19 réponses à ce sujet

[CarlSpackler]

 The
admittedly few few revelations of DA2 released are foreshadowing a slightly (or drastically depending on your view) type of game than DAO.  Whats bewildering to me are the "why" and "when" questions.  First of all DAO was excellent, an engrossing experience with a 1st person narrative from a AAA developer and publisher.  Please correct me if I'm wrong but there are very few games that come to mind when it comes to 1st person narratives.  Secondly from all the press releases, vgchartz, download service charts, etc, DAO sold extremely well.  (For example check out this link: http://gamebanshee.c...ass-effect.html.) 

So it would seem there is a clear audience for this type of game, quite frankly no other AAA developers are developing games in this mold, so the question remains, why change the approach?  As a corollary to that question, when was the change decided upon?  To be more specific going from a 1st person narrative to a 3rd (a la Hawke via Sheppard), using the dialog wheel, and fully voiced PC.  Now there are number of other troubling buzzwords but the preceding examples are confirmed.  While I understand Bioware is constantly wanting to try new storytelling techniques, I applaud them for the ME games as they’ve turned out,largely because they seem to be hitting the mark they set out for and merging a genre I have no interest in (1st or 3rd person shooters) with an RPG. Great!  However, the ME games never came close to delivering the gamingexperience and fun of DAO.   So why alter the approach to an admittedly successful game when there really isn’t much else on the market that resembles it? EVERY other major title I can think of employs the 3rd person narrative and PC voice over.  Lastly, DAO was announced VERY early in development to let their gaming community know that they were in fact trying to carry on the BG tradition of the traditional CRPG experience.  And while I have no doubt DA2 will be fun in on its own terms, Bioware no longer has anything currently announced that delivers a more traditional type of gaming experience.  Sadly as a result I’ve seen they are losing some of their longtime fans.  Keep in mind I’m not talking about the “YOU SUCK BIOWARE!” folks, but rather reasoned people who enjoy a very specific type of game.  Their dollars are gone with not really any other games to sink them.  I know I’ll play DA2, but the market of games out there that interest me is very shallow.  A few more “upgrades” to Bioware game design and my gaming dollars may disappear as well with nowhere to invest them. I  don’t play shooters, action games, or most sports games.  (And no one really develops the old-school adventure games L .) 

So back to my questions, why was this approach decided upon when the first game was such a critical and commercial success?  And was it decided upon before DAO was released?  Was it perhaps apprehension by higher level folks who lacked faith in the product before shipping?  It all seems very strange.  Anyways, as always, I’m sure the story, atmosphere, companions, will be great, but I’m already lamenting the loss of the first person narrative.  And yes I’ve seen posts where the devs confirm Hawke is more about how we define him that Sheppard, but the switch will be noted, as will the fully voiced PC (which likely means a short game as well since we were told many times on the old forums that the game was able to be longer due to not having to pay for PC VO) which just pulls me a little out of the game instead of into it.  Good luck with the rest of the development, despite how my above rant may come across, I really am looking forward to the game.  Cheers. 

Modifié par CarlSpackler, 12 juillet 2010 - 01:32 .

[David Gaider]

I would suggest that you wait to hear exactly what our approach is before trying to figure out whether it's what you're interested in or not.



People appear to be acting as if the scant details we've revealed are all they'll ever learn about the game ever, and they're thus required to render judgment immediately.



You're really not. You might, in fact, want to see exactly how we're implementing these features you dislike and seeing for yourself whether they differ from, say, Mass Effect's. There are similarities, of course, but there are also differences... and to assume you know everything about how the game is going to feel based off the most cursory of information is just going to make you look foolish.



Perhaps in the end DA2 won't be for you after all. That's fair. You should be able to judge prior to actually playing it-- there will be information galore available prior to its release, I'm sure. But if you want to have questions asking the "why" regarding our approach taken seriously, it might be sensible to wait and see what that approach is first.

[David Gaider]

LPPrince wrote...
I wonder how many times David has to stress this before everyone understands what he means.

I'll bet Eleventeen more times.

Well, I imagine until we put out more information on the game. Then people will either feel their fears have been prophetic or get to be pleasantly surprised. Win/win, I suppose.

[David Gaider]

joriandrake wrote...

I don't believe anyone would be happy if their fears become real, that is like doomsayers at the start of apocalypse cheering and saying "I told you so"

I think you underestimate the pleasure people get in feeling they were right about something.

And, hey, when the apocalypse begins I imagine getting in a last "I told you so" wouldn't be such a bad idea.

[David Gaider]

CarlSpackler wrote...
This is perhaps the most frustrating part of your response.  I guess I didn’t phrase my questions very well as this seems to miss the mark a little.  Let me try and be more clear, DAO’s character narrative worked a certain way.  DA2 is changing this model (albeit perhaps slightly), this much we know.  This is information you have revealed.  Now perhaps the change once seen will be less pronounced than we believe, but the changes are hardly completely unknown quantities.  All I was trying to ask is what went into the decision process here?  Why change what was a popular and successful model?  When was this decided? 

Sorry if my response was confusing. When I finally get a chance to chime in on a thread, I'm often responding to it in aggregate unless I'm quoting someone and responding to them specifically. It can be hard to differentiate one poster from another sometimes-- kind of like trying to have a conversation in a room full of howler monkeys. At some point it just all ends up being noise.

So with regards to your response, I'll say that I was replying more to those who assumed that our use of features in Mass Effect meant that we must automatically be assuming Mass Effect's implementation or their overall style-- which isn't the case. I imagine there's definitely people who don't really care what our implementation is. Such features are a dealbreaker for them no matter what-- which is fine. There's really not much more to discuss at that point, is there?

With regards to the "why did we make these changes?" question, as in what was the thought process behind it-- I'll leave that to the people who actually make those decisions. But at the end of the day it's the creative direction we wanted to take-- I'm not sure how much more we can explain that. We changed the formula, and even if the response from the most ardent fans is "OMG HOW COULD YOU" that's what we wanted to do, and it's not intended as a "slap in the face" as some people here like to paint it -- we're picking a path for ourselves, not running a committee, and the particulars of what went into that decision are often as much personal as they are business.

[David Gaider]

Brockololly wrote...
I'm no marketing expert, but I would just think that on the initial reveal of a sequel to an old school game, you would want to play to your base and solidify support from the "hardcore" fans first before trying to emphasize how drastically different the game is when many enjoyed the older feel of the original just fine.

If we've changed things wouldn't you rather we just said so?

We're not apologizing for these changes, nor are we trying to hide them. This is still Dragon Age to us. It feels a bit like the people who tried to argue with us that our "Baldur's Gate spiritual successor" couldn't be called that because it didn't have every feature that BG did-- we know what a Dragon Age game should feel like, to us, and to be honest I don't think it rests in player VO/not player VO or a dialogue wheel. We think it rests in the choices the player gets to make, the world and characters you're interacting with and the party-based combat.

Granted, it would be nice if we showed some more things that the particular group which hangs out on these forums would like-- but I have the feeling that no matter how much information we divulged on the announcement it would never quite be enough for you guys. So letting you guys absorb this part before seeing more of what's actually in the game is maybe not a bad idea. Like I've said many times now, you'll see for yourselves in time whether the game's for you... but I think if you're assuming that, even though the same people are working on it who worked on Origins that it won't feel like a Dragon Age game just because, say, your player character talks that you're probably selling us a bit short.

Modifié par David Gaider, 12 juillet 2010 - 05:42 .

[David Gaider]

MerinTB wrote...
While I mostly agree wtih you in spirit, David...

This is becoming something of a tautology for you.

"The game is being changed this way because we design the game and feel it should be this way."
is like
"I am a game designer because I design games.  The sky is blue because it is a blue sky."

I agree. It does end up sounding that way, but that's because people keep asking me to explain the obvious.

My fear is that the gaming industry (including BioWare at this point, I'm sad to say) is moving with the rest of the entertainment industry into trying to find this "mythical" mainstream audience.  All this does is make mish-mashes of genres and mediocre products that large numbers can go "eh, it was alright" about.
Bottom line, it makes finanacial sense - better to have 2/3rds of the game consumers buying and forgetting your game in a couple months than 1/3rd of the game consumers buying and loving your game to death.

Maybe.

I'd suggest maybe taking a look here: www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/publishers-note/7688-Publisher-Note-10-E-for-Everyone-Except-Me

It's not a bad article, in terms of explaining some of the realities we face. I don't think it's the entire reason these choices were made, as DAO was quite successful on its own, but it certainly addresses the idea you're expressing.

As I've often said, I'll most likely end up buying DA2.  And probably liking it a lot.
But I waited years for DAO and am in love with the game (even though, yes, it sacrificed a few sacred cows of mine.)  Right now DA2 looks to be sacrificing a few more sacred cows, and my herd is looking so thin that I'm afraid I won't survive the winter.

I like this turn of a phrase. Well done!

Sacred cows are yummy.

[Stanley Woo]

This is just a reminder that personal attacks and bickering is not permitted in our community. We can disagree with each other without resorting to personal attacks or insults. Thank you.

[Stanley Woo]

The "definition of an RPG" is a long-winded argument that never comes to any resolution, because everyone has their own definition of what constitutes an RPG and what games fall into that category. it is a HUGE discussion in its own right, and doesn't belong here in the DA2 forums. There may already be a thread in this forum about it already, and there is certainly one in Off Topic, so take your discussion there.



Disagreements come up in conversation, but bickering, name-calling, and insults are not welcome here in the BioWare Social Network. Argue the points that people are making and support it with evidence or opinion, but once you start calling people "sheep," "trolls," or "fanboys," you're already heading in the wrong direction.



Consider this your warning to keep the discussion civil and on-topic.

[David Gaider]

Davasar wrote...

Davasar wrote...

Mr. Gaider,

I appreciate your honesty. What I and many are still waiting for is the answer to the question: Why?

Why change that which was commercially and critically successful. Basic marketing is that you keep your core, target audience by adding new features to that which made them happy, and improving other existing features.

The only logical conclusion is that these fans in a silent, but polite way were told to "screw off". That may not be the intended message, but what else are they left to think when the game isnt being made to their target demograph?

They are not being targeted anymore by the changes, that fact is plain.

So, please answer the question:

Why change it when you knew it would drive much of the core audience away?

If you say something like "we dont care about them anymore" or "We arent making games for them anymore" at least we will respect the candor.

What we dont want is shell gaming.

Reposting for the answer to the original topic and this question above.

Really? I posted an answer to this as best I can and your response is to ask "why?" again with an even more leading question? No offense, but it seems like you already have an answer in mind.

There's really nothing more I can add, save to suggest that you wait and see if someone like Mike Laidlaw cares to present his thought process here for dissection.

[David Gaider]

tbsking wrote...
But the fact that the Warden doesn't get an ending is what's pissing people off about it. Every ending a Warden can get - aside from dying - implies that his adventures continue.

And if they do? The story of Origins was the battle against the Blight-- which you finished. You killed the Archdemon. That's as definitive an ending as you're likely to get. The hero walks off into the sunset and his adventures continue. Perhaps he heads off in search of Morrigan-- perhaps we even pick up on that plot in the future, who knows? But if the idea is that picking up on that one possible thread as the basis for DA2, continuing the "adventures of the Warden" (which would have to be an all-new adventure since, as I pointed out above, his battle is already done), is the entire point of Origins... well, I'm not so sure about that. I can see why you might be attached to your Warden character and even the romance plot your pursued, and perhaps the Warden's story might not be entirely done yet, but it certainly isn't the focus of DA2. There are new stories to be told.

Modifié par David Gaider, 15 juillet 2010 - 02:53 .

[Mary Kirby]

Tamar Northenstar wrote...

After reading snippets on gamebanshee (ie. There are no less than a dozen comparisons to Mass Effect throughout the article by the author, executive director Mark Darrah, and lead designer Mike Laidlaw) and (Our new companions will never have issue with our decisions to the point that they'll leave the party or retaliate beyond a complaint or two) I am not loving the new direction.

I am distressed to see this awesome franchise heading towards the one size fits all approach of Mass Effect. I played both and while enjoying Mass Effect one and two, they didn't come close to the enjoyment I personally felt while playing Dragon Age. The NPC's in Dragon Age were leaps and bounds better than the ones in Mass Effect, with their own stories and interjections.

Hopefully, when the full article is released and we can buy a copy it will calm fears.

No.

They won't leave because of approval.

They can still turn on you or leave forever based on your actions, however.

[Stanley Woo]

Let's cut the nastiness and off-topic chatter, please. We can disagree with each other without resorting to insults and name-calling. thank you.

[Stanley Woo]

Terror_K wrote...
And when a new art director comes along to work on an IP he should adapt to fit the universe and setting, not the other way around. Otherwise we end up with Michael Bay's Transformers all over again and the whole thing becomes completely foreign. I don't care if BioWare agreed to let him rejig the look of DAO, as a fan I say that was a bad move. Or should I say "as a former fan" I say that's a bad move?"

Exactly. Look at Batman, for example. No matter what medium he's portrayed in, he looks exactly the same. Or Spider-Man, who looks identical regardless of whether you see him in the comic books (and remember, no matter which comic book he's in or which artist draws him, he looks exactly the same), in the 1908s Spider-Man and his amazing Friends cartoon, the more 1990s Fox cartoons, the more recent cartoons, the Japanes live-action show, the newspaper comic strip, the 1970s Electric Company shorts, or the modern movies.

As we all know, art directors are not permitted to demonstrate initiative, creativity, or, you know, have any say in art direction. They are forced to sublimate all their creativity and do exactly what those before him did. that's how properties like McDonald's, Scooby-Doo, Rice Krispies, Geico, Sesame Street, and Coca-Cola have survived this long--by keeping the same art direction they originally had and not looking any different than they originally did. Ever.

Seriously, though, I know folks are afraid of change, but regardless of how you think it looks, how about seeing how it plays--you know, because it's a game from a company you say you are/wer a fan of--before walking off in a huff and taking your ball with you?

[Stanley Woo]

b09boy wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Seriously, though, I know folks are
afraid of change, but regardless of how you think it looks, how about
seeing how it plays--you know, because it's a game from a
company you say you are/wer a fan of--before walking off in a huff and
taking your ball with you?

That's one way to take a
critique.  Lump the people who complain together and say they're simply
afraid of change.  [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/pinched.png[/smilie]

Please,
don't treat fans of your company's work as if they have no clue what
they enjoy.  It's insulting that you think we're so stupid and
simple-minded.  People have very specific reasons for not liking much of
what has been announced and those reasons aren't simply 'because it's
different'.  As well, many of these reasons come backed up with a proven history not just with Bioware games, but many others as well.

That's one way to make an argument: dismiss my sarcastic generalizations while saying the same thing I am, using different terms.

So... people are listing all the reasons they don't like something a little different from what they're used to, based on what they've experienced in the long history of both BioWare and other RPGs they know and love? You're right, that doesn't mean "afraid of change" at all, does it? Let's call it something different, then, like "uncomfortable and hesitant about things not remaining the same as they were in DAO."

I don't think people are stupid or simple-minded at all. I do, however, think they are opinionated about the things they're passionate about and are venting that opinion based on what little they've heard of DA2 so far. That's all right as far as hesitation and uncertainy go, but some folks are really jumping off the deep end with conspiracy theories, platform elitism and doomsaying, not to mention those who have already decided to walk away from this and future BioWare products.

[Stanley Woo]

Khavos wrote...
Actually, I'd prefer to call it, "displeased with having been sold a third person shooter that claimed to be an RPG, and now concerned about being sold a God of War clone."

i respectfully disagree with you on pretty much the entirety of that statement. Sorry, i liked both Mass Effect 1 and 2 (especially 2), and disagree that a game you've heard only a tiny bit about can be considered a god of War clone at this point. also, i disagree that Mass Effect and Dragon Age are connected in the way you're inferring.

Change itself I have no problem with.  Specific changes - such as taking all of your franchises in the "streamlined" direction of Mass Effect - I would have problems with.

So your specific issue with the game is all your preconceived notions of the word "streamlined?" Well, that is rather specific, but to quote one of my favourite movies, "I do not think it means what you think it means." More on that, I can not and will not say at this point. You'll just have to stay tuned to learn more.

[Stanley Woo]

Khavos wrote...
It definitely wasn't an RPG.

I will agree to disagree with you on this point.

That's a tad disingenuous, wouldn't you say?  I got my ideas about what Bioware "streamlining" means from...watching Bioware "streamline".

I dunno. A lot of what was different between Mass 1 and Mass 2 was in response to some of the criticisms we got in the forums and elsewhere. People thought parts of the game were too slow and unwieldy, combat could have been improved, and the pace of the game was generally stop-and-start. So we changed things and, despite initial reticence by the community, Mass Effect 2 is one of BioWare's (and EA's) great successes. If we can achieve similar success (both critically and commercially) with Dragon Age 2, i will be a very happy camper. "Streamlined" or not, whatever you want to call it, if it makes for a better game experience, I'm all for it.

If you guys prove me wrong and make DA2 an actual RPG rather than an action game with a razor-thin RPG veneer à la ME2, I'll be thrilled.  There's really nothing to suggest you will at this point, though, as the press so far eerily resembles what was said about ME2's changes.

Aw, come on, not the "prove me wrong" challenge. that's cheating!

[Stanley Woo]

Terror_K wrote...
Sorry Stanley... I'm still feeling the burn too much from Mass Effect 2 to have a lot of faith in you guys at the moment, and the parallels between that and DA2 are just too similar for my tastes.

I'm not giving up entirely, but forgive me if I'm extremely sceptical here. Besides... if you're right and I'm wrong, then I'll be pleasantly surprised, won't I?

Oh hey, "extremely skeptical," I can work with. i thought you'd just given up entirely and wanted to keep reminding us how youv've given up, even though we wouldn't concern ourselves with people who had given up anyway. lol

Really, though, there's nothing happenign between BioWare and the fans that says the fans must like everything we do, nor is there anything that says BioWare must make games a certain way. We certainly hope people will always like waht we do, but everything's going to have a bell curve. A whole bunch of people will be okay with it, the extreme positive side will be fanatical regardless of what we do, the extreme negative side will be inconsolable regardless of what we do, and we'll see the same pattern repeat itself when we announce other projects in the future.

As David said, this kind of reaction by the fans is neither new nor unexpected.

[Stanley Woo]

FlyinElk212 wrote...

The number of threads that needed to be locked due to them all having this thread's same subject is a bad sign, devs.

It's a bad sign that people think they're personal opinions are more important than everyone else's. it's a bad sign that people are no longer even making a token effort to scan the existing threads in the first few pages before posting their own. it's a bad sign that forumites believe we don't know what we're doing, and that one lone voice of reason is going to make us change our minds and change the game entirely.

Is more information coming that could possibly swell the tide?

I guess you'll just have to stick around to find out.

According to the "clear in the double digits" amount of locks, a lot of people are already giving up on the game. I'd release new info sooner rather than later.

so people can jump to even more conclusions sooner rather than later? People will come and go as they please. We're going to keep going and hopefully our forumites will find future information releases more to their liking. But I'm not going to promise anything.

[Stanley Woo]

Unless we can take the bickering and insults elsewhere, i think this thread is just about done.