IS designed to be a faster paced game with less overhead of gear and 'stuff' that younger gamers probably dislike. (but it isn't like you had crafting options in Baldur's Gate either)

I liked some of the characters (Varric, Isabella) and found some annoying (Merril) and some boring (Fenris). But, I didn't like Sten in the first game, i found him the typical 'stoic warrior' cliche. To me, the fun in the RPG is building your character, interacting with those game characters, etc.

It's a lot like when people call Mass Effect a ****ty Shooting game...those people are kind of missing the point.

As solid an RPG as ME is (Drek's opinion notwithstanding), I call it an RPG/shooter (the combat system is like Gears of War-lite with the duck/cover concept).

I'll grant Drek one point with certainty - the class specific things that were in BG was amazing. You could play through the game as a different class and it was essentially a different game. There are some things in DA:O where your decisions/actions do significantly impact the story (when I played it, the circle was destroyed - I played the game to conclusion and only later did a friend tell me you could actually save that mage circle).

Drek
03-30-2011, 09:10 AM
There is no clear cut definition of what an RPG is.

By your definition every single game ever made is an RPG. Call of Duty is an RPG because you take on the role of a soldier. NASCAR games are an RPG unless you just happen to be a professional NASCAR driver who only plays as himself. All sports games are RPGs unless you're a baseball player who only plays MLB The Show, in Road to the Show mode, as an exact replica of yourself.

YAY! Isn't post-processualism fun?

I previously outlined three things where any one of which let you fit into the RPG genre of video games. Its a very loose set of guidelines that should generally let everyone who wants to make an RPG easily get into the pool.

Problem is, Bioware doesn't want to make RPGs. They want to make games that sell. Period. Shooters sell. Lame bromance storylines sell. Push button = awesome happens sells. So they keep calling their games RPGs because they want to keep dragging their RPG loving core along with them as they try and whore themselves out to your shooter fans, adventure game fans, etc..

Its not unlike what Bethesda did with Fallout (actually an RPG, FYI). They spend MONTHS of development kissing asses of the core fans, telling anyone who would listen how much they wanted to make a game true to the Fallout roots. Instead they made "Post-Apoc Elder Scrolls with Guns" and when the fans they had been kissing the asses of didn't love it they fell back on the "bunch of nerds no one could please" and "its our IP now, we'll do what we want".

Bioware and Bethesda are businesses, their job is to make money. If making Dude Bro Adenture Game 50,001 (i.e. Dragon Age 2) makes them money then rock on. But quit trying to sell your core fans on the lie that you still care, and quit getting defensive when they call you on those lies. Be honest, admit that you're just shilling for the casual dollar, and don't go crying to your core fans when the casual gamers move on to another hot flavor of the month as soon as your formula gets a little stale. They'll be too busy playing CD Projekt's new game to care.

Kaylore
03-30-2011, 09:11 AM
I'm also a little surprised that people have so much issue with the inventory simplfication. It can be cool to play dress-up with your party members like in DA:O but I don't think it detracted from the game all that much (it also removed potion and poison making, runecraft from the expansion, etc.)

Kaylore - curious - did you dislike the ME2 inventory simplification also?

No, I actually liked that because in ME1 it pigeonholed you into using one type of gun. The different types of ammo were a bit much too.

I like customizing my character's gear, and armor specifically, toward what they do. Like I have Merrill decked out in all this blood magic gear which must giver her 16:1 mana for each hit point at this point. Having a say in armor helped with customizing in a fun way, and wasn't too overwhelming for me. It's loss in DA2 didn't ruin the game for me. I mean I am enjoying DA2, I just miss that element and didn't find it overwhelming in the first game. I do like that they simplified the health potions. The different types of polstices and whatnot were silly.

As for the RPG argument, I think most "purists" want a lot of story, incredibly customizable characters and more tactical combat where you issue commands and then watch. For me, I don't factor combat style into defining an RPG at all. I have be able to have some broad say in how the character operates, though. If it's merely buying upgrades, I don't consider it a true RPG, but if it involves picking and growing powers and skills then it qualifies in my book. It obviously makes for some gray areas.

I am also not someone that "has" to have certain elements if a particular genre or I immediately hate it. I try to take all games at face value and play them as they are. I enjoy them more that way, I think.

Drek
03-30-2011, 09:19 AM
I am also not someone that "has" to have certain elements if a particular genre or I immediately hate it. I try to take all games at face value and play them as they are. I enjoy them more that way, I think.

And herein lies the key to the blow back you're seeing against DA2. Most fans were sold a bill of goods by Bioware that this was an RPG sequel to the closest thing to a good RPG Bioware has made in nearly 10 years.

Instead its a solid adventure game with RPG-lite elements. It is to role playing video games what a "choose your own adventure" book is to playing a PnP RPG.

Nothing wrong with that. As a kid I absolutely loved "choose your own adventure" style books. But Don't try to sell it as something its not. Its an adventure game. Its slightly less linear than Devil May Cry, Uncharted, Tomb Raider, etc., but it is still in the same genre as those games.

Kaylore
03-30-2011, 09:34 AM
I don't understand how real time combat makes something not an RPG anymore. Or is it the button mashing? By that logic, WOW isn't an RPG. Personally real time combat is more believable and the point of RPG's has never been combat. Its always been character and story oriented. The combat systems of any RPG were just a way to resolve action in scenes. The story and characters are well develope and You directly affect both. There is no way DA2 isn't an RPG.

And all video games are a form of RPG since You are controlling the actions of a fictional character.

DrFate
03-30-2011, 09:38 AM
No, I actually liked that because in ME1 it pigeonholed you into using one type of gun. The different types of ammo were a bit much too. I like customizing my character's gear, and armor specifically, toward what they do.


That's cool - to me, both were 'simplifications' - ME1 had guns and armor and ammo and it was a ton to keep track of. In ME2, you upgrade the rifle/pistol/shotgun, but it isn't a huge littany of stuff in your inventory.

I felt the move in DA:2 was similar - it cut out the armor dress-up of your companions (which I really didn't mind) and made the weapon/armor/item selection simpler with the star system (although I wasn't always sure why one item had more stars than another, sometimes it seemed off).

As for the RPG argument, I think most "purists" want a lot of story, incredibly customizable characters and more tactical combat where you issue commands and then watch. For me, I don't factor combat style into defining an RPG at all. I have be able to have some broad say in how the character operates, though. If it's merely buying upgrades, I don't consider it a true RPG, but if it involves picking and growing powers and skills then it qualifies in my book. It obviously makes for some gray areas.

I am also not someone that "has" to have certain elements if a particular genre or I immediately hate it. I try to take all games at face value and play them as they are. I enjoy them more that way, I think.

Agreed - Drek said he didn't like KOTOR, but that game (combat) was all tactial - you issued orders and your guys did stuff. You never did 'button mashing'.

DrFate
03-30-2011, 09:39 AM
By that logic, WOW isn't an RPG. Personally real time combat is more believable and the point of RPG's has never been combat. Its always been character and story oriented. The combat systems of any RPG were just a way to resolve action in scenes. The story and characters are well develope and You directly affect both. There is no way DA2 isn't an RPG.


I'm not sure I call WoW an RPG myself. It all seems to be about accumulating stuff and not much about characters (yours or others)

Drek
03-30-2011, 09:41 AM
I don't understand how real time combat makes something not an RPG anymore. Or is it the button mashing? By that logic, WOW isn't an RPG. Personally real time combat is more believable and the point of RPG's has never been combat. Its always been character and story oriented. The combat systems of any RPG were just a way to resolve action in scenes. The story and characters are well develope and You directly affect both. There is no way DA2 isn't an RPG.

And all video games are a form of RPG since You are controlling the actions of a fictional character.

Its that the choices you make in the storyline have only trivial impact on the overall story, the character development choices you make have only a marginal impact on how you explode dark spawn, etc..

If you want to apply some post-processual "all games are RPGs" rule then sure, its an RPG. But if you actually want to keep some sort of genre delineation then its no more an RPG than any of the thousands of other action/adventure games with some a few choices and character upgrades sprinkled in.

Like I said though, I don't personally care. I play every style of game and I personally love genre blending. But I just find it insulting that Bioware has all this angst over their fans reactions when after months of hyping this game up as the successor to an honest to goodness RPG they release an adventure game. What did they really expect? Their fans to be so oblivious that they just swallow the **** Bioware is selling and say "thanks for the cake!"

They aren't Call of Duty fans who don't know that they're playing absolute ****.

DrFate
03-30-2011, 09:42 AM
Instead its a solid adventure game with RPG-lite elements.

I'd call DA:2 an RPG with some adventure game elements (more adventure game elements than DA:O for example)

Where ME is an RPG with some shooter elements

Archer81
03-30-2011, 09:46 AM
I think for what Dragon Age II presented it was fine. I never played DA:Origins, so I had no expectations for DA:II. I enjoyed it. The game could have had more scenic variety, but it takes place over 8 years in the same city undergoing ridiculous turmoil. I didnt care that I couldnt outfit my companions the way I wanted, and in hindsight its probably best. I dont dress my friends in real life, I wouldnt want to in a game.

When they make DA:III, I'll but it because I was impressed with II. Games should be about entertainment. If they entertain you, have an engrossing story to you and are fun to play to you it shouldnt matter if its not EXACTLY like the previous game.

I recommend the game. Enjoy it for what it is.

:Broncos:

DrFate
03-30-2011, 09:49 AM
Its that the choices you make in the storyline have only trivial impact on the overall story, the character development choices you make have only a marginal impact on how you explode dark spawn, etc..


I don't think that's entirely true. Granted, the 'outcome' of the game is the same (in both DA games) but the overall tapestry of the story does change based on your play.

The end of DA:O ends with somebody killing the archdemon. That doesn't change, regardless of how you play the game (class, alignment, choices, etc). Not many games have multiple/independent endings (that I've played, at least) That said, every game is going to have a finite number of endings, and a finite number of ways to get there.

Drek
03-30-2011, 09:50 AM
Agreed - Drek said he didn't like KOTOR, but that game (combat) was all tactial - you issued orders and your guys did stuff. You never did 'button mashing'.

Never said I didn't like KOTOR, just that it doesn't really do much different from your action/adventure games so why is it called an RPG?

No real character development or choice. Limited, entirely scripted, interactivity with the game world and its occupants. No real strategy required in character development, etc.. Its no more an RPG than the adventure games I've mentioned many times.

Combat systems can make a game an RPG because an in depth combat system based on character progression as the focal point gives an good player definable experience. Diablo II is an example of this. No real story to speak of, towns to explore, or NPCs to interact with. But character construction itself is how you tailor the game to your tastes. It plays completely different depending on how you build characters, even within the same class. That is an RPG.

An open world like the Elder Scrolls games where you can pick up every item off a shelf and go to any point you see is an RPG. You're given a full interactive sandbox to play in and can interact with the surroundings as you see fit. Kill a shop keeper and take his ****? Thats your choice, though it might keep you from finishing the game.

A storyline you can guide completely on your choices, even when you don't realize you just made a game altering choice? Brilliant story design in an RPG. We see this in games like Planescape: Tourment, the Fallout titles, Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, and most recently The Witcher.

Bioware's most recent attempts (KOTOR and on) treat these three facets of what makes an RPG as though they were check boxes to be filled, missing the point that you can't just throw in turn based combat without making it something uniquely hinged on character design and development, world exploration without making it something you can truly explore and interact with, or storyline input without having it actually resonate throughout the storyline. In short, you can't just sprinkle a touch of all three in and call in an "RPG". People have been doing that with Adventure games, shooters, etc. for a long time now and those people have never tried to sell their games as RPGs. So Bioware needs to stop lying to consumers. When they do games like DA2 will get a much fairer shake from reviewers and the forum kiddies alike.

DrFate
03-30-2011, 09:52 AM
Never said I didn't like KOTOR, just that it doesn't really do much different from your action/adventure games so why is it called an RPG?

KOTOR had zero real-time combat. It was a 'truer' RPG (from that perspective) than any of the other Bioware games we've discussed. How is KOTOR not an RPG? You talk to people, you make choices, and combat is entirely tactical...

DrFate
03-30-2011, 09:53 AM
Diablo II is an example of this. No real story to speak of, towns to explore, or NPCs to interact with. But character construction itself is how you tailor the game to your tastes. It plays completely different depending on how you build characters, even within the same class. That is an RPG.

That's NOT an RPG. There is no 'role playing' if you are simply assembling a combat machine. Based on that logic, a mech game is an RPG.

As Kaylore said, and RPG is based on story and character development. It's not based on item/ability stacking to make your warrior attack for +X damage per attack.

If you say Elder Scrolls is a more open experience than DA or ME or KOTOR - I'd agree with you. I can't say the story is 'better', but you can walk around in the woods for 5 hours then go kill the shopkeep. Personally, I never liked the 'walking around in the woods for 5 hours'. I felt the Elder Scroll games were too open-ended.

Ironically, the Baldur's Gate games, for all their great content, weren't the same kind of open-ended games that you seem to favor.

Kaylore
03-30-2011, 09:55 AM
So no scripting either Drek? Basically if it isn't a sandbox style it's not an RPG? Good grief no wonder you're so pissed off. DAO was scripted too but for some reason that's less offensive this time because of the combat style maybe?

But then you said Fallout isn't an RPG either.

So by your standards an RPG is: Freeform where you can interact with everything, no-scripting or linear questing, no shooting, no live action combat. that disqualifies all the Final Fantasies, many of D&D's, Shadowrun and Mechwarrior series too.

You must have played the Ultima series a lot I'm guessing.

Kaylore
03-30-2011, 09:57 AM
That's NOT an RPG. There is no 'role playing' if you are simply assembling a combat machine. Based on that logic, a mech game is an RPG.

As Kaylore said, and RPG is based on story and character development. It's not based on item/ability stacking to make your warrior attack for +X damage per attack.


Yeah no kidding. Diablo is certainly not an RPG. Your character has literally no personality whatsoever. It's basically hack n slash.

Drek
03-30-2011, 09:58 AM
I don't think that's entirely true. Granted, the 'outcome' of the game is the same (in both DA games) but the overall tapestry of the story does change based on your play.

The end of DA:O ends with somebody killing the archdemon. That doesn't change, regardless of how you play the game (class, alignment, choices, etc). Not many games have multiple/independent endings (that I've played, at least) That said, every game is going to have a finite number of endings, and a finite number of ways to get there.

DA:O is barely much of an RPG itself though. It gives you a more flexible cast and more flexible character development which results in more flexible and diverse combat, so it makes it in, but what Bioware calls an open storyline in no way meets the standards RPGs were setting over a decade ago.

Here's an example and a bit of a spoiler for DA:O. When I played through I went to the Urn of Sacred Ashes area before going to Redcliffe. So when I got to Redcliffe and got out of the fade, etc. you'd think the whole "sacred ashes" dialogue would've gone a bit differently then for someone who hadn't you know, gone and gotten the ashes already. But it didn't. Same ****, right down to the "oh but were could it possibly be?" idiocy. Nevermind that my whole party just spent the last 5 hours hacking up everything that moved in that very temple and were wearing the dragon scale I picked up in there.

That is bad storyline design. It does not fit with what should be in the "RPG" genre. If you give me an open world and I do things out of your predefined sequence the game world should react in at least some slight fashion to me having done so, not instead act like what I did never happened.

DrFate
03-30-2011, 10:06 AM
If you feel Diablo is an RPG and DA/ME/KOTOR are not, we are obviously working from a different premise.

RPG is about story and characters. Sure there are a limited number of 'paths' you can follow in these games - but that doesn't mean they aren't of the genre. (and yes DA has some glitches where the dialog seems to ignore past objectives)

In ME Shepard fights the Reapers. I grant you there is no option to go and join the Reapers, or blow up the Citadel for the hell of it, or crash the Normandy into a star, or whatever. You do have to play within the confines of a story written by the game creators. But the RPG elements allow you to customize the story based on your decisions.

There is no story in Diablo.

Drek
03-30-2011, 10:10 AM
That's NOT an RPG. There is no 'role playing' if you are simply assembling a combat machine. Based on that logic, a mech game is an RPG.

As Kaylore said, and RPG is based on story and character development. It's not based on item/ability stacking to make your warrior attack for +X damage per attack.

If you say Elder Scrolls is a more open experience than DA or ME or KOTOR - I'd agree with you. I can't say the story is 'better', but you can walk around in the woods for 5 hours then go kill the shopkeep. Personally, I never liked the 'walking around in the woods for 5 hours'. I felt the Elder Scroll games were too open-ended.

Diablo is an RPG. The experience you receive is almost entirely based upon how you approach the game and the game adapts to the choices you make in a seamless, intuitive, and quality manner.

An RPG needs at least one of two things. Freedom and Choice. You can have one or you can have both, but it must be done in a meaningful way.

In Diablo you have tons of character design choice that has a real meaningful impact on the game. If a mech game offered similar choice it would fit the RPG category as well, and this is why many call the Front Mission series (omitting Evolved) a Strat/RPG franchise.

The Elder Scrolls games are RPGs because they offer meaningful freedom in terms of world interaction. They gameplay and storyline are absolute **** but you can legitimately interact with anything and everything you see in some meaningful fashion.

So no scripting either Drek? Basically if it isn't a sandbox style it's not an RPG? Good grief no wonder you're so pissed off. DAO was scripted too but for some reason that's less offensive this time because of the combat style maybe?

But then you said Fallout isn't an RPG either.

So by your standards an RPG is: Freeform where you can interact with everything, no-scripting or linear questing, no shooting, no live action combat. that disqualifies all the Final Fantasies, many of D&D's, Shadowrun and Mechwarrior series too.

You must have played the Ultima series a lot I'm guessing.

I'm not pissed off, I just acknowledge games for what they are. It doesn't need to be sandbox. It doesn't need to be turn based. It just needs meaningful freedom and choice.

also, I never said Fallout 3 wasn't an RPG. In fact I said it was "Post-Apoc Elder Scrolls with Guns" right after calling ES an RPG series. Just that its a really ****ty RPG and the way Bioware sells DA2 as an "RPG" is exactly how Bethesda sold Fallout 3 as a "real Fallout game". Both are marketing spin to bait in core fanbases yet the companies then act affronted when the core fans they were selling **** to call them on it.

Final Fantasy has never been much of an RPG, it occasionally strays into the genre with games that use their class system (highly customizable, strategic approach to combat) and FF6's diverse cast that you could tailor with a wide array of equipment and magecite achieved some similar goals, but in general its a turn based Adventure series.

Shadowrun on Genesis = RPG. Open ended approach to puzzle solving. Shadowrun on SNES = adventure game with little to no real player freedom to solve events. Shadowrun the PnP? Obviously an RPG.

Mechwarrior games are all RPGs, in much the same way that Diablo is. You have a wide array of choices that all directly alter the game's experience.

Its obvious that my point is not getting through though.

Drek
03-30-2011, 10:18 AM
If you feel Diablo is an RPG and DA/ME/KOTOR are not, we are obviously working from a different premise.

RPG is about story and characters. Sure there are a limited number of 'paths' you can follow in these games - but that doesn't mean they aren't of the genre. (and yes DA has some glitches where the dialog seems to ignore past objectives)

In ME Shepard fights the Reapers. I grant you there is no option to go and join the Reapers, or blow up the Citadel for the hell of it, or crash the Normandy into a star, or whatever. You do have to play within the confines of a story written by the game creators. But the RPG elements allow you to customize the story based on your decisions.

There is no story in Diablo.
Every game has story and characters. So every game is an RPG?

This is the problem. People have taken the traditional story driven trappings of past RPGs and used that to define the genre, when in reality an RPG is simply a game that gives you a wide variety of user control over a core aspect of the game and responds in a (hopefully) quality fashion.

It doesn't need to be turn based or a sandbox experience. It doesn't even need to hit all the highlights of what makes an RPG. Just one.

Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate 2 isn't an RPG as much for its storyline and open world as it is for its combat system. Because depending on the party you have, how they're equipped, and how you utilize them in battle individual encounters can range from incredibly easy to nearly impossible. The user has huge ammounts of control over that aspect of interaction. Its storyline and deep world add further layers of RPG depth, but the combat and character development systems are where it really hits the ball out of the park as an RPG. Conversely, Planescape: Tourment works almost entirely through the story to give a intricately layered, player influenced, plot. The combat is shallow, character development is mediocre, but the storyline is incredibly conformable and massively influenced by player choice. Fallout 1 & 2 both have player influenced story elements and highly strategic combat but the massively open world that you can interact with is where it best earns its RPG chops, letting you literally turn any building into your storehouse, interact with nearly all you see, etc..

Three games developed at the same time by basically the same core group of people (Black Isle and Bioware while together at Interplay). All hit all three of the major RPG highlights but all three really shine best on different corners of the "RPG triangle".

DrFate
03-30-2011, 10:19 AM
My only conclusion, Drek, is that you simply don't agree with the currently accepted definition of what an RPG is.

DrFate
03-30-2011, 10:22 AM
Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate 2 isn't an RPG as much for its storyline and open world as it is for its combat system. Because depending on the party you have, how they're equipped, and how you utilize them in battle individual encounters can range from incredibly easy to nearly impossible. The user has huge ammounts of control over that aspect of interaction. Its storyline and deep world add further layers of RPG depth, but the combat and character development systems are where it really hits the ball out of the park as an RPG.

Most people would consider this aspect of a game tangental to the RP aspects. It isn't that different than a tabletop game - the role playing is the interaction between personalities and your ability to influence the story. Combat doesn't make a game a role playing game.

Kaylore
03-30-2011, 10:22 AM
I think by character they mean personality with background and relationships with other NPC's. Silent woman with bow who shoots skeletons doesn't qualify. An RPG, for me anyway, means I have to have a fair amount of control over how a character interacts with his world and the people around him and he has to have some semblance of a personality.

Just for clarity, did you like or not like Fallout? And BTW I did enjoy Planescape torment and the original Fallouts as well, and I would agree those are RPG's.

Drek
03-30-2011, 10:24 AM
My only conclusion, Drek, is that you simply don't agree with the currently accepted definition of what an RPG is.

No, just that the "currently accepted definition" is whatever Bioware and co. are currently trying to sell.

This is my point. The backlash against Dragon Age is entirely due to Bioware trying to play "find the lucky lady" with the definition of what an RPG is. A lot of people buy into it. But the loud minority, while not all sure as to what an RPG is, are sure that its not whatever DA2 might be.

DrFate
03-30-2011, 10:29 AM
No, just that the "currently accepted definition" is whatever Bioware and co. are currently trying to sell.


Well, with respect, I agree with their definition more than yours. I've been playing RPGs (video games and table top) for 25+ years.

Drek
03-30-2011, 10:29 AM
Most people would consider this aspect of a game tangental to the RP aspects. It isn't that different than a tabletop game - the role playing is the interaction between personalities and your ability to influence the story. Combat doesn't make a game a role playing game.

Why can't it? Any aspect of game play that offers significant freedom or choice from the end user is a role playing mechanic. I know people who treated PnPs as nothing more than a Diablo styled hack n' loot taking place around a table. They were a bunch of min/maxers but they were still playing roles based upon their own creation within the game's general framework.

I think by character they mean personality with background and relationships with other NPC's. Silent woman with bow who shoots skeletons doesn't qualify. An RPG, for me anyway, means I have to have a fair amount of control over how a character interacts with his world and the people around him and he has to have some semblance of a personality.
Wouldn't that make Devil May Cry an RPG? You have a character with meaningful personality and NPC interaction going on. You even have character customization. Metal Gear meets these requirements as well. Uncharted has a detailed back story. So does God of War. Gears of War obviously has a very detailed backstory with NPCs that hasn't even been fully fleshed out yet. Are all those games RPGs?

And if so what is the point to even referring to it as a "genre" if anything can be included?

Just for clarity, did you like or not like Fallout? And BTW I did enjoy Planescape torment and the original Fallouts as well, and I would agree those are RPG's.

Fallout 1 and 2 are fantastic RPGs. Fallout 3 is a mediocre RPG that has some good initial wow factor but ultimately its "freedom" (open, highly interactive world) is the RPG equivalent of dumpster diving. Every now and then you find something cool but its mostly trash and not very epic at all.

Drek
03-30-2011, 10:31 AM
Well, with respect, I agree with their definition more than yours. I've been playing RPGs (video games and table top) for 25+ years.

Great. Keep applying the "what feels right to you" standard. I'll stick with reality.

DrFate
03-30-2011, 10:32 AM
Why can't it? Any aspect of game play that offers significant freedom or choice from the end user is a role playing mechanic. I know people who treated PnPs as nothing more than a Diablo styled hack n' loot taking place around a table. They were a bunch of min/maxers but they were still playing roles based upon their own creation within the game's general framework.

Your premise seems to be that being able to 'customize' your character is what makes an RPG. Swapping out a sword or putting on an amulet doesn't make an RPG.

I enjoyed the combat in BG and I understand when someone says it is tactical. But RTS games are tactical but they aren't RPG.

RPG is defined, at it's core, by story and character interaction. Yes Halo has a story, but that doesn't mean it's an RPG.

DrFate
03-30-2011, 10:33 AM
Great. Keep applying the "what feels right to you" standard. I'll stick with reality.

Reality is your definition is outside the 'mainstream' gaming definition. I was trying to be kind and give you the benefit of the doubt.

Drek
03-30-2011, 10:35 AM
Your premise seems to be that being able to 'customize' your character is what makes an RPG. Swapping out a sword or putting on an amulet doesn't make an RPG.

I enjoyed the combat in BG and I understand when someone says it is tactical. But RTS games are tactical but they aren't RPG.

RPG is defined, at it's core, by story and character interaction. Yes Halo has a story, but that doesn't mean it's an RPG.

What separates Halo's storyline from the storyline in Final Fantasy (insert number here) then?

RTS games are tactical, sure, but only in how you direct mass resources. You can't legitimately customize the units you use, tailoring them to different purposes, and then utilize them for a variety of combat strategies. That is a different level of free form gameplay and that is why a game like Starcraft is an RTS and a game like Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War is an RTS/RPG.

Drek
03-30-2011, 10:39 AM
Reality is your definition is outside the 'mainstream' gaming definition. I was trying to be kind and give you the benefit of the doubt.

Don't waste your time being kind. I've broken from the mainstream on bigger things than genre definition and oddly enough I'm empirically proven right not too far down the road in almost all instances.

Now the genre divisions in video games isn't really something you can empirically prove. But the notion that we have divisions and one of those divisions is "RPG" means that you can define what is an RPG by simply saying what isn't. If storyline and characters is an RPG then very few games "aren't". By proxy that definition must be wrong because it isn't a genre if it encompasses everything.

Hence why I'm empirically correct in saying that "storyline + characters =/= RPG". Now as to the solution for X in "X = RPG"? Well, I've posited a hypothesis and given it some decent testing in this thread. I'd now feel comfortable calling it a theory. But it obviously isn't fact.

DrFate
03-30-2011, 11:00 AM
Nobody said 'any game with a character and a story is an RPG'. RPG is defined, as Kaylore said, as your ability to play a role, to influence the story through your actions in game play.

To me, it's about interaction, not customization.

Don't waste your time being kind.

Well, I try to not be an ass with someone on this board simply if I disagree with him.

I can say 'any game with boobies is an RPG' - that doesn't make it so. Your definition doesn't seem to agree with the generally accepted defintion.

You can say Diablo is more of an RPG than these other games - you can say it, but not many people are going to agree with you.

enjolras
03-30-2011, 11:12 AM
You can't be serious? Are you a crazed BioWare fan or simply not that big of a gamer. I could understand someone who doesn't play games much assuming this game is good or something, since they haven't experienced what a clear cut epic game is.

If no...this attitude for accepting clearly diminished quality is what propels game companies to feed **** to the masses rather than taking 2.5-3 years to ship a complete product.

As someone who goes to conferences like E3 every year and literally lives "games," I fully believe this game is a slap in the face of the player-base that propelled Origins to success. It was rushed. There's no, if's about it. I am still disgusted by the blatant repetition of dungeons. Something that BioWare NEVER did so blatantly before. Do you remember running in the same area over and over again in KotoR? Jade Empire? Mass Effect 1/2?...how about Origins??? NO.

Certainly in Mass Effect 1, which I'll argue is more or less DA:2 in terms of polish. They reused the same three planet-scapes and little houses over and over and over and over again. The whole exploring planets phase of the ME:1 was stupidly repetitive.

NUB
03-30-2011, 11:48 AM
RPG is an ambiguous term that technically could be thrown at almost anything, but colloquially I think it's usually just meant to define a game where you lead a character by building him up over time whether by story, statistics or both. Remember that one of the roots of RPGs comes from D&D which is a very strong mix of both storytelling as well as statistics and other facets of gaming.

BTW, DA2 sucks.

Kaylore
03-30-2011, 12:05 PM
What's funny Drek, is all the criticisms DA2 is getting (repeated levels, too much of the same levels, combat that is too simple) and yet you are praising Diablo as a "true" RPG, a game where you stay in one town, go basically multiple square shaped levels with the same monsters that change colors as they get harder, and all that changes environmentally is the textures, and the character customization consists of three stats, some skill trees and the armor you find as you push the mouse button and a few key strokes to kill things.

Personally I don't see how you don't love DA2. It could be considered by some to be a more expansive Diablo. :rofl:

Drek
03-30-2011, 01:23 PM
What's funny Drek, is all the criticisms DA2 is getting (repeated levels, too much of the same levels, combat that is too simple) and yet you are praising Diablo as a "true" RPG, a game where you stay in one town, go basically multiple square shaped levels with the same monsters that change colors as they get harder, and all that changes environmentally is the textures, and the character customization consists of three stats, some skill trees and the armor you find as you push the mouse button and a few key strokes to kill things.

Personally I don't see how you don't love DA2. It could be considered by some to be a more expansive Diablo. :rofl:

1. Those aren't my criticisms of DA2. Reusing assets is a Bioware staple. Its laughable that people are suddenly calling them on it with DA2.

2. Combat that is too simple doesn't apply to high difficulty Diablo play. It takes idealized character builds and well timed spell/item/skill usage to survive, let alone thrive, at the highest levels of play.

3. What you offhandedly toss out as "three stats, some skill trees, and the armor you find" is a system far deeper than any game Bioware has made without the D&D ruleset as a crutch. Hence the problem. Bioware used to operate on that level of character customization and because it required thought it had to be removed to appeal to the "mainstream".

Its not that I think the mainstream gamer can't handle that level of in depth design. They do all the time since your "mainstream" gamers are most frequently your min/maxers in most MMOs and online shooters. Bioware just assumes they won't like it and so off-handedly removed deep character development just in case it might rub people the wrong way.

Thing is Kay, I'm not even saying DA2 is a bad game. If Bioware had marketed it as an Adventure game with light RPG/character building elements and as someone previously suggested named it DA:Kirkwall or DA: Hawke's Story instead of DA2 there would be almost no backlash, reviews probably would've been at a minimum 10-15% higher across the board, and people would be talking about how effectively Bioware has transitioned from an RPG only studio to a multi-genre company while still retaining some of their core roots. But then Bioware would be fully admitting they've left their old core fans behind and they have this crazy delusion that they can have their cake and eat it too by bait and switching those same core fans.

Kaylore
03-30-2011, 01:29 PM
1. Those aren't my criticisms of DA2. Reusing assets is a Bioware staple. Its laughable that people are suddenly calling them on it with DA2.


I think this is the most shocking thing about the DA2 haters and I appreciate you seeing it. If you read earlier in this thread, there are complaints of simplified levels and repeat mobs, etc. even saying Bioware sold out doing this like it was something new. THEY ALWAYS HAVE! Why do people now suddenly notice? I don't know.

But honestly if you like Diablo, you will love DA2. Crank the difficulty up though. Mob management, aggro, and complementary skills become vital.

Drek
03-30-2011, 01:36 PM
Nobody said 'any game with a character and a story is an RPG'. RPG is defined, as Kaylore said, as your ability to play a role, to influence the story through your actions in game play.

To me, it's about interaction, not customization.



Well, I try to not be an ass with someone on this board simply if I disagree with him.

I can say 'any game with boobies is an RPG' - that doesn't make it so. Your definition doesn't seem to agree with the generally accepted defintion.

You can say Diablo is more of an RPG than these other games - you can say it, but not many people are going to agree with you.

Then not many people really know what an RPG is, from a logical standpoint.

If RPG = story + characters then why isn't Halo an RPG? It has a storyline. It has recurring characters, NPCs, etc.. Why isn't it an RPG? Because you can't influence the storyline? Well you could die. That is an influence on the storyline. I'd say that player "choice" is more impactful than anything you do in KOTOR, Mass Effect, etc.. Choosing who to have a romance with and if your ending will have the arbitrary "good guy" 30 second bit or the "bad guy" 30 second bit isn't impacting the story.

Bioshock is a FPS with RPG elements, not an RPG, and you can significantly alter the game's outcome based on how you deal with the little sisters and if you kill one character during one stage or wait and meet him in a later stage. Those two choice paths are more meaningful to the overall game than almost any choice you make in Bioware's recent games. Hell, Bioware knows their choice paths are so **** that they're starting to resort to a coding system to let people know the good/bad paths. Thats not playing a role, thats choosing which set of train tracks you'll have the game drive you down.

Drek
03-30-2011, 01:42 PM
I think this is the most shocking thing about the DA2 haters and I appreciate you seeing it. If you read earlier in this thread, there are complaints of simplified levels and repeat mobs, etc. even saying Bioware sold out doing this like it was something new. THEY ALWAYS HAVE! Why do people now suddenly notice? I don't know.

But honestly if you like Diablo, you will love DA2. Crank the difficulty up though. Mob management, aggro, and complementary skills become vital.

There is no difficulty at which DA2 becomes challenging if you actually strip down the shallow character building interface and know how to min/max it. Same with DA:O, which is why DA:O while still flirting with trying to be a real RPG, is a pretty **** RPG in what attempts it makes. Good game, but it fails as an RPG.

This is why DA2 isn't really an RPG. The user input in character design is of minimal importance. They were so focused on "hit button = awesome happens" mantra that any design choices results in a powerhouse squad that strolls through any encounter the game can present. This is also just a problem with any turn based RPG studio suddenly throwing in real time combat. The balance is way off and ultimately the game is easily exploitable.

People have spent years trying to find the best way to min/max Diablo II, to find ways to exploit the system, and even still the game is a compelling and strategic challenge at high level. How you design your character into a cohesive build is massively important. That level of user input and feedback makes it a quality RPG.

This is the problem here, its all about allowing and respecting player input. A game can't plan for all user idiosyncracies, but 99% of the choices made in a recent Bioware game either resolve themselves immediately or have zero impact until the very end of the game. In either case the path you're choosing is spelled out clear as day and these "turning point" moments are thrust in your face. The freedom they give you on an over world map in DA:O might as well never have been implemented if they can't tie it back to the future events to follow. Instead don't make it so easy for me to break the illusion of progression and send me down a linear path.

But that is Bioware now. They're torn between wanting the linear progression, identifiable characters, and flash of action and adventure games but they don't want to give up their "its an RPG" binky.

Very talented studio with an identity crisis who shouts anyone down for pointing it out. This doesn't make their games bad, just bad RPGs or more accurately, not RPGs at all. They're no more an RPG than Bioshock, Devil May Cry, etc.. None of those games even claim to be RPGs. Fantastic games but not RPGs.

2KBack
03-30-2011, 01:57 PM
Drek,
Dude, why are you on this campaign that you are almost literally alone in? Not just here, but in the gaming community as a whole. No where have I ever encountered the restrictive definition of an RPG that you are using. You appear to be on a one man quest to redefine the genre in your preferred mode, instead of just playing and enjoying games. Look at the definitions that Wiki has:

A role-playing game (RPG) is a game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game) in which players assume the roles of characters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_character) in a fictional setting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setting_%28literature%29). Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acting), or through a process of structured decision-making or character development.<sup id="cite_ref-Cover_0-0" class="reference">[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game#cite_note-Cover-0)</sup> Actions taken within the game succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game_system) and guidelines.<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference">[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game#cite_note-1)</sup>

Several varieties of RPG also exist in electronic media, including multi-player text-based (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_text-based_role-playing_game) MUDs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUD) and their graphics-based successors, massively multiplayer online role-playing games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_game) (MMORPGs). Role-playing games also include single-player offline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offline) role-playing video games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game) in which players control a character or team who undertake quests, and whose capabilities advance using statistical mechanics. These games often share settings and rules with pen-and-paper RPGs, but emphasize character advancement more than collaborative storytelling.<sup id="cite_ref-Tychsen2006CollaborativeNarrative_4-0" class="reference">[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game#cite_note-Tychsen2006CollaborativeNarrative-4)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-Crawford_5-0" class="reference">[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game#cite_note-Crawford-5)

</sup>Role-playing video games use much of the same terminology, settings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setting_%28fiction%29) and game mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_mechanic) as early pen-and-paper role-playing games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game) such as Dungeons & Dragons.<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference">[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game#cite_note-1)</sup> Generally, the player controls a small number of game characters, usually called a party, and achieves victory by completing a series of quests and reaching the conclusion of a central storyline. Players explore a game world, while solving puzzles and engaging in tactical combat. A key feature of the genre is that characters grow in power and abilities, and characters are typically designed by the player.<sup id="cite_ref-AdRol347_0-1" class="reference">[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game#cite_note-AdRol347-0)</sup> RPGs rarely challenge a player's physical coordination, with the exception of action role-playing games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_role-playing_game).<sup id="cite_ref-fundamentals_2-0" class="reference">[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game#cite_note-fundamentals-2)

</sup>Role-playing video games also typically attempt to offer more complex and dynamic character interaction than what is found in other video game genres. This usually involves additional focus on the artificial intelligence and scripted behavior of computer-controlled non-player characters.<sup id="cite_ref-fundamentals_2-1" class="reference">[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game#cite_note-fundamentals-2)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference">[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game#cite_note-5)


</sup>

Drek
03-30-2011, 02:09 PM
So just because one Wiki editor doesn't understand the real concept of an RPG in a game setting it suddenly becomes invalid?

This line here:
"A role-playing game (RPG) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting."

Encompasses pretty much every video game ever made. Are they all RPGs? How can they be when RPGs are a sub-genre of video games? Or is it all just that ****ing meta?

Nope. Sure as **** isn't. Instead its some interpretive dance where some people argue that Zelda is an RPG. Are the Grand Theft Auto games RPGs? How about Red Dead Redemption? Where is this magic line between "enough" and "not enough" involvement in the narrative?

All I offer is a real, tangible set of rules to be an RPG. Its very easy criteria to meet for any game that is designed to be an RPG experience for the end user. Like I said earlier, the best RPG in recent history came from a nobody Polish studio on their first attempt.

Its not a campaign, I'm just pointing out why DA2 is getting all this backlash. Because while most people don't acknowledge it they subliminally are applying the same system as me. All the old Bioware fans can't put a finger on exactly why DA2 is a piece of ****, they just know that for them it is. Thats because they're telling themselves its an RPG when its not. So obviously as an RPG experience its ****. Halo is a really ****ty platformer too. But Bungie doesn't tell you its a platformer, they say its a shooter. Any platforming is minimal or entirely user chosen. Hence why people generally don't give a ****.

scorpio
03-30-2011, 03:18 PM
This is like arguing with Garcia about MP3s

Kaylore
03-30-2011, 03:23 PM
Sorry Drek. I agree with Fate in that your definition of RPG or really what isn't an RPG is not my own, and to be honest not consistent with anything I've heard. When you consider RPG staples like Final Fantasy, Dragon Warrior, Dungeons and Dragons, Shadownrun, Mechwarrior - systems and games universally accepted as RPG's - using your criteria none of them qualify.

Then you say Diablo is an RPG, something universally people would say is at most a "tweener" dungeon crawl game with RPG elements?

Sorry but we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

I also think you should play DA2 before you start telling everyone why people don't like it so much. You're coming from an intellectually dishonest position.

Archer81
03-30-2011, 03:33 PM
Its not a campaign, I'm just pointing out why DA2 is getting all this backlash. Because while most people don't acknowledge it they subliminally are applying the same system as me. All the old Bioware fans can't put a finger on exactly why DA2 is a piece of ****, they just know that for them it is. Thats because they're telling themselves its an RPG when its not. So obviously as an RPG experience its ****. Halo is a really ****ty platformer too. But Bungie doesn't tell you its a platformer, they say its a shooter. Any platforming is minimal or entirely user chosen. Hence why people generally don't give a ****.


First bolded: So it would be logical to consider that an RPG is a game completely influenced and controlled by the player. By that definition, no true RPG exists.

Second bolded: DA2 is hardly a piece of ****. Its not DA:O, which I think is the biggest problem the rpgnerds have. Its a game geared more towards consoles. The action then is faster, and the menus less complex. It has RPG elements like combat trees, expanding skills and a degree of latitude in dialogue choices.

As I said earlier, enjoy the game for the game itself, not prequels or how you perceived how the game was being packaged to players. Like it or dont. Then move on.

:Broncos:

rugbythug
03-30-2011, 03:40 PM
First bolded: So it would be logical to consider that an RPG is a game completely influenced and controlled by the player. By that definition, no true RPG exists.

Second bolded: DA2 is hardly a piece of ****. Its not DA:O, which I think is the biggest problem the rpgnerds have. Its a game geared more towards consoles. The action then is faster, and the menus less complex. It has RPG elements like combat trees, expanding skills and a degree of latitude in dialogue choices.

As I said earlier, enjoy the game for the game itself, not prequels or how you perceived how the game was being packaged to players. Like it or dont. Then move on.

:Broncos:

Duck you asshole.

rugbythug
03-30-2011, 03:41 PM
From now on I hope the entire om family replies this way to any reasonable descent.

willyallthewei
03-30-2011, 04:43 PM
Drek, CMON, are you serious?

You've spent pages of text trying to convince people that cornerstones of the RPG genre are not really RPGs because you prefer Blizzard games and a couple of old school western titles more?

You say choice and freedom, that Oblivion has freedom. Okay, what about GTA, especially the old school GTAs where you did literally anything you wanted to? Is that a RPG, why does no one consider it one? Hell, that line of games has quests dressed up as gang missions.

You say choice, really, so a bit of text from a 2d portrait in Diablo represents choice more so than DA:O where the entire boss battle is altered by your conversation selection? Are you freaking kidding me?

By Eastern standards, RPGs require planning that you call "min maxing," and careful tactical decisions. By those strict standards Diablo is the far less an RPG than Pokemon and I bet you there are many people in Japan that follow that very line of thinking.

Both types of strict characterization are backwards, and reasons why the Japanese developers are losing so much business.

The whole point of evolution in a medium is that genres are moved forward with innovation, where new gameplay elements are added to, and in some cases, crowd out old elements.

Years ago hardcore fighting game enthusiasts would've sworn that spacing and zoning were a critical part of top notch fighting games. Look at Tekken, do you see freaking fireballs in it? Thats evolution.

A Role Playing Game is most commonly focused on PROGRESSION of the story, the game world and the characters, thats where it started.

A game that has these traits but primarily focuses on another (such as shooting) is called a shooter with RPG elements (Bioshock) whereas a game with this as its focus and has shooting mechanics as well is called a RPG with shooting elements (Mass Effect).

Progression in this context is best defined as modifications caused by player interaction that persist in the game world past the initial level. That is what differentiates a "level up" in Diablo from the death of initial enemies in Halo. That is also what distinguishes a nuked town from tire tracks in a racing game.


Evolution has developed the genre into much more, however. Now, you've got permanent changes in a lot of games due to technological evolution. Therefore, most of the time, "RPG elements" is limited to games where there is heavy progression in the character, and thats why people don't call GTA games RPGs.

As for RPG's' themselves they are evolving as well, there's games based on strategic planning, on action, and on freedom of choice in gameplay and narrative. Now you are trying to freeze a segment of that evolution - namely the 90s, and you're trying to use that as the lense to look at RPGs because those were the games you enjoyed the most.

Please, that's lame.

Drek
03-30-2011, 06:47 PM
Sorry Drek. I agree with Fate in that your definition of RPG or really what isn't an RPG is not my own, and to be honest not consistent with anything I've heard. When you consider RPG staples like Final Fantasy, Dragon Warrior, Dungeons and Dragons, Shadownrun, Mechwarrior - systems and games universally accepted as RPG's - using your criteria none of them qualify.

Then you say Diablo is an RPG, something universally people would say is at most a "tweener" dungeon crawl game with RPG elements?

Sorry but we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

I also think you should play DA2 before you start telling everyone why people don't like it so much. You're coming from an intellectually dishonest position.
Kay, if I hadn't had some good discussions with you before I'd swear that you were illeterate.

Again:
Mechwarrior - RPG
Shadowrun - RPG on Genesis, Adventure game on SNES, PnP obviously an RPG
D&D - OBVIOUSLY AN RPG
Final Fantasy - adventure games with RPG elements, up until 13 at least which does away with most of those RPG trappings itself.
Dragon Warrior/Quest - Adventure games with RPG elements.

Also, why do you assume I haven't played DA2?

First bolded: So it would be logical to consider that an RPG is a game completely influenced and controlled by the player. By that definition, no true RPG exists.
Where in the world did you come up with that logic?

I've pretty clearly outlined what it takes to actually offer a role playing experience of any meaningful weight in a video game in this thread. Its not particularly hard to do. Bioware just chooses not to do it anymore.

The sentence you bolded states that the lack of response to user input shown by DA2 in every facet (character creation and design, storyline, world interaction) proves it to not be an RPG. In any of the Elder Scrolls game you have significant interactivity with the environment. Thats an RPG. In the old MechWarrior games they no longer make you had massive customizability of your mech which allowed for gameplay uniquely responsive to your choices. Thats an RPG. In Planescape: Torment the choices you made in dialogue had significant and long lasting impacts on the game experience. That is an RPG. DA2, and to some extent every game Bioware has made post-Throne of Bhaal, trots out puppets of these RPG staples but the input you give has had little if any impact on the actual gameplay experience.

Second bolded: DA2 is hardly a piece of ****. Its not DA:O, which I think is the biggest problem the rpgnerds have. Its a game geared more towards consoles. The action then is faster, and the menus less complex. It has RPG elements like combat trees, expanding skills and a degree of latitude in dialogue choices.
But there really is no degree in latitude. To go back to an earlier analogy, DA2 is to video game RPGs what a choose your own adventure book is to PnP RPGs. You pick one of a small set of rails for the game to run you through, 99% of the choices you make are irrelevant, including how you develop the character. Its all easily pulled back window dressing.

I have no problems with it. I didn't say it was a piece of ****. I said it was a piece of **** RPG. Its a solid adventure game. Not the best I've played, but above average. Its just not really an RPG. No more than something like Dead Rising is.

Again, the people you degrade as "rpgnerds", i.e. the reason Bioware exists as a company today and the reason Dragon Age: Origins was successful enough to warrant a sequel, don't like DA2 because its not an RPG. That doesn't mean they're right when they call it a **** game, just that they're right when they say its a big step away from why they bought DA:O. Bioware's bitching about that fact is what created much of the populist backlash against the game.

As I said earlier, enjoy the game for the game itself, not prequels or how you perceived how the game was being packaged to players. Like it or dont. Then move on.
Awesome. This is a thread about the game in which the OP specifically mentioned the backlash it is receiving. I was simply shedding light as to where that was coming from after the discussion had picked up that particular path. If you don't care then don't waste your time discussing it.

Drek
03-30-2011, 07:10 PM
Drek, CMON, are you serious?

You've spent pages of text trying to convince people that cornerstones of the RPG genre are not really RPGs because you prefer Blizzard games and a couple of old school western titles more?
Not the case at all, but thanks for trying to jump in with wild conjecture and blanket statements.

You say choice and freedom, that Oblivion has freedom. Okay, what about GTA, especially the old school GTAs where you did literally anything you wanted to? Is that a RPG, why does no one consider it one? Hell, that line of games has quests dressed up as gang missions.
The counterpoint I've been arguing says that storyline and characters means its an RPG. Don't the GTA games have a storyline and characters?

GTA isn't an RPG because the game does nothing to react to your "choices". Its an open sandbox but there is only one way to progress through the sandbox. The game offers freedom but then shows no respect to how the player utilizes it. Much like how DA:O treats much of the illusionary "freedom" it offers.

You say choice, really, so a bit of text from a 2d portrait in Diablo represents choice more so than DA:O where the entire boss battle is altered by your conversation selection? Are you freaking kidding me?
Actually the "choice" in Diablo is how you build the character. Portraits are irrelevant. It has a wide and diverse skill tree and depending on how you pick your path the game plays out very differently for you from a gameplay standpoint. This is also why MechWarrior and the Icewind Dale games are RPGs. It is also why some FF games (namely V and Tactics) are RPGs while the rest of the franchise in no way empowers the gamer to make real choices of any kind other than "should I equip the sword that does more damage?"

By Eastern standards, RPGs require planning that you call "min maxing," and careful tactical decisions. By those strict standards Diablo is the far less an RPG than Pokemon and I bet you there are many people in Japan that follow that very line of thinking.
Of course Pokemon is an RPG. Its one of the deeper RPG series in fact. Repetative? Sure. But definitely an RPG.

Both types of strict characterization are backwards, and reasons why the Japanese developers are losing so much business.
No, thats because they generally can't make good games with any form of mass market appeal. Capcom is doing fine thanks to a nice mix of games like SF4, MvC3, Dead Rising, etc..

The whole point of evolution in a medium is that genres are moved forward with innovation, where new gameplay elements are added to, and in some cases, crowd out old elements.
Sure. But the very definition of an RPG is freedom and choice that the game actually responds to. You can't "crowd out" what makes an RPG an RPG. Thats like someone making a 2D fighting game with Halo characters and calling it a shooter.

Years ago hardcore fighting game enthusiasts would've sworn that spacing and zoning were a critical part of top notch fighting games. Look at Tekken, do you see freaking fireballs in it? Thats evolution.
Well 1. where is the hardcore fighting game scene focused now? It sure as hell isn't on Tekken. 2. How well have Tekken games been selling? That badly huh? 3. When was Tekken ever considered anything but a combo heavy, mediocre to bad fighting game? Top notch fighting game and Tekken aren't even remotely synonymous. Never has been.

A Role Playing Game is most commonly focused on PROGRESSION of the story, the game world and the characters, thats where it started.
No, by definition a role playing game is focused on you playing a role. For your part in that role to differ significantly in any way from the linear shooters, adventure games, etc. the game itself needs to in some way respond to player choice. Simple as that. The progression of some linear storyline happens in every video game, so how can every video game fit into a subset of video games? Its illogical.

A game that has these traits but primarily focuses on another (such as shooting) is called a shooter with RPG elements (Bioshock) whereas a game with this as its focus and has shooting mechanics as well is called a RPG with shooting elements (Mass Effect).
In what way does Mass Effect focus on "rpg elements" moreso than Bioshock? People talk at you longer? There are more NPCs to have meaningless dialogue with? A supposed "party" shoots at the same random and repetitive **** you shoot at? Ultimately the gameplay is nearly identical, except Bioware is actually a fairly solid shooter whereas the Mass Effect combat engine wouldn't pass for an Xbox/PS2 era shooter.

Progression in this context is best defined as modifications caused by player interaction that persist in the game world past the initial level. That is what differentiates a "level up" in Diablo from the death of initial enemies in Halo. That is also what distinguishes a nuked town from tire tracks in a racing game.
Then why isn't Metal Gear an RPG? The new weapons you find, often on the bodies of bosses, are persistent throughout the rest of the game. That is a form of "leveling up". Is Mega Man an RPG? Because bosses all give new persistent weapons as you go through, on top of being able to find persistent health and ammo upgrades. Devil May Cry has an entire points system by which you can add persistent skills to Dante's arsenal, much like "experience points". So does Bayonetta. Are all those games RPGs too? All of these games offer some form of persistent character upgrading. Most are deeper and more involved than a "level up" chime that comes with arbitrary increases outside the user's control to various statistics. Yet having such a locked down, uninfluenced system is apparently enough to get most Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest games labelled an RPG. Shallower gameplay mechanics than Mega Man and yet those are the RPG hallmarks we're arguing about here?


Evolution has developed the genre into much more, however. Now, you've got permanent changes in a lot of games due to technological evolution. Therefore, most of the time, "RPG elements" is limited to games where there is heavy progression in the character, and thats why people don't call GTA games RPGs.
So to reiterate my point. Why is Dragon Quest 9, Final Fantsy XIII, and DA2 an RPG but DMC, Bayonetta, etc. are not?

As for RPG's' themselves they are evolving as well, there's games based on strategic planning, on action, and on freedom of choice in gameplay and narrative. Now you are trying to freeze a segment of that evolution - namely the 90s, and you're trying to use that as the lense to look at RPGs because those were the games you enjoyed the most.
Again wildly ignorant blanket generalizations. I'm not trying to defend the BI/Bioware era RPGs as the "only" RPGs. I'm just pointing out how this "evolution" you're talking about has resulted in people calling a game an "RPG" when it offers zero player input in any meaningful way.

[/quote]Please, that's lame.[/QUOTE]
No, ignoring someone's real point and trying to dismiss them with blanket generalizations is lame.

willyallthewei
03-30-2011, 08:34 PM
Not the case at all, but thanks for trying to jump in with wild conjecture and blanket statements.


The counterpoint I've been arguing says that storyline and characters means its an RPG. Don't the GTA games have a storyline and characters?

GTA isn't an RPG because the game does nothing to react to your "choices". Its an open sandbox but there is only one way to progress through the sandbox. The game offers freedom but then shows no respect to how the player utilizes it. Much like how DA:O treats much of the illusionary "freedom" it offers.


Actually the "choice" in Diablo is how you build the character. Portraits are irrelevant. It has a wide and diverse skill tree and depending on how you pick your path the game plays out very differently for you from a gameplay standpoint. This is also why MechWarrior and the Icewind Dale games are RPGs. It is also why some FF games (namely V and Tactics) are RPGs while the rest of the franchise in no way empowers the gamer to make real choices of any kind other than "should I equip the sword that does more damage?"


Of course Pokemon is an RPG. Its one of the deeper RPG series in fact. Repetative? Sure. But definitely an RPG.


No, thats because they generally can't make good games with any form of mass market appeal. Capcom is doing fine thanks to a nice mix of games like SF4, MvC3, Dead Rising, etc..


Sure. But the very definition of an RPG is freedom and choice that the game actually responds to. You can't "crowd out" what makes an RPG an RPG. Thats like someone making a 2D fighting game with Halo characters and calling it a shooter.


Well 1. where is the hardcore fighting game scene focused now? It sure as hell isn't on Tekken. 2. How well have Tekken games been selling? That badly huh? 3. When was Tekken ever considered anything but a combo heavy, mediocre to bad fighting game? Top notch fighting game and Tekken aren't even remotely synonymous. Never has been.


No, by definition a role playing game is focused on you playing a role. For your part in that role to differ significantly in any way from the linear shooters, adventure games, etc. the game itself needs to in some way respond to player choice. Simple as that. The progression of some linear storyline happens in every video game, so how can every video game fit into a subset of video games? Its illogical.


In what way does Mass Effect focus on "rpg elements" moreso than Bioshock? People talk at you longer? There are more NPCs to have meaningless dialogue with? A supposed "party" shoots at the same random and repetitive **** you shoot at? Ultimately the gameplay is nearly identical, except Bioware is actually a fairly solid shooter whereas the Mass Effect combat engine wouldn't pass for an Xbox/PS2 era shooter.


Then why isn't Metal Gear an RPG? The new weapons you find, often on the bodies of bosses, are persistent throughout the rest of the game. That is a form of "leveling up". Is Mega Man an RPG? Because bosses all give new persistent weapons as you go through, on top of being able to find persistent health and ammo upgrades. Devil May Cry has an entire points system by which you can add persistent skills to Dante's arsenal, much like "experience points". So does Bayonetta. Are all those games RPGs too? All of these games offer some form of persistent character upgrading. Most are deeper and more involved than a "level up" chime that comes with arbitrary increases outside the user's control to various statistics. Yet having such a locked down, uninfluenced system is apparently enough to get most Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest games labelled an RPG. Shallower gameplay mechanics than Mega Man and yet those are the RPG hallmarks we're arguing about here?



So to reiterate my point. Why is Dragon Quest 9, Final Fantsy XIII, and DA2 an RPG but DMC, Bayonetta, etc. are not?


Again wildly ignorant blanket generalizations. I'm not trying to defend the BI/Bioware era RPGs as the "only" RPGs. I'm just pointing out how this "evolution" you're talking about has resulted in people calling a game an "RPG" when it offers zero player input in any meaningful way.



The point I'm taking issue with is specifically your formula for RPGs - the idea that its all about choice and freedom, and the counter points I'm making still apply - its really about progression.

I'm going to address only your counters to my formula and your defenses to my attacks on yours.

First: choices in gameplay mechanics.

1.) Using your own example, lets take an action game - specifically Ninja Gaiden II. The game has 7 different weapons, each play very differently to the extent that on higher difficulties, you'd have to relearn the weapon entirely. On higher difficulties, you also have a limited amount of "Ki" you can use to upgrade the weapons. Lets say, for ****s and giggles, the developer limited it to the point where you can only upgrade 1 or 2 out of 7 weapons. Does that make the game a RPG? Why Not? You've changed the way you play the game drastically, over half the game's basic mechanics are affected.

2.) Choices in Oblivion: How do the choices in oblivion affect the game mechanics any more than the choices in GTA, how are the ones in oblivion any more "meaningful?". The game is basically a first person hack and slash with occasional spell casting no matter how you play it.

Second point: Why my rules do not allow for the games you put in.

Progression is in the 1) Character, 2) story, 3) game world
As I said, due to the evolution of modern gaming, only character progression really applies consistently.

Where does a weapon fit here? A weapon and new ability is only an addition to her arsenal, it is not a modification of her abilities. Example: Modification would be that X X Y combo is improved in that X X Y does more damage. A "addition" is that XX Y combo can end or can be extended to X X Y Y.

Action games have long had additions that add on to the abilities of a character. But progression in the characters actual attribute - the damage of her attack, the actual movement speed when she dodges, the length of bullet time. These are the actual abilities that must be modified to qualify as character progression.

Bayonetta and MGS4 (which also doesn't change your actual attributes) do not have enough character progression to qualify.

Bioshock v. Mass Effect: This one is simple. Focus. They both have the elements that are required to make an RPG, but one of them has more factors commonly associated with RPGs: open ended mission selection, moral struggles in decision making, rewards for inventory management and exploration. The other game has more factors of a shooter: almost all attacks require precision aiming (few or no attacks that "lock on"), gaming is in real time and requires twitch aiming (no pause screen).

These are additional factors that define the focus of a game. remember, I'm not saying RPGs ONLY have progression, I'm saying that it is the most common trait that people consider a "RPG Element."

Added note on tekken: Are you serious, you're going to ignore the overwhelming shift in the fighting community from 2D fighters to 3D fighters because there's a momentary retro fad of playing SF and MvC? Are you Kidding me? Do you know how many Tekken tournaments have been played over the years, how big the communities for those games are? do you have any idea the level of study people put into frame rates and move properties?

I'll assume you know your stuff with RPGs, but clearly you know nothing about fighting games if you're going to dismiss Tekken.

Kaylore
03-30-2011, 09:26 PM
Kay, if I hadn't had some good discussions with you before I'd swear that you were illeterate.

Again:
Mechwarrior - RPG
Shadowrun - RPG on Genesis, Adventure game on SNES, PnP obviously an RPG
D&D - OBVIOUSLY AN RPG
Final Fantasy - adventure games with RPG elements, up until 13 at least which does away with most of those RPG trappings itself.
Dragon Warrior/Quest - Adventure games with RPG elements.
Ok Drek, I hate to break it to you, but you have no idea what an RPG, or role playing game is.

You are the only person I have ever heard to say Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior are not RPG's but Adventure games.

You go to every website that catalogues these games and they say they are RPG's. You go to game stores and they will tell you they are RPG's. You speak to gamers and they tell you they are RPG's. You look online for gamefaq and other places that categorize them and they are RPG's. You are literally the only person who thinks this way and you are absolutely wrong.


Also, why do you assume I haven't played DA2?

Because you haven't. I can tell you haven't. Maybe you played the demo, at most. You read about it and are making wild assumptions speaking like you know why people are mad and you don't. I mean if you really played what character did you play? What happens in the second scene after you get to kirwall? What is the third quest you are asked to do?

What's even more funny is you point to Diablo as the example of a true RPG, and DA2 is like more expansive Diablo: You pick a class, that class grows based on skills, attributes and armor acquired as you go, you stay in a town, go to differently arranged dungeons on the same general space and the fighting is real time. And you have to balance your spells and skills with the rest of the party to achieve victory. DA2 is just way more expansive but their styles are similar. These are all the core elements of the game and the things that you specifically highlighted in your explanation of why Diablo is an RPG. Had you actually played the game you would know this. Instead you have elected to make broad generalizations about a game you never played.

NUB
03-30-2011, 10:46 PM
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/2978-Dragon-Age-II

UberBroncoMan
03-31-2011, 12:00 AM
Solid opening! I'm clearly a noob. You're a real gamer.

It's not that bad. You can read my review earlier in the thread.

Well, touch you with a gold hairpin!

Oh ho ho! NOW who's the noob? I never played Jade Empire, but I have played all the others and this is absolutely something they always do! In ME1, what do you call driving the Mako around for hours and hours? What do you call going in the same damn building up the same damn ramp into the same damn room on every planet? How about the same underground bunker map in every single planet and moon? Unless you think rearranging the containers qualifies as "new levels." And it's not like you spend a lot of time questing in the same location. Oh wait a minute! The Citadel! Durrrrr! Never repeating maps? KOTOR repeated the same hallway design for every freaking city you were in: wide, slow curving crescents. And the rooms were the same too. Even the forests and plains felt like you were in nature museum hallway. And you complain the minions were repeated and then pretend that's so beneath Bioware? You had the same six types of enemies in KOTOR they just leveled with you. Same thing with DAO. You fought the same kinds of enemies from the beginning to the end. Technically there were more enemy mobs in DA2 than in Origins, but don't let facts get in the way of your ranting. This style is patent Bioware. Even ME2 repeats enemies, and while they did a good job of not repeating level design as much, there were still a lot of areas you went back and forth too. So, no. You are absolutely wrong.

ROFL. Taking this super personal.

The Mako bull**** wasn't part of the main story. It was not even remotely required to play the game. It was REMOVED in Mass Effect 2 because it was pointless. They chose to replace it with original material on not repeating maps (smart). The fact Dragon Age 2 resorted to that stupidity on a level that essentially forced you to take part in it was the height of lazy filler material.

So with KotoR and DA2...are you saying that with 8 years, not evolving at all is a good thing? Hell, old as **** SNES games were the bomb in the day (some still are). You appreciate them for what they were created, and you ignore the advancements that came after them. KOTOR had a water area, a desert area, a forest area, star ships, space station, planet with tribal creatures, a city, desolate sith training ground, VARIETY. Dragon Age 2 had...Kirkwall...same instances...coastline and mountain region, oh and two trips to the Deep Roads. KotoR kicked and still kicks the living **** out of DA2.

The only reason enemies leveled with you in KotoR is because of the freedom the game gave you. You chose what planet you wanted to go to and in what order you wanted to beat the game. Also, this is STAR WARS, not a high fantasy game where you can essentially create whatever creatures you want. When you make a Star Wars game you're going through Lucas and that doesn't leave room for a load of new creatures...especially back then with the prequels wrapping up.

By the way, count up the types enemies in Origins and DA2 before you make up **** because you're flat out wrong. Shouting a bunch of drivel doesn't make you right even if you want to believe you are. The low that BioWare sunk to with DA2 is epic. Why do you think there's been such a huge fan backlash. Why do you think this game has been rated so low in large by review sites compared to base BioWare titles (Origins included)? You think this is just OOOPS everyone made a mistake?

It's a ****ING 78% on Metacritic for 360 -http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/dragon-age-ii - and that's from critics, not the public reviews. Origins was universally acclaimed and won multiple game of the year awards.

Holy crap! I sure know more than you do for being such a, poor, pitiful inferior gamer. I guess my points are all moot because you go to E3, though. Right?

Many gamers have great points even if they aren't in the industry. I'm sure even you have some awesome ideas. However, you don't know more than me. Don't take it so personal.

Absolutely false. It is a solid game in it's own right that is a victim of too high expectations from fanboys like yourself. Saying it is "dog crap" is like saying it is unplayable. It's not. As I said before, if you hadn't played the first one, you would have thought it was a decent game. You talk about it like it's ET on Atari.

Actually no. Had I not played the first game, I still think this game would be trash for the reasons stated. It was a boring experience. Next to no change in environments or enemies. Boring. It was boring. Paint. Taxes. Boring. When you have better games to compare it to, you want to play those again instead of one that's boring. This was boring. Boring.


Totally disagree. The character development, narrative style and voice acting were at least as good if not better than DAO. Hawke has a voice now and it's a well acted one. The story wasn't as "epic" but it was till good and progressed well. The fluidity with which you can rotate your characters is improved as well.

I will give you that. The decision to give Hawke voice acting was a smart move. The shift to dialog with pictures to let you know good, funny, bad, was stupid as hell. I simply don't agree with the character development. That's personal preference though since that can't be graded like graphics, level design, etc.

See the negative reviews are from uber-gamers like you who built the sequel up in their minds as the greatest game in the world and then re-imagine Bioware's past games as better than they were. They weren't as awesome as you assert here. I agree that DA2 is disappointing in some ways: It doesn't feel like a sequel, it doesn't reach is high in terms of impact, and they box you in to one location. However repeated level designs, repeated enemies and simplified, boxed in feeling locations are all Bioware's style. Fortunately so is strong character development, great voice acting and good story telling as well as easy combat and character customization. I got all that again in DA2.

Sorry man, but I don't know what you're thinking about. BioWare has always had a standard (start in one zone) then (chose from 3-4-5 other zones to do in whatever order you want). All of the zones are different look wise, be it winter, desert, tropical, etc. I don't think you know what level design truly is. It's not "slopes" and "curves" it's the actual layout.

BioWare has always been known for good stories. However, put all your faith in a generic heroes journey with a shell of a game and this is the backlash you get.


I just might do that

And before you play the "you are a bioware fanboy" card. I am not. I actually find them a little overrated which is why this whole argument is ironic to me. It's usually the fanboys I'm arguing with about your biggest gripes. All of sudden people have a problem with things they've been doing for years mostly because the expectations for DA2 were too high.

Never called you one. I said IF. Just as I said IF you didn't play games. Never once did I state that's exactly what you were. You just took it that way.

This game had nothing to do with expectations, and that's what you've failed to grasp. Anyone could have made this game. It could have been called Super Adventure Game and I still would give it **** for the fundamental flaws that permeate this game.

To each his own.

Mmmmmmm http://www.gamecritics.com/brad-gallaway/dragon-age-ii-review

UberBroncoMan
03-31-2011, 03:11 AM
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/2978-Dragon-Age-II

$$$$$

Kaylore
03-31-2011, 05:19 AM
It's a ****ING 78% on Metacritic for 360 -http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/dragon-age-ii - and that's from critics, not the public reviews. Origins was universally acclaimed and won multiple game of the year awards.

This goes back to my original point. You rate this a 1/10. Say things like it is unplayable, dog crap, etc. The worst game ever made in the history of games.

It's not. And most people, critics and gamers, gave it betwee 7 and 9 out 10. That isn't crap. That isn't horrible. That's solid. That's my point. You're way off the deep end on this.

Between your hyperbole that this game is the most worthless game ever made and Drek saying that Diablo is an RPG and Final Fantasy isn't, I think I am done with arguing with you two. I like the game. It's fun. The first is better but I enjoyed it and it was worth my $30 I paid for it.

DrFate
03-31-2011, 05:22 AM
It's obvious that Drek and UberBronco are coming at this from a different perspective that most.

I don't think the 'number of enemies' makes a game good. Now if you had a single enemy over and over and over, that would border on the comical. But DA:2 had 2 or 3 darkspawn, a few different human types (mage and templar), couple kinds of demons, shades, spiders, dragons (3 different varieties). I spent 30 hours on this game and about 90 on DA:O and I can't agree with the idea that this game had significantly less variety in enemy combatants.

The graphics and overall look of DA:2 is better than the original - I agree that they recycle the same warehouse/cave way too much. And simply putting the exit in a different place or add a door to lock off part of the map (and PROVIDED THE SAME MAP, EVEN WHEN AN AREA WASN'T AVAILABLE). And they recycled the same areas by doing different years. All those are credible criticisms.

Regarding the reception, Xbox mag gives DA:2 a 9/10. Other outlets gave a high score as well. On average, the score was lower than DA:O. I won't even argue that this game is 'less' than the first, cause it probably was. And I won't argue that this game was produced in a compressed timeframe, because it probably was. That doesn't make it terrible. Gamerankings.com gives an aggragate review of 77/100. (the original only had an aggragate review of 86/100) (both of these are on the 360, which is what I have).

As for Drek - dude, I'm not sure what to say. You want to re-define the phrase RPG independent of the rest of the gaming world. And your preferred definition somehow includes Diablo, mech games, and Pokeman. Based on your provided rationale and examples, I have to conclude that Madden is an RPG too - it can be played different ways and you can customize your players and team rosters.

willyallthewei
03-31-2011, 05:45 AM
Also, the Idea that making a game focused on action through a heavier focus on animation and graphics is "selling out" is rediculous. Broad appeal games are MUCH harder to make than "hardcore" games, they have a million things on the checklist and many more criteria to meet. Its absurd to think that companies decide to build a game with altered gameplay because they only want to go after one set of gamers, or want to make a killing on minimum effort.

No, thats not how game development works. Developers don't say, hey I'm going to have freedom of choice and 70 gameplay mechanics in game A but in game B decide, okay now lets do the bare minimum to generate X sales. 90% of the time bad games come when people shoot higher than they should and end up with technical difficulties they didn't expect. Publishers know that high scores translates into higher sales not only for the specific game, but for all the games in the publishers library, because gamers tend to associate the brand of publisher with the quality of their games.

Clearly DAII is more ambitious than DA:O. Look at the voice acting, the graphics and the much more complex animations, that is a lot more money and man hours, you drastically increase the level design cost and time needed to create each room, each item, and each enemy in a game when you up the graphics. The same applies to every part of the game.

What most likely happened is they had a schedule and a budget, and the game directors were overly ambitious, thinking they could develop/remake the engine, and get an entirely new set of animations in there. So they probably ran into more technical difficulties than they planned, and resource needs from other departments forced them to cut the game development short (hence the focus on 1 city that probably wuold've been 1 quarter of the game). And then the director had to scramble with teh leads to find a way to make the game 30+ hours long with less than 3 months to go before alpha. Therefore, they decided to do a lot of back tracking, and then added in this "revolutionary" story device where its a story teller who can easily skip around and make it look like the game is actually finished.

Chances are, if they stuck with the old engine, they'd be penalized for no graphical improvements but if they just stream lined the UI, they would've had all the rest of their budget and time to add content, and would've made a huge game that would've been received better.

This is very common in sequels, the developers get overly ambitious on features and are crushed on a shorter time line because upper management doesn't see the need for too much time when you've already got assets. Always, the most difficult "features" to implement in a game are the visual related elements and the technology driving it. Hardcore gameplay mechanics are usually the last things added, they are the easiest to add, and they added once you have all the assets done and you say, okay, how do we split up these classes/abilities so that it makes sense? No one is sitting on their laurels when they decide to up graphics and animations. They have to redo everything in their engineering pipeline. Thats very challenging.

Doggcow
03-31-2011, 10:53 AM
Side note, I'm really excited about Diablo III. I love those games.

2KBack
03-31-2011, 11:39 AM
I just want to mention that this thread is awesome. I enjoy a great debate about video games. It's fun and so much less volatile than some of the stuff we could be arguing about. I'm serious.

Kaylore
03-31-2011, 12:01 PM
Side note, I'm really excited about Diablo III. I love those games.

They keep pushing back the release date so I'm scared. :(

I just want to mention that this thread is awesome. I enjoy a great debate about video games. It's fun and so much less volatile than some of the stuff we could be arguing about. I'm serious.
:thumbsup:

UberBroncoMan
03-31-2011, 12:40 PM
This goes back to my original point. You rate this a 1/10. Say things like it is unplayable, dog crap, etc. The worst game ever made in the history of games.

It's not. And most people, critics and gamers, gave it betwee 7 and 9 out 10. That isn't crap. That isn't horrible. That's solid. That's my point. You're way off the deep end on this.

Between your hyperbole that this game is the most worthless game ever made and Drek saying that Diablo is an RPG and Final Fantasy isn't, I think I am done with arguing with you two. I like the game. It's fun. The first is better but I enjoyed it and it was worth my $30 I paid for it.

You clearly have no grasping of how the review industry works. PC gamer gave it a 94% and called it the best RPG of the decade. Why? Because they got the exclusive first interview. Most of the big sites are required to give any game from a company like BioWare a 7.75-10 and no lower. Companies use metacritic for marketing, they NEED good reviews to sell games. Literally, if you're in a big shot review site you're limited to a certain range of scores. The 25% from gamecritic was much more accurate as was the video review on Escapist I posted.

This game is dog ****. It's an abomination. It's lazy as **** game design that was pushed out to rake in as much money as possible as fast as possible. You can dress up a piece of **** in a pretty bow, but it's still ****.

Your view that is a good game is fine. I don't dispute your feelings. There's not one game out there...well maybe that stupid Big Rig game from Russia. But outside of that, not one game that doesn't have at least a few people who like it. I've just been trying to explain to you why this is a **** game, and what it represents. If you like it that's fine, but this IS the worst game ever made by BioWare, and one of the biggest AAA flops in recent history.

BTW. BOTH Final Fantasy and Diablo are RPG's. Final Fantasy is simply a turn based Japanese RPG while Diablo is an action RPG. Both are RPG's, just from different subsets.

Also, don't be scared about D3 being pushed back. Blizzard cares deeply about quality (something BioWare had always done up to this point). When it releases, it's going to be rock solid.

Kaylore
03-31-2011, 01:23 PM
Game Informer, and independent magazine, gave it 8.5 out of ten and said there were several elements they found disappointing. I tend to agree with them most of the time. The overwhelming majority of people are saying it's above average. Your assertion that it is "dog ****" is completely off base not consistent with how others feel. I think you had very high expectations and those weren't close to met, so you are rating against your expectations and not the game in a vacuum. It's a good game. Not great. But good.

UberBroncoMan
03-31-2011, 02:47 PM
Game Informer, and independent magazine, gave it 8.5 out of ten and said there were several elements they found disappointing. I tend to agree with them most of the time. The overwhelming majority of people are saying it's above average. Your assertion that it is "dog ****" is completely off base not consistent with how others feel. I think you had very high expectations and those weren't close to met, so you are rating against your expectations and not the game in a vacuum. It's a good game. Not great. But good.

Sorry. Repeating the same levels over and over again for 28 hours in the same setting is lazy as ****. Good games don't do that. It was a rushed product. Mentioning Game Informer (who had the world exclusive first peak at Dragon Age 2) giving an 8.5 doesn't mean much. The overwhelming majority of people don't think it's above average.

http://www.bioware.ru/2011/03/10/dragon_age_2_vote_on_metacritic.html

You don't resort to asking foreign people for positive reviews when you have a "good" product. Hell, one of BioWare's employees got owned for posting a 10/10 review on the site and getting it bumped up.

http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/g3td7/dragon_age_2_conspiracy_highest_rated_metacritic

You don't go into panic mode if you feel you released a good product.

I don't know what world you live in. But in my world, the game is perceived as a dog **** cash-in marketed towards grabbing as many consumers as possible with a dumbed down experience that the local ape at the zoo could get through.

I'm sorry that you liked it. I wish I was in your shoes. I wanted to love this game, I wish I had your outlook after I was done with it. However, with what I do and what I've seen, this game is just trash from my perspective and most all of my peers.

2KBack
03-31-2011, 03:01 PM
HaHa! The user reviews at metacritic are a waste of time because people don't know how to review. If it isn't a 10 it is a zero.

Kaylore
03-31-2011, 05:03 PM
HaHa! The user reviews at metacritic are a waste of time because people don't know how to review. If it isn't a 10 it is a zero.

This.

rugbythug
03-31-2011, 05:17 PM
Am I the Only one that is sure he won't be going to the OM BBQ because it will be a Nerd Fest?

Doggcow
03-31-2011, 05:19 PM
They keep pushing back the release date so I'm scared. :(


:thumbsup:

It's been announced. I think they'll stick to it.

TBH I've been considering getting a Nintendo DS just to play RPG's, INCLUDING POKEMON. Lol. Blue was awesome, back when I was like 12, so I may as well give it a shot.

McDman
03-31-2011, 06:13 PM
It isn't a bad game, but isn't a sequel to Dragon Age 1 in any way. It is a very different game, streamlined and dumbed down to perform and fit on consoles.

The first game was an epic RPG like Baulder's Gate or Fallout. It let you explore a whole world.

This game lets you explore one city and the same cave over and over 15 times.

The combat is less tactical. You just wait for your super powers to recharge then smash the button as waves of enemies appear out of nowhere. Hey guess what, if I'm in that last group of 4, and the first 20 guys just got ripped apart in front of me, I aint jumping out of the shadows...

Still, the characters are cool, and the dialogue and moral options the game give are top notch. I'll go back and finish it one day, but right now I'm playing the hell out of Crysis 2 and Shogun 2.

I miss Baldur's Gate, and the second one as well. I actually tried installing them on my new computer with the CDs and a pirated version but it just wouldn't work. :(

DrFate
03-31-2011, 06:46 PM
I miss Baldur's Gate, and the second one as well. I actually tried installing them on my new computer with the CDs and a pirated version but it just wouldn't work. :(

Pirated? Less than $20 on Amazon.com right now

:)

rugbythug
03-31-2011, 06:48 PM
I was thinking about this- I was more disappointed with ME2 than DA2. ME2 was way shorter, and had actually no gameplay improvements. At least DA2 had better trees of learning and better combat action. Plus rogues do something other than open locks.

NUB
03-31-2011, 07:59 PM
This.

Totally misses the point, though. Maybe they overkill it by giving it a zero, but let's say they act rational, do you think they'll give it a high score? Probably not. The only ones who are giving DA2 high grades are paid off rags and sites and very obviously so. PCG, which I unsubscribed from years ago after watching them decline into sucking developer dong for so many overrated, broken games, basically hailed DA2 as the best thing ever. I mean, c'mon.

DA2 sucks on quite a few levels. Every character behaves like a slut, the story literally has no meaning at all, really, and there is no connection to the main character. Time jumps where things occur without you controlling them; things just "happen", and you're filled in later. That is BS game design only tools should fall for. Other games do this yes, but they don't build their entire design around it so obviously to cut through material. And what material there is is FULL of filler combat. Just filler combat the entire way until you hit a boss which is the only constructive fights you will have. And this filler combat takes place in about five maps repeated over and over which is completely, totally unacceptable in any modern game. The game was cooked up because EA wanted to milk some money and the game is a steaming pile of crap because of it. You have no purpose other than to set up the next gravy train DA3. That's it. That's the point of the game. That might be acceptable if the gameplay wasn't total crap built around possibly the worst premises ever (time jumps, filler combat, obnoxiously repeated maps). I truly can't find any redeeming value. And contrary to what you believe I think most gamers can't either.

Doggcow
03-31-2011, 08:02 PM
I was thinking about this- I was more disappointed with ME2 than DA2. ME2 was way shorter, and had actually no gameplay improvements. At least DA2 had better trees of learning and better combat action. Plus rogues do something other than open locks.

ME2 WAS A SEGUE.

The combat was more enjoyable, by far. They just needed to make a transition to the 3rd one, to show that Sheppard is still a bad ass, and he's not been sitting around beating off in the interim between 1 and 3...

rugbythug
03-31-2011, 09:27 PM
Totally misses the point, though. Maybe they overkill it by giving it a zero, but let's say they act rational, do you think they'll give it a high score? Probably not. The only ones who are giving DA2 high grades are paid off rags and sites and very obviously so. PCG, which I unsubscribed from years ago after watching them decline into sucking developer dong for so many overrated, broken games, basically hailed DA2 as the best thing ever. I mean, c'mon.

DA2 sucks on quite a few levels. Every character behaves like a slut, the story literally has no meaning at all, really, and there is no connection to the main character. Time jumps where things occur without you controlling them; things just "happen", and you're filled in later. That is BS game design only tools should fall for. Other games do this yes, but they don't build their entire design around it so obviously to cut through material. And what material there is is FULL of filler combat. Just filler combat the entire way until you hit a boss which is the only constructive fights you will have. And this filler combat takes place in about five maps repeated over and over which is completely, totally unacceptable in any modern game. The game was cooked up because EA wanted to milk some money and the game is a steaming pile of crap because of it. You have no purpose other than to set up the next gravy train DA3. That's it. That's the point of the game. That might be acceptable if the gameplay wasn't total crap built around possibly the worst premises ever (time jumps, filler combat, obnoxiously repeated maps). I truly can't find any redeeming value. And contrary to what you believe I think most gamers can't either.

**** You I gave it an 8. And I have been Playing RPG since before they had a genre called RPG.

NUB
03-31-2011, 10:27 PM
You really made a good argument there.

I play a lot of RPGs too since I find they're a great mix of strategy, story and math-wankery. One way to look at DA2 is to see it in the vein of the Infinity Engine games, Neverwinter Nights and its sequel and the first Dragon Age of course. These games are basically all the same with the DA series dropping DnD for WoW style gameplay. Out of all these games, which are remarkably similar in more ways than just design (BioWare reuses a lot of archetypes and storylines), DA2 is undoubtedly the worst. When compared to the rest of these games I don't see how one fails to observe the laziness with which it was made. The noticeably sharp decline in quality at basically every significant point in video game design. Hell, the graphics are somehow made worse (for a game put almost entirely in one city, that city kinda sucks).

Or maybe you're right. This wasn't a money-grab at all. BioWare, with EA's backing, put a lot of time and effort into this game. A sincere work of love by the guys from Canada.

Or maybe not.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hMcVZQI6ybw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

UberBroncoMan
04-01-2011, 12:11 AM
Totally misses the point, though. Maybe they overkill it by giving it a zero, but let's say they act rational, do you think they'll give it a high score? Probably not. The only ones who are giving DA2 high grades are paid off rags and sites and very obviously so. PCG, which I unsubscribed from years ago after watching them decline into sucking developer dong for so many overrated, broken games, basically hailed DA2 as the best thing ever. I mean, c'mon.

DA2 sucks on quite a few levels. Every character behaves like a slut, the story literally has no meaning at all, really, and there is no connection to the main character. Time jumps where things occur without you controlling them; things just "happen", and you're filled in later. That is BS game design only tools should fall for. Other games do this yes, but they don't build their entire design around it so obviously to cut through material. And what material there is is FULL of filler combat. Just filler combat the entire way until you hit a boss which is the only constructive fights you will have. And this filler combat takes place in about five maps repeated over and over which is completely, totally unacceptable in any modern game. The game was cooked up because EA wanted to milk some money and the game is a steaming pile of crap because of it. You have no purpose other than to set up the next gravy train DA3. That's it. That's the point of the game. That might be acceptable if the gameplay wasn't total crap built around possibly the worst premises ever (time jumps, filler combat, obnoxiously repeated maps). I truly can't find any redeeming value. And contrary to what you believe I think most gamers can't either.

Don't know how much more clear and obvious it can get.

McDman
04-01-2011, 01:51 AM
Pirated? Less than $20 on Amazon.com right now

:)

I have the CDs but they didn't work so I tried a pirated version.

Kaylore
04-01-2011, 08:48 AM
Totally misses the point, though. Maybe they overkill it by giving it a zero, but let's say they act rational, do you think they'll give it a high score? Probably not. The only ones who are giving DA2 high grades are paid off rags and sites and very obviously so. PCG, which I unsubscribed from years ago after watching them decline into sucking developer dong for so many overrated, broken games, basically hailed DA2 as the best thing ever. I mean, c'mon.

DA2 sucks on quite a few levels. Every character behaves like a slut, the story literally has no meaning at all, really, and there is no connection to the main character. Time jumps where things occur without you controlling them; things just "happen", and you're filled in later. That is BS game design only tools should fall for. Other games do this yes, but they don't build their entire design around it so obviously to cut through material. And what material there is is FULL of filler combat. Just filler combat the entire way until you hit a boss which is the only constructive fights you will have. And this filler combat takes place in about five maps repeated over and over which is completely, totally unacceptable in any modern game. The game was cooked up because EA wanted to milk some money and the game is a steaming pile of crap because of it. You have no purpose other than to set up the next gravy train DA3. That's it. That's the point of the game. That might be acceptable if the gameplay wasn't total crap built around possibly the worst premises ever (time jumps, filler combat, obnoxiously repeated maps). I truly can't find any redeeming value. And contrary to what you believe I think most gamers can't either.

I'm not going to say **** you, but I give it a 7 out of 10. I do find it annoying that all the characters are bi-sexual, which they did so you could romance anyone you wanted but it's horribly unrealistic. I don't mind the time jumping because it makes it feel like you're controlling the main characters entire life and you feel like it's a long journey. My other criticisms have been posted many times. It's not a bad game. It's not even below average.

Pseudofool
04-01-2011, 08:50 AM
I'm playing it, but for lack of other games. This is prolly the least amount of actual thinking I've ever had to do in a Bioware game. It's really an adventure game with RPG elements. No skills? No armor for companions? No reputation system? I'm not even really sure what the overarching plot IS. The conversation system is so dumb-downed and not at all based on skills or attributes. There's fun to be had. But the richness and depth of BG2 is long goneeeee.

Looking forward to Witcher 2 and Risen 2, though.

scorpio
04-01-2011, 09:24 AM
I miss Baldur's Gate, and the second one as well. I actually tried installing them on my new computer with the CDs and a pirated version but it just wouldn't work. :(

BG & BG2 with all of the expansions are available for download at GoG.com. $9.99 each and they are modified to run on modern operating systems.

:thumbsup:

scorpio
04-01-2011, 09:29 AM
Damn, now I want to go play BG2. But I have like 10 half-finished games going, including DA2.