Could ‘Dragon Age 2′ Complaints Bring Changes To ‘Mass Effect 3′?

Game Rant's Andrew Dyce writes, "There is a fine line between an artistic expression and a commercial property, and the difference is one that video game designers must struggle with on a daily basis. With the constant development cycles that major developers and publishers eventually get into, feedback from fans and critical reception is easy to come by only days after a game hits retail shelves. In the case of Dragon Age 2, fans and critics alike made it clear to developer BioWare that many of the changes in direction the team had implemented with the sequel were not what they had hoped.

So with Mass Effect 3 still in development for a rumored November release, we’ve started to wonder if the sea of complaints and wealth of shots taken at their most recent property will encourage ME3‘s developers to re-examine, or change their own plans for the third installment. It’s never too late to make a game better, after all."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
NYC_Gamer2800d ago (Edited 2800d ago )

this game might be my last title from the bioware, if they ruin it and make it too mainstream.

RustInPeace2800d ago

I liked the original DA (aside from the slightly cumbersome U.I.) But haven't played DA2 yet. What are all the complaints people are bringing up? Was what they changed make that radical of a difference?

banjadude2800d ago

I haven't played the console version, but people say DA 2 was too much of a "button-masher".
Another common complaint (across all platforms) was the overuse of the same environments.

undercovrr2800d ago

DA2 is awesome. Not as great as the first one in terms of story and environments, but it beats it in gameplay, graphics, and overall character development. If you loved DA1, play DA2, don't listen to the haters.

OhMyGandhi2800d ago

did you try the demo?
I disliked the demo just because of wonky combat and animations, bland level design and frustrating u.i (as RustInPeace said)

but I've never played the full game, so it may be completely different.

iceman28852800d ago (Edited 2800d ago )

Main reason why I didn't like DA2 and much as DA:O

1) The scale of the story is not as epic. In origins you felt like you were changing the world. In DA2 its more like you're just going through one guys story on his way to being well known.

2) Inability to customize the armor and/or weapons of your team mates. You have full customization of yourself, but can only change the accessories and weapons of your party members (although you can't change some of the party members weapons).

3) The use the conversation wheel as used in ME rather than just picking from a list of dialogue. I might be in the minority here, but I don't need some wheel with different symbols telling me what each conversation branch will lead too, I'd rather just find out myself by picking a line of dialogue I like best.

4) If you play on the console, you will be doing a lot of smashing of the x button to attack. It's not so bad, but I didn't mind just hitting it once and letting it go.

5) Small complaint, you have to be human. I liked that I could be dwarf, elf or human and each having different beginning stories from DA.

Don't get me wrong. DA2 is a fun game, I just liked DAO much better.

jeseth2800d ago

I LOVED Origins, first of all.

I played the DA2 demo and was torn about it . . . just had an overall different feel you know. Combat is more hack and slash and a lot of the characters look "modernized" I guess you could say.

So I bought DA2 because the demo was pretty good despite some changes I didn't like but improvements in other areas made up for it. When I started DA2 I couldn't get right into it but after a short while the game really shines on its own away from Origins. THe game isn't as "Open" as most of it takes place in all the various locations inside Kirkwall and only a few outlying areas.

But DA2 is great. I'm about 30hrs in now and I'm loving it. I have made some decisions I wish I could take back, but I'll save them for the next playthrough.

If you liked DA Origins, you'll wind up liking DA2 as well.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2800d ago
DOMination2800d ago

The combat was more or less the same as the first game, so I never really understood where the hack n' slash complaints came from.

The main problem with it was that you only have one city to visit and because of that, it gets a bir boring and doesn't feel epic enough. Also, because it's set on a different continent with entirely different characters, it feels like it's not really a continuation of what happened in the first game.

iceman28852800d ago

I agree, the lack of "epic-ness" in DA2 is the biggest difference from DA:O.

As for the hack n slash complaints, I think it has more to do with you having to repeatedly tap the attack button to continue attacking whereas in DA:O you could target an enemy and press the attack button and let it be (although you probably didn't do that much if you were a rogue or mage).

Christopher2800d ago

We're in an age where game developers are reacting, many say overreacting, to the community. Killzone 3 should be a perfect example of this with the changes made to controls based on the reviews of Killzone 2.

I think most of the changes in ME3 will be from complaints of ME2, though, not necessarily DA2. Biggest complaints were about the removal of RPG elements (such as weapon modification and improved skill options), exploration, and a bigger focus on the main storyline without too much side story distraction.

soundslike2800d ago (Edited 2800d ago )

Developers should not listen to the public AT ALL imo. At least if they want to be taken seriously as talented artists and engineers. Make the game they want to make or else it all turns to a grey drivel.

Chock up BLOPS to that list as well, they based all their balance and gameplay changes off what the community "wanted" except they don't actually know what they want...IMAGINE THAT.

I think they actually need more side story stuff in ME3, though, because the "side missions" were mostly mandatory meet new members, gain their trust, which seems, when you're done with it, more like a prologue than anything else.

Of course the final missions seemed a bit "wait...this is really the final mission" after that, but only because of the team-assembling nature of the side-missions. If there was space for more free-form missions like more NPC given action-based quests, the story wouldn't have seemed so rushed, but who is to know you're actually progressing through the game when you decide to gain a members trust?

Christopher2800d ago

***Developers should not listen to the public AT ALL imo. At least if they want to be taken seriously as talented artists and engineers. Make the game they want to make or else it all turns to a grey drivel.***

This is an age old argument for me. Going back to the first year of Ultima Online. MMOs really introduced a change in how gamers took part and felt more of a voice in how their games were made, and this was continued throughout the years to what we have now with massive gaming communities like IGN.

And, I've come to the conclusion that it's like most things in life, the extremes are never the right answer and it ends up being something where you should aim for somewhere in the middle.

What I mean is that they should accept community feedback, but it should be moderated and tailored to fit their goals as best as necessary. The developers are definitely making their game, but ignoring your fanbase and what they find important can definitely lead to some downsides. DA2 got lucky that it didn't affect their sales this time, but I guarantee it would definitely have an effect if they didn't learn from DA2 when they put out DA3 (or DA2: Rude Awakening for Your Wallet Expansion).

Just like how I can use KZ3 as an example of how a game is perceived as worse than the former for listening to the community, I can use Alpha Protocol for an example of a team that really needed a lot more feedback from the community to help them determine what they were and weren't doing right. Alpha Protocol, IMHO, is also a great test case on how to tell that your game producer shouldn't be in charge of game design.

soundslike2800d ago

In most things I would agree that the moderate approach is best..

..but if we are to classify games as art I still would have to take the "extreme" stance. Compromising is self sabotage for any art, technologically based or not. If you have a vision, having to meet the public halfway to get it released too often just destroys the original value it had. Games should not be run like politics.

Christopher2800d ago

***Games should not be run like politics.***

I definitely agree with that.

And, my comments didn't mean to say in all instances should the approach above be used. But, many of them fall into that category of relying upon community desires.

I think most Indie games fall under the umbrella of fulfilling an extreme use of creating what you think is right.

tigertron2800d ago (Edited 2800d ago )

I hope from each game that a developer makes, that they take onboard, the critisms and compliments from their audiences, and then build upon that in the next installments.

Hopefully, Bioware have learned from ME2 and DA2 and will make ME3 and DA3 even better.

Lucreto2800d ago

My only complaints I have are the reuse of the same environments over and over and the import glitch from awakening not working and will still be broken after next weeks patch.

Simon_Brezhnev2800d ago

Yeah that was extremely lazy reusing the same level environments. You can tell the game was rushed. I actually like the gameplay more then DAO. A lot of peole might as well get use to the change future RPGs will all be action RPGs.

BabyTownFrolics2800d ago (Edited 2800d ago )

yes, no, maybe, who knows

bioware knows, maybe ask them instead of asking people who for sure dont know the answer.

Show all comments (22)