132 réponses à ce sujet

[obnoxiousgas]

If Bioware makes some absolutely huge changes to DA 2 that make it an entirely different genre (or at the very least, very different to its predecessor) in order to appeal to a wider audience, then they're kind of shooting themselves in the foot. Treading ground already well trodden means more competition from similar games, and it's entirely possible (and even likely) that at least a few of those similar games would be better. Meanwhile, the RPG style that Bioware used for DA is slightly more of a niche, and one that it filled quite comfortably, meaning it'd have a greater appeal to fans of that genre who are slightly more limited in choice.

That said, still remaining cautiously optimistic that the changes will not be quite so dramatic as that.

[erilben]

sanadawarrior wrote...

Regardless, saying twitch is not a wider audience is luaghable. Halo 3 sold 11 million copies. Modern Warfare 2 20+ million copies. What kind of rpg has sold like that?

Pokemon does.

[sanadawarrior]

erilben wrote...

sanadawarrior wrote...

Regardless, saying twitch is not a wider audience is luaghable. Halo 3 sold 11 million copies. Modern Warfare 2 20+ million copies. What kind of rpg has sold like that?

Pokemon does.

Well played.

[pprrff]

Anathemic wrote...

Valmy wrote...

Brian.H wrote...

what incentive would i have to buy mass effect 3 two times?

Mass Effect and Dragon Age are totally different gaming styles.  I seriously doubt they are going to turn Dragon Age into a space shooter.

Well it seems DA is going the ME path with a predetermined chracter and speculation of VO.
DA:O was a good game because it was different from other RPG's out there and had it's own feel, the Origin stories (some I admit failed in comparison to others), character customization, different builds, and of course the story, made DA:O well liked and loved.
But now DA2 is starting to feel like Mass Effect and/or Mass Effect 2, why? It's already set in fact that we havea predetermined chracter, who is human, just like the predetermiend character in Mass Effect, Shepard.
Not only that but the main plot is starting to sound like ME2:


"Experience the epic sequel to the 2009 Game of the Year from the
critically acclaimed makers of Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect 2.
You are one of the few who escaped the destruction of your home. Now,
forced to fight for survival in an ever-changing world, you must gather
the deadliest of allies, amass fame and fortune, and seal your place in
history. This is the story of how the world changed forever. The legend
of your Rise to Power begins now."

What did we do in ME2? We went all over the galaxy recruiting the "deadliest of allies", we "amassed fame and fortune" by just being Commander shepard who returned to life, and we "sealed our place in history" by taking the fight to the Collectors and ruining their plans in constucting a hybrid Reaper, not to mention saved many human colonies in the process.

Well, to be fair, every bioware game has the same plot line as every other bioware game. They all pretty much involves you starting from a humble begining, then **** goes down somehow, you have to travel to 3 or 4 different places, and in the process gather a bunch of rag-tag misfits, and then have a final showdown with the  big bad boss.

I think this fit discription of everygame from BaldurGate to ME2.

[Valmy]

pprrff wrote...
Well, to be fair, every bioware game has the same plot line as every other bioware game. They all pretty much involves you starting from a humble begining, then **** goes down somehow, you have to travel to 3 or 4 different places, and in the process gather a bunch of rag-tag misfits, and then have a final showdown with the  big bad boss.

I think this fit discription of everygame from BaldurGate to ME2.

Agree on the plot part.

But it is true that it is unfortunate we have lost the choice of race.

I am not sure that makes it like Mass Effect but it is an evil associated with fully voiced games.

We will see how much they define who this Hawke guy/girl is and how much we can define him/her.

[Lady Catastrophe]

Yes.A hundreds times yes.

[jgunz02]

pprrff wrote...

Can i just play the devil's advocate and ask why is it so bad for gaming company to try and find wider market appeal for its game? Sure there are hard core fan who love the tactical combat and pause the game every battle to set everything up and micromanage everything. This is perfectly fine.

But I think those things are mechanics, not the soul of RPG. They are a legacy when RPG combat is limited by technology. The soul of RPG is that people can escape into fantasy for couple hours a day and pretend to be someone else. Getting upset of RPG's combat mechanic is to me akin to getting upset over the way your christmas presents are wrapped. Your are mistaking the mechanics of unwrapping presents for the actual presents.

Now before I get insulted I would just like to say that I don't have problems with all the classic RPG traits that DAO had. It didn't bother me at all that you need to pause the game to set everything up properly.

YES isnt it the point? Dragon age is an rpg, it's had so much success why change it, why not give the players what they want??

[UberDuber]

YES!



Do you not think they have dropped enough of the stuff we loved about Dragon age Origins already.Im exspecting the worst I really am. Like Hawke is being voice and the dialogs will be short and they say stuff completely different to what it says on the screen like Mass effect.



Then I will say, Screw you Bioware. For ruining Dragon age, Then go find another game that doesnt dump everything in a year.

[onotix]

yes removing things to make it more popular is a bad idea especially since they know people already like it the way it is with the exception of the buggy stuff you know. Adding stuff is another story.



but hey fall out new Vegas and portal 2 are coming out soon so if this game goes to hell i could care less

[Aetheria]

 Has nobody yet pointed out that DA:O already appeals to a wide audience? I seem to recall that it's sold quite well. Maybe not as much as Halo, but it's not realistic to expect every game to be as popular as that. 

[pc_wizard]

Yes it is bad. Part of the appeal of an RPG is the fact that it makes me think before taking any action as opposed to just shoot anything in sight without much purpose. I am aware that many so-called RPGs abandon complexity in order to appeal to the masses, but I still hope that bioware won't do that with DA2.

[ITSSEXYTIME]

 Yes, it would.

[Alexander1136]

nYshak wrote...

Yes it would be. Because this is a RPG title. If you don't like that there are other genre of games out there. No reason for DA to change its style whatsoever.

excatly but all games are being casual-ized. its happen to every good game i ever played. it goes like this great game here are awards then they make a sequal and forget why fans loved the first one. there are a handful of pick up the controller beatem'ups or shootem'ups there are only a few games where you actually have to spend time and think things through before a battle of some sort.

[Gatt9]

pprrff wrote...

Can i just play the devil's advocate and ask why is it so bad for gaming company to try and find wider market appeal for its game? Sure there are hard core fan who love the tactical combat and pause the game every battle to set everything up and micromanage everything. This is perfectly fine.

But I think those things are mechanics, not the soul of RPG. They are a legacy when RPG combat is limited by technology. The soul of RPG is that people can escape into fantasy for couple hours a day and pretend to be someone else. Getting upset of RPG's combat mechanic is to me akin to getting upset over the way your christmas presents are wrapped. Your are mistaking the mechanics of unwrapping presents for the actual presents.

Now before I get insulted I would just like to say that I don't have problems with all the classic RPG traits that DAO had. It didn't bother me at all that you need to pause the game to set everything up properly.

To answer your questions...

1.  It is bad because the original game was released as an RPG,  and it is likely that the sequel will be akin to ME2 and be a shooter.  So it's no "Appealing to a wider audience",  it's disregarding the original audience that gave the property value in favor of some other audience they think will buy more copies.    To add insult,  using ME2 as an example,  they further claimed it was an RPG even though it's actual classification is inargueably a Shooter.

So it's roughly the equivalent of Harry Potter suddenly being turned into a CSI clone because more people watch CSI than own copies of Harry Potter.

2.  The foundation of an RPG is Character Based Skill,  that is what defines an RPG.  You cannot have a Role without it.  Without it,  you have an Avatar.  The combat mechanics are an implementation of the foundation,  if the combat mechanics fail to implement Character Based Skill,  then they implement Shooter gameplay,  and you end up with ME2,  an inappropriately described Shooter.

3.  The "classic RPG traits" are actually the defining characteristic of what constitutes an RPG,  without them,  you *cannot* have an RPG.  Just a shooter with the wrong label on the box (ME2, Oblivion,  Fallout 3). 

If you enjoy story driven shooters,  there's nothing wrong with that.  The problem becomes when people describe story driven shooters as RPG's despite the fact that they failed to implement an RPG.  Dialogue doesn't make it an RPG,  Wing Commander 3 had dialogue,  it isn't an RPG.  Panzer General 2's units had levels and experience,  that did not make it an RPG.  Throwing a little level screen and throw away xps into a shooter as a method of implementing weapon advancement doesn't make it an RPG either.

[Valmy]

Gatt9 wrote...
 and it is likely that the sequel will be akin to ME2 and be a shooter.

Likely a shooter?!

[UltimoCrofto]

Let Bethseda do mainstream and Bioware be the crown jewel.

That's a bit unfair since both Bethesda and BioWare are equally as bad as each other for constantly wanting to nerf their games to appeal to console gamers. They both have proven they can make superb and deep RPGs previously, but choose to aim at a bigger audience.

There's not much we can do about it -- There's always another CD Projeckt to pop-up where another developer moves on.

[TMZuk]

pprrff wrote...

Can i just play the devil's advocate and ask why is it so bad for gaming company to try and find wider market appeal for its game? Sure there are hard core fan who love the tactical combat and pause the game every battle to set everything up and micromanage everything. This is perfectly fine.

But I think those things are mechanics, not the soul of RPG. They are a legacy when RPG combat is limited by technology. The soul of RPG is that people can escape into fantasy for couple hours a day and pretend to be someone else. Getting upset of RPG's combat mechanic is to me akin to getting upset over the way your christmas presents are wrapped. Your are mistaking the mechanics of unwrapping presents for the actual presents.

Now before I get insulted I would just like to say that I don't have problems with all the classic RPG traits that DAO had. It didn't bother me at all that you need to pause the game to set everything up properly.

That depends, doesn't it?

If EA sells more games that way, then it is not bad for them.

If I desire an in depth RPG, with multiple choises, freedom and interaction when I want it, not when I stumble upon a treelog in the wilderness that prompts a dialogue, it is bad for me.

So this looks to be very bad for me. In fact, it looks so bad, that I doubt I'll bother with it. Of course, things may change but the rumours so far; one voiced protagonist ala ME2, probably also with just one set character animation, so the female will move excactly as the male, one race and a fixed background is extreely discouraging.

I'll keep my fingers crossed that Bioware will realize the error of their ways, but I doubt it. So maybe they will gain new customers elsewhere, but they will have lost at least one.

[this isnt my name]

Yes, because by that logic walking into a gaming store i would see on the shelves generic fps #1, #2,#3,#4, etc. Shooters are popular, but that dosent mean I like them, so no.

[Ingrimm22]

Yes indeed. The design decisions really puzzle me because DA:O sold even better than ME 2. Why the hell do they change things to make DA more similar to a game that sold less? I don't get it.



Don't get me wrong, I love ME 2 but i DON'T want to just play this with swords.



ME 2 was very good but compared to Dragon Age it was way to short and had almost zero replay-value because of the restrictions and streamlinings they made. On the other hand DA:O is a beast of a game: challenging, long, with incredible replay-value. I'd really HATE to see that gone. And don't get me started about the whole "action-gameplay" thing. The Battles in DA where challenging whereas in ME 2 i just breezed through every encounter, it was a bit of a yawn-fest to be honest.



I would have loved if they took some ideas from the better selling Game and implemented that in ME, that would've been much more logical.

[XX55XX]

I am already mildly disappointed with what I am hearing already. 

They better not go the route that Deus Ex took to Invisible War. Invisible War was a great game, but however, it stripped away the RPG elements, and hence, the game became far more hollow in a way. But, it remained a superb game. 

The goal of RPG mechanics is to immerse ourselves into a certain character. To remain an RPG, the foundations of an RPG (like character statistics, etc.) must remain. Otherwise, it becomes an action game.

[sanadawarrior]

Ingrimm22 wrote...

Yes indeed. The design decisions really puzzle me because DA:O sold even better than ME 2. Why the hell do they change things to make DA more similar to a game that sold less? I don't get it.

Don't get me wrong, I love ME 2 but i DON'T want to just play this with swords.

ME 2 was very good but compared to Dragon Age it was way to short and had almost zero replay-value because of the restrictions and streamlinings they made. On the other hand DA:O is a beast of a game: challenging, long, with incredible replay-value. I'd really HATE to see that gone. And don't get me started about the whole "action-gameplay" thing. The Battles in DA where challenging whereas in ME 2 i just breezed through every encounter, it was a bit of a yawn-fest to be honest.

I would have loved if they took some ideas from the better selling Game and implemented that in ME, that would've been much more logical.

Proof of DA:O sales being better than ME 2? I'm rather curious because Ive been hearing this alot.

[Tsuga C]

Kinthalis ThornBlade wrote...

I think the market is large enough to support both, don't you?

There's already plenty of games that are dumbed down for the (larger) casual gaming crowd. Why does DA have to go that way also?

Well I know why, money.

But knowing the why and understanding the casual crowd doesn't mean I should just accept it. How would you feel if something you really liked and enjoy was in danger of being wiped out simply because it wasn't popular at the moment.

You might understand the reason, but would you simply shrugg your shoulders and say "meh"? Or would you try to make your case and hope that the market compensates the developers well without appealing to lowest common denominator?

Dragon Age was sold to us a the "spiritual successor" to Baldur's Gate. That has certain implications to me, one of which is a deep tactical combat system that requires more than 2 brain cells to be good at.

Heartily seconded!    

Is slouching towards an intellectually vapid, Konsole Kiddie game with DA2 really the only way BioWare can guarantee that they'll still be in operation five years down the road?  If so, then they really won't be our BioWare anymore, will they?  They'll just be "that company that used to make games I enjoyed and has now been not only financially but also culturally subsumed by EA."  Sad. 

[JohnF1986]

I still don't know where this dropping of RPG elements stuff comes from. They said that with ME2 they felt the anger of the players about letting those go, and now some people think they will do it in ME2, too?

I mean, the role-playing part of Bioware games always was rather subdued and straight-forward since Infinity times, only with Dragon Age and Mass Effect they left the application of the D&D alignments, mostly, behind them. Why go back to terrible stuff like Jade Empire now?

I mean, the idea of focusing on the character and his/her rise of power is a great idea. Finally we might see an actual character, instead of plot or McGuffin, driven plot. How is that a bad thing for an RPG? I don't need a totally old school dungeon crawler and Dragon Age felt pretty bad in the parts where I was doing just that. If they could manage to combine this epic and action-packed combat (terms that were previously used to describe Origins) with challenge and not repetition, just like the olden days of BG, and with the new RP experience, even better.

[sanadawarrior]

Tsuga C wrote...

Kinthalis ThornBlade wrote...

I think the market is large enough to support both, don't you?

There's already plenty of games that are dumbed down for the (larger) casual gaming crowd. Why does DA have to go that way also?

Well I know why, money.

But knowing the why and understanding the casual crowd doesn't mean I should just accept it. How would you feel if something you really liked and enjoy was in danger of being wiped out simply because it wasn't popular at the moment.

You might understand the reason, but would you simply shrugg your shoulders and say "meh"? Or would you try to make your case and hope that the market compensates the developers well without appealing to lowest common denominator?

Dragon Age was sold to us a the "spiritual successor" to Baldur's Gate. That has certain implications to me, one of which is a deep tactical combat system that requires more than 2 brain cells to be good at.

Heartily seconded!    

Is slouching towards an intellectually vapid, Konsole Kiddie game with DA2 really the only way BioWare can guarantee that they'll still be in operation five years down the road?  If so, then they really won't be our BioWare anymore, will they?  They'll just be "that company that used to make games I enjoyed and has now been not only financially but also culturally subsumed by EA."  Sad. 

"Our" Bioware includes who? Ive been a fan since the original Baldur's Gate and Im looking forward to DA2.

[sanadawarrior]

Double post

Modifié par sanadawarrior, 09 juillet 2010 - 05:57 .