1230 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Addai67 wrote...
a) The dev comments about Origins in the GI article matched in any way how I saw the game.  The things I loved about it are being called "broken," outdated, choppy, etc. 

But don't we see that in any game? People like different things about a game, sometimes what most folks hate is what you thought was the best feature.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Darth Gaider wrote...

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.

I'd be interested to know if you you think the dialogue wheel and PC voice, as implemented in Mass Effect (really the only example we have handy) limited player choice.

[AlanC9]

RageGT wrote...
Well, they haven't come close to tell us the why now, have they? Other than "it's our game and we do what we like with it"?

What sort of answer are you looking for? In the end anything would reduce to "we think it makes the game better," but are the advantages the changes are meant to provide really that obscure?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Davasar wrote...

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

That's not a fair question.  They don't know that it will drive their core audience away.  A vocal subset of that audience is responding badly to initial reports of partial aspects of those features.

[MerinTB]

David Gaider wrote...
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.

That was depressing.  Depressing in the inevitability of "I know I'm growing older, weaker, sicker, and will die one die that is less and less far off every minute" kind of way.

Thanks, David, for depressing me.

...

and I do appreciate you taking the time (and putting up with the frustration) of trying to answer people.  I really believe few of us truly understand how much you are giving to the community, even occassional sarcastic quips aside, by trying to respond and be available.

Gah.

Just do your quality of writing, and the story will probably carry me past my broken heart over ancient cRPG mechanics that normally would drive me to stop the game and reload some SSI games.

[DragonRageGT]

AlanC9 wrote...

RageGT wrote...
Well, they haven't come close to tell us the why now, have they? Other than "it's our game and we do what we like with it"?

What sort of answer are you looking for? In the end anything would reduce to "we think it makes the game better," but are the advantages the changes are meant to provide really that obscure?

The truth? DA took 5 years or more to be released, didn't it? And then instead of a 2 years DLC and taking the time to produce another epic where the VO files are not the bigger part of the DVD content, we will have a Dragon Age 2 in probably less than 2 years after the release of the first and with VO files probably responding for the bigger part of the DVD content and cheapened interface and character creation to cut production time and costs.

Sure, this is speculative aggressive but consider the article that was linked and assuming it is correct, EA is not famous for taking the time to release well polished sequels, specially if they might cost 25M and need 2M units sold to break even.

Blizzard, on the other hand, took 4 years to release the 1st Diablo sequel and how many more to Diablo3? Over 10 years. And some 12 years too for the Starcraft sequel. Of course they had they other stuff going but they surely are not in a rush to milk the sacred cows.

[Foolsfolly]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Darth Gaider wrote...

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.

I'd be interested to know if you you think the dialogue wheel and PC voice, as implemented in Mass Effect (really the only example we have handy) limited player choice.

Godfather 2 the game had the dialogue wheel and voice acting for the main character. It was a bad game but not for that.

But really there's no limited player choice with a dialogue wheel. The text box from KOTOR and Morrowind was seen in Dragon Age and you really had no choice impairment in either game with that. You still have the choice of what you do within the mission/encounter/dialogue within the game.

There is no game with free choice, only the illusion of choice. You MUST beat the game. You must fight the enemy. You must talk to certain people. You just have at minimum 2 choices on how you talk to people. The actual device (text box, dialogue wheel) is merely there to inable the choices to be made.

This isn't a huge departure for Dragon Age. It's just a way to interact with the story and characters, and I dare say a more immersive way at that.

[Happy-Yeti]

hopefully mr gaider's comments mean that we will be seeing more dragon age and less mass effect style gameplay, i really hope so...

[AlanC9]

RageGT wrote...
The truth? DA took 5 years or more to be released, didn't it? And then instead of a 2 years DLC and taking the time to produce another epic where the VO files are not the bigger part of the DVD content, we will have a Dragon Age 2 in probably less than 2 years after the release of the first and with VO files probably responding for the bigger part of the DVD content and cheapened interface and character creation to cut production time and costs.

The development time isn't an issue. Unless you think BG2 was rushed too. 

[DespiertaLosNinos]

RageGT wrote...

Well, they haven't come close to tell us the why now, have they? Other than "it's our game and we do what we like with it"?

And why shouldn't they do what they like with it?  I trust the bioware staff will make a superior game IF they are interested in the project itself as opposed to trying to cater to the often contradictory bio-board fans.  Granted profits are a priority but DA:O is one of those games that should have failed miserably given todays game climate but against the odds it did really well.  My theory on this is because there is a undeniable quality to projects, game or otherwise, when the creator/s are personally invested in it.  Sure you or I might hate it but tastes vary.

[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.

[Altima Darkspells]

AlanC9 wrote...

RageGT wrote...
The truth? DA took 5 years or more to be released, didn't it? And then instead of a 2 years DLC and taking the time to produce another epic where the VO files are not the bigger part of the DVD content, we will have a Dragon Age 2 in probably less than 2 years after the release of the first and with VO files probably responding for the bigger part of the DVD content and cheapened interface and character creation to cut production time and costs.

The development time isn't an issue. Unless you think BG2 was rushed too. 

The development time *is* an issue.  BG2 was made with a much simpler technological interface.  BioWare also had the help of a second studio.

Lastly, I remember reading somewhere that several of the developers found the experience so draining that they'd never do anything like that again.

Now they're trying to do the same thing again--release a sequel in two years--but on multiple consoles and for a much, much higher tech level.  On top of that, there's all the dialogue to encode, the 'new' combat system, and, well, QA.  Now, anyone who's bought DAA knows that BioWare is no longer shy about releasing overly bugged games anymore, but patching the game on consoles especially is unacceptable.  Heck, the 1.03 patch for DAO broke several things, added a crashing bug, and we're still waiting for BioWare to resolve that.

So all signs point that DA2 will be a much shorter, much buggier game--barring any sort of artificial lengthening, like planet scanning or, shudder, Deep Roads style dungeon grinding.

In the end, something will have to give.  Heck, the lack of any real racial choice has already indicated there won't be as much content in DA2 as there was in DAO.

[the_one_54321]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Darth Gaider wrote...
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.

I'd be interested to know if you you think the dialogue wheel and PC voice, as implemented in Mass Effect (really the only example we have handy) limited player choice.

Godfather 2 the game had the dialogue wheel and voice acting for the main character. It was a bad game but not for that.

But really there's no limited player choice with a dialogue wheel. The text box from KOTOR and Morrowind was seen in Dragon Age and you really had no choice impairment in either game with that. You still have the choice of what you do within the mission/encounter/dialogue within the game.

There is no game with free choice, only the illusion of choice. You MUST beat the game. You must fight the enemy. You must talk to certain people. You just have at minimum 2 choices on how you talk to people. The actual device (text box, dialogue wheel) is merely there to inable the choices to be made.

This isn't a huge departure for Dragon Age. It's just a way to interact with the story and characters, and I dare say a more immersive way at that.

Just as an aside, I love that I got at least two people quoting the "Darth Gaider" thing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Foolsfolly wrote...

There is no game with free choice, only the illusion of choice.

Not true.  The choices to which I'm refererd are events that take place entirely inside the PC's head.  Why does he choose one option over another?  In a game like KotOR, you have free reign to decide that, and the odds that the game will ever force the PC's behaviour to contradict that is incredibly small.

But in ME, where the intent and actions are hidden from you until after they've occured, this contradiction is a constant threat.

You must fight the enemy.

Why do you view him as an enemy?  ME answers that for you.  KotOR does not.

You must talk to certain people.

But how do you talk to those people?  ME answers this for you.  KotOR does not.  BG doesn't even make you do the talking (you can have a different party member do it).

[Jimmy Fury]

Altima Darkspells wrote...
In the end, something will have to give.  Heck, the lack of any real racial choice has already indicated there won't be as much content in DA2 as there was in DAO.

Does it?
Is it somehow illogical to conclude that removing 5 origin campaigns, hours of dialogue, entire maps, hundreds of wandering NPCs, and almost a dozen cut scenes would actually free up room for MORE content within the core of the game instead of less?

-edit- And let's not forget all the excess time and energy devoted to making sure 3 skeleton structures would work in all the cut scenes.


And sorry to hop into the conversation but Javier is closing a bunch of threads and directing everyone here for some reason...

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 12 juillet 2010 - 08:29 .

[the_one_54321]

To be fair, the notion that DA:O actually had "real choice" is a self imposed delusion, orchestrated and promoted by the developers and gobbled up by the fans. But that's a good thing. We want games to be an illusion.



Maybe some of you need to start talking about things that make or break the illusion for you, instead of harping on this non-existent "real choice."

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Maybe some of you need to start talking about things that make or break the illusion for you, instead of harping on this non-existent "real choice."

What breaks the illusion is the PC ever saying or doing anything I didn't tell him to say or do.

In most games this happens occasionally.  In the best games it never happens.  In Mass Effect it happened dozens of times per hour of gameplay.

Though I deny that the choice is entirely illusory.  Being able to decide what's happening inside my character's head was entirely within my control until Mass Effect came along and wouldn't let me avoid contradictory dialogue options.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 12 juillet 2010 - 08:33 .

[Addai]

AlanC9 wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
a) The dev comments about Origins in the GI article matched in any way how I saw the game.  The things I loved about it are being called "broken," outdated, choppy, etc. 

But don't we see that in any game? People like different things about a game, sometimes what most folks hate is what you thought was the best feature.

Sure, but it's one thing for me to find that other players say tomayto and I say tomahto.  I can live with that happily and even see it as tribute to how good the game is.  This, versus finding out that the devs thought the features I like best about the game sucked.  That smells of impending divorce due to irreconcilable artistic differences.

[Xeo808]

All this talk about alienating the hardcore player base when the truth is you don't matter much since they already have you.

[DragonRageGT]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Maybe some of you need to start talking about things that make or break the illusion for you, instead of harping on this non-existent "real choice."

What breaks the illusion is the PC ever saying or doing anything I didn't tell him to say or do.

In most games this happens occasionally.  In the best games it never happens.  In Mass Effect it happened dozens of times per hour of gameplay.

Though I deny that the choice is entirely illusory.  Being able to decide what's happening inside my character's head was entirely within my control until Mass Effect came along and wouldn't let me avoid contradictory dialogue options.

Can I just say how horrified I was when I went for a renegade mouse left click during an ambush interview, hoping that Shepa would say something harsh but yet clever and witful or just turn around and leave her talking to the hand! And instead he punches the reporter, a woman? Frak it. That's not a renegade badazz. It's a womanizer abuser that should be in jail!

You don't hit a woman, any woman, not even with flower petals!

EDIT:  And it's pretty different from when I was playing a human hater city elf and chose it when it said it with all the words:  Kill Genitivi!

Dragon Age - Ogren wants to be shared!

Modifié par RageGT, 12 juillet 2010 - 08:56 .

[elearon1]

Stanley Woo wrote...
We can disagree with each other without resorting to personal attacks or insults. Thank you.

Obviously this is your first time on the internet - man are you in for a let down. 

[Davasar]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Davasar wrote...

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

That's not a fair question.  They don't know that it will drive their core audience away.  A vocal subset of that audience is responding badly to initial reports of partial aspects of those features.

It's a completely fair question, since many people have stated that without certain features from DAO they will not purchase the game.  To be clear, I am not demanding they change anything, as Gaider pointed out:  and I am paraphrasing here:

"it's our game, we'll do what we want with it"

Quite true.  But that does mean driving away audience with the thus far released information you gave us that people do not want.

Therefore, they do not have to buy the game, just as they can make what they want.

Again, basic marketing. 

[Jimmy Fury]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Though I deny that the choice is entirely illusory.  Being able to decide what's happening inside my character's head was entirely within my control until Mass Effect came along and wouldn't let me avoid contradictory dialogue options.

Ah, now i see why Javier sent us here from the "wide open" thread.

Out of sheer curiosity, since this same sentiment has been voiced multiple times, can you provide any examples of this contradictory dialogue?
Note that contradictory dialogue would mean that you chose something that meant one thing and it came out as something else entirely like "I like you" came out as "Shut up and die you moron"

So I'm honestly curious as to when and where this happened in either of the ME games. I don't need the exact wording or anything but some reference like who Shep was talking to, where it happened, what mission, something like that.

The reason I'm so curious is because I can specifically recall 3 seperate times in Origins where my dialogue options with Alistair  appeared friendly and sarcastic but were apparantly offensive and mean because Alistair took offense and lost approval.
Once in Ostagar (or perhaps it was when we first got to lothering. One of those two conversations... unless lothering was a fourth. blast now I have to replay the begining to find out.), once in camp while talking to Dog, and once when he and I were discussing the other companions.
Yet for the life of me I can't recall the same thing happening in ME. I never once picked a Paragon option only to have him renegade out on someone.

[the_one_54321]

elearon1 wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...
We can disagree with each other without resorting to personal attacks or insults. Thank you.

Obviously this is your first time on the internet - man are you in for a let down.

I am sooooo tempted to link him directly to this post so he can issue you a 24 hour ban. <_<

[elikal71]

I know you don't want to hear it, but when Bioware was sold to EA, I KNEW this was coming. Compare Ultima 7 and Ultima 8. It will tell you ALL you need to know. It's not that EA is evil. Such would be childish to assume. EA means mass market of the smallest common thing. EA means endless copy cat series (FIFA) with minimal change and greatest possible simplification.



The sheer number of creative small studios who had been bought by EA and over a brief time crushed, is long and sad. Bullfrog, Westwood, Origin and many others. The story was always the same. A small studio, famous and respected for making very creative games, not for a huge Wal-Mart mass market, but for demanding gamers, then bought by EA, streamlined for mass market taste and ultimately made superfluous.





Look at you, Bioware. Look how you changed. Some time ago, when I heard the news Bioware was sold to EA, I was very bitter and felt it was the end of an era. Then, for a while, I thought there was hope, I thought EA had learned. Apparently my fears back then were fully justified.





I am a Game Master for P&P games for 27 years now. And let me tell you one thing, Bioware. A ROLEPLAYING game, means that the people involved identify with a role. They want a vast variety of races and classes, they want a huge plethora of skills and talents to chose from. The more the better. There were days when games like Wizardry or Might and Magic (the RPG) had 30 classes and 20 races to chose from. And then?



Then came VOICE OVER. Then came streamlined story telling. It weren't huge steps in a single game. But step by step, little by litte, what made a game a RPG was betrayed and sacrificed on the altar of so called mass market. Now suddenly you speak of aiming it for your target audience, Bioware. I tell you what. WE used to be your target audience. WE roleplayers made you great. And now that Darth EA is behind you, we no longer count. We are no longer enough for you. We get the burning ring before us like some tamed animal and we can jump at your whim. Take it or leave it. I am sorry, what you are doing is wrong.



It is wrong because it leaves us behind who were your fans for so many years. It is wrong because we made you what you are and now suddenly we are neglectable and other people seem to be your new target audience. It is wrong, because THAT target audience may be more. But they are also fickle. They follow always the newst shiny. Today it's you, tommorw who knows. Ask SOE about their NGE and what they learned about leaving it's core audience behind. And this IS some sort of NGE. Every single approach to ignore the complaints of the core audience has, in the long run, proven to be a failure. Look at the "Last Airbender" movie. It was the same argument: they thought to bring something to a supposed broarder audience, and ignored to critique of their core fanbase they paid the price for it.





Individuality and choice from the beginning on, is one of the core features of a RPG. And what we read sounds like an interactive movie. And already DA:O and ME2 had gone in the wrong direction. Many old school roleplayers had complained about WAY too many and way too long cinenatic scenes and cinematic conversations. Thats not what makes a Roleplaying Game! And in ME2 we had seen the choices even further limited, and essentially ME2 was mostly an interactive movie with shooter elements. It already was no RPG. Now in Sci-Fi people may be more forgiving, especially when it is a new unknown universe. But in fantasy, people EXPECT Elves, Dwarfs and whatnot. They expect many choices and many egos they can play. They don't expect an entirely premade character.







As nice as Voiceover is, it also means the character is not me anymore. What did the Avatar of Britannia, one of the most iconic heroes of gaming say? Name, Job, Bye. He never said anything, because he WAS us. He was the player. And nothing you can voiceover can be so personal as what you imagine in your mind. What you set a characters name and voice, his behavior and backstory, its no longer me. It's some stranger I follow his doings over the shoulder, but I am no longer playing myself, and THEN all those tough moral choices you add to your games mean null.



Bioware, you are losing the path. I know you listen to the EA stockholders who want profit. They want to sell millions of games, and they care less about the small RPG fan community who made you great. I can't even say it will be a financial failure if you follow this path. Heck, many generic games sell in many millions. But for us, who love complex games, who love to chose, who love to ROLEPLAY and not follow some premade characters preset narrative story, for us it is a betrayal. Do it if you think stocks are everything. But don't call it a roleplaying game and know that you are leaving us behind. You are walking a path I as a Roleplayer can not follow you.