1230 réponses à ce sujet

[Morroian]

Jimmy Fury wrote...
Because if something doesn't evolve it will die. Something somewhere has to change. Problems that existed have to be repaired, things people complained about have to be addressed, advancements in technology have to be accomodated for, etc. Something has to change or it'll wither and die.

Bingo. And I think Bioware have even said this in the PR or 1 of the interviews. DAO was based on old style mechanics, now they want to advance the series in a way that will retain interest in the series and keep it up to date technologically to make sure it appeals to a wider audience. Given that DAO was old fashioned in its style if the sequels stayed the same there would be a definite chance that the audience would stagnate.

[AlanC9]

Carl, that sounds like you're saying that we can't ever really know why one game succeeds and another failed.

Modifié par AlanC9, 17 juillet 2010 - 11:43 .

[Merci357]

CarlSpackler wrote...

To your second, I think one of the fears for many of us is how fickle and unforgiving the AAA game industry is.  If DA2 were truly to fail, I would be surprised if a DA3 ever surfaced.  Given how well DAO sold though I think this an unlikely scenario, more than likely DA2 will sell better than DAO and EA/Bioware/whomever will take it as a sign that the changes were for the better.  Which would be a non-sequitur. Perhaps those changes were the cause for higher sales, or perhaps it was just trading on a successful brand and slick marketing campaign.  A lot of different circumstances can drive sales.  

I've just read today on wsj that Blizzard spent over $100 Million for development of Starcraft 2. And that they need to sell 1,7 million copies to get that production budget back. Sure, different company, different genre - and a PC only game at that. I've no idea, not even an estimate, about DA2's budget, but since it's definitely an AAA title - if they miss their target by much, it's more likely the death of the franchise then a return to the roots. I don't expect that to happen, though, but given this thought it's quite likely that their advertising plan for now was more emphasis on the differences, just to get the buzz started and prevent any "oh, just more of the same old" talk. I'm still confident that some, if not most of Origins core formulas are not touched by much, so those who enjoyed DA:O won't be alienated. But, hey, just my guess.

Modifié par Merci357, 17 juillet 2010 - 11:54 .

[Jallard]

CarlSpackler wrote...

In Exile wrote...

The question is why DA:O was so succesful. For example, if pre-testing shows audiences loved isometric combat but said, man, VO would make it better, that means isometric combat is in and VO is in. As a hypothesis.

Look at it another way: if you are sure that it is the exclusive set of features that DA:O had that made it super succesful, and going away from them will make them less so, then DA2 will be nothing more than a failed experiment and DA3 will get you the copy you wanted.

As to your first point, it is a valid hypothesis but it would interesting to see the sample of pre-test audience in that particular example.

To your second, I think one of the fears for many of us is how fickle and unforgiving the AAA game industry is.  If DA2 were truly to fail, I would be surprised if a DA3 ever surfaced.  Given how well DAO sold though I think this an unlikely scenario, more than likely DA2 will sell better than DAO and EA/Bioware/whomever will take it as a sign that the changes were for the better.  Which would be a non-sequitur. Perhaps those changes were the cause for higher sales, or perhaps it was just trading on a successful brand and slick marketing campaign.  A lot of different circumstances can drive sales.  

Well, despite any misgivings I have about DA 2 I went ahead and pre-ordered it yesterday.  There is a lot to said about that marketing ploy too, I should think?!?

Modifié par Jallard, 18 juillet 2010 - 12:01 .

[Therumancer]

The appeal of Dragon Age: Origins for me was that it was an RPG, even if a relatively simple one. In basic terms you simply picked a class and a combat style/schools of magic. There wasn't a lot of hard desicians since you had enough points to master/fill up anything that you wanted to learn.



My concern with this is based on "Mass Effect 2" where they pretty much turned the series into a customizable shooter with a lot of cut scenes and dialogue options. While the "simplified" combat mechanics went over well with shooter fans, they did not appeal to me (and apparently many other) RPG fans. The idea of simplifying combat involved doing things like removing most of the stats entirely, getting rid of inventory entirely, and not even letting you put armor on your companions or anything.



Like many I complained about that, but pretty much figured "well, we've still got Dragon Age: Origins" albiet it now seems like we're looking at a situation where the same kind of things they did to "Mass Effect" are being planned here. The comments are almost identical.



Also, I do not think game developers have the right to criticize about reactions when they drop bombs, like this. "well you don't have all the information to form an informed opinion" is complete bunk when the developers are keeping all the cards close to their chest and intentionally not providing any details. What's more if the developers don't want feedback on what they are saying, then they should drop bombs like this. Negative feedback to the point of someone needing to say 'calm down' on behalf of the company means you should change what you are doing. I'm sure whomever decided to release that information wanted vindication for their plans, but well... that's not what happened, and I don't think there is any doubt there at this point. The game comes out in 8 months apparently, but like many games it can be delayed.



I'll also be blunt, I felt somewhat betrayed by "Mass Effect 2". It was a good game, but not the game I either wanted or expected. Something I would have waited on rather than running out to buy an extra special collector's edition on release day. Despite this I supported it (buying DLC and such) because I figure any company can make a mistake, and I figured I'd just wait on ME3 unless it went back to be closer to what ME1 was (with improvements needless to say). I think the the problem with ME2's design desicians are epitomized when it comes to "Firewalker", apologies but doing platforming jumps with a tank is not "RPG".



When it comes to RPGs (ie stat based resolutions) while not as popular as twitch games there is nothing inherantly wrong with the genere or how they work. If it seems that "Dragon Age 2" is trying to capitolize on the "success" of ME2 by becoming a real-time customizable "slasher" or whatever I'm going to be giving it a pass to begin with. I suspect you'll find a decent number of people will be doing the same because while ME2 brought in a new customer base (to some extent) it also disappointed a lot of people who didn't understand what the changes would actually be like.



Now, I am one customer, and while doubtlessly not alone I will point out that I have purchused *TWO* copies of "Dragon Age: Origins" and all of the expansions/DLC (including Awakenings), which should be registered to this account. Despite everything despite the "misstep" I also purchused everything for "Mass Effect 2". What's more despite being 34, I live at home (retired on disabillity, one of the reasons I'm not great at twitch games), my father and stepmother ALSO play DA:O and bought their own copies and seem to have similar thoughts.



One guy or household does not make a trend, but trust me... I think these desicians are going to not go over well. Also I think that despite it's success "Mass Effect 2" is actually going to have people paying a LOT more attention to the development of your games because people don't want to dish out the money for an RPG that isn't an RPG.... and I think that's responsible for some of this backlash. The success of ME2 was in part due to an ignorant customer base, that wound up supporting Bioware due to loyalty when it came to the DLC and such. Forgiving a misstep for many. I do not thinkthat will last

[CarlSpackler]

AlanC9 wrote...

Carl, that sounds like you're saying that we can't ever really know why one game succeeds and another failed.

Sorry, that certainly wasn't my intent.  I just think that a lot of times large studios (movies as well as games) will interpret the increase in sales in light of their own preconceptions of what drives sales.  And that may not be the case.  Take for example Cameron's Avatar.  Now love it or hate it, obviously Cameron put a lot of effort into the movie.  He put a lot effort into the 3D.  It became the highest grossing film of all time (non-adjusted for inflation yadda yadda yadda) and as result nearly EVERY movie that came out this summer was in 3D as if that was the sole reason for its success.  Taking that to games, its almost a no-win scenario for those of us who prefer the silent protagonist or more traditional narrative.  Changes to the design are made to DA2, it will likely sell more copies because in general video game sequels (particularly the first sequel) outsell their predecessors.  So the changes will be seen as a positive.  And obviously we don't want the game to fail, we want DA2 to succeed so we can experience more DA games.  But as a result, the traditional narrative is likely abandoned because the changes are viewed as commercially successful whether they truly are or not.  

[Roland Aseph]

"Dragon Age was an extremely successful title for us - last November it was the single most globally successful title we've put out to date," said Rob Bartel, BioWare's principal designer.

So DAO is their TOP selling game to date, with DLC continuing to be very successful and you're saying that they should shake things up to stay popular?

In my world, it's don't try to FIX something that's NOT broken!

Tweak it, polish it sure. But you don't toss out you're most successful selling game model and design just to "update" it (which in this case equals making the game look like plastic bland crap)

It makes no sense for them to deviate so far from the "creative direction" that gave them such success to begin with.

It will be very interesting to see what the final product looks like AND to see if trying to appeal to the perceived "less hardcore" fanbase of Mass Effect buy implementing various similar game mechanics works...or blows up in their face.

Modifié par Roland Aseph, 18 juillet 2010 - 12:16 .

[AlanC9]

Gotcha, Carl. Yeah, that's an old issue --- not just in things like movies and games, but in business generally. It's often impossible to tell why a particular strategy failed or succeeded, and people will interpret ambiguous data in a way that validates their previous commitments.Which can work for a long time before failing catastrophically.



Could you clarify what you mean by "traditional narrative"?

[AlanC9]

Roland Aseph wrote...
In my world, it's don't try to FIX something that's NOT broken! 

Tweak it, polish it sure. But you don't toss out you're most successful selling game model and design just to "update" it (which in this case equals making the game look like plastic bland crap)

Well, that's the thing. One man's "tweak" can be another man's "tossing out." 

[Roland Aseph]

AlanC9 wrote...

Roland Aseph wrote...
In my world, it's don't try to FIX something that's NOT broken! 

Tweak it, polish it sure. But you don't toss out you're most successful selling game model and design just to "update" it (which in this case equals making the game look like plastic bland crap)

Well, that's the thing. One man's "tweak" can be another man's "tossing out." 

alas...that is very true.

[Khavos]

CarlSpackler wrote...
 And obviously we don't want the game to fail, we want DA2 to succeed so we can experience more DA games. 

I do, if it's getting as Mass Effectivized as it sounds.

I'd want it to fail because you're absolutely right, if it's successful it'd be seen as vindication for the design decisions.  The only way to get Bioware back to making their RPG gold is for their cinematic JRPG crap to start flopping.  The only reason I'd want to play ME3 would be to see how the story ends; I can get that via YouTube videos and the wiki.  There are far better third-person shooters out there, and ME3 will be just as much an RPG as ME2, i.e., not at all, so why play it?  Same goes for DA2.  Based on what they've said, it's going to be cinematic, action-y drivel where you can "fight like a Spartan," where the depth of the skill system is being gutted, where you'll have far less control over your character and instead simply give stage directions to Bioware's character...I could go on.  I don't want to support a game like that, and I don't want to see anything made in the same vein.

[abadomen]

"Change...it isn't good or bad...it is what it is"

[In Exile]

On an unrelated note, I haven't hidden the fact I'm a fan of VO over silent-PC, but there are some major problems with the dialogue wheel in ME1. For example, there is a scene where Shepard talks to Wrex. Shepard compares the attempted turian genocide of the krogan with the first contact war. Then we have the following, awesome interaction:
Wrex: It's not the same.
Shepard: [Top-Right] Isn't it? [Middle] Sure it is. [Bottom-Right] Of course it is.
The mind explodes with the role-playing potential inherent in the choice there.

Modifié par In Exile, 18 juillet 2010 - 01:40 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Khavos wrote...

CarlSpackler wrote...
 And obviously we don't want the game to fail, we want DA2 to succeed so we can experience more DA games. 

I do, if it's getting as Mass Effectivized as it sounds.

I'd want it to fail because you're absolutely right, if it's successful it'd be seen as vindication for the design decisions.  The only way to get Bioware back to making their RPG gold is for their cinematic JRPG crap to start flopping.  The only reason I'd want to play ME3 would be to see how the story ends; I can get that via YouTube videos and the wiki.  There are far better third-person shooters out there, and ME3 will be just as much an RPG as ME2, i.e., not at all, so why play it?  Same goes for DA2.  Based on what they've said, it's going to be cinematic, action-y drivel where you can "fight like a Spartan," where the depth of the skill system is being gutted, where you'll have far less control over your character and instead simply give stage directions to Bioware's character...I could go on.  I don't want to support a game like that, and I don't want to see anything made in the same vein.

Then I shall buy two copies. One for each of us!

[Morroian]

Therumancer wrote...

Also, I do not think game developers have the right to criticize about reactions when they drop bombs, like this. "well you don't have all the information to form an informed opinion" is complete bunk when the developers are keeping all the cards close to their chest and intentionally not providing any details. What's more if the developers don't want feedback on what they are saying, then they should drop bombs like this. Negative feedback to the point of someone needing to say 'calm down' on behalf of the company means you should change what you are doing. I'm sure whomever decided to release that information wanted vindication for their plans, but well... that's not what happened, and I don't think there is any doubt there at this point. The game comes out in 8 months apparently, but like many games it can be delayed.

Here's a thought, although the changes are superficailly similar to ME, maybe the end product will actually be quite different and implement the changes in a  way that works better than in ME. God forbid they actually try and get this across to the nerd ragers who are exploding with very little information.

[Hollingdale]

In Exile wrote...

On an unrelated note, I haven't hidden the fact I'm a fan of VO over silent-PC, but there are some major problems with the dialogue wheel in ME1. For example, there is a scene where Shepard talks to Wrex. Shepard compares the attempted turian genocide of the krogan with the first contact war. Then we have the following, awesome interaction:
Wrex: It's not the same.
Shepard: [Top-Right] Isn't it? [Middle] Sure it is. [Bottom-Right] Of course it is.
The mind explodes with the role-playing potential inherent in the choice there.

Sigh. The top right is the openminded willing to listing maybe I am wrong-good answer, the middle is the no I don't agree-neutral answer and the bottom is the you are wrong I am right narrowminded evil-answer. I don't see what youre getting at here, the options are perfectly fine when judged in their context and given how the dialogue wheel works with good, evil and neutral, just read between the lines man.

Or would you rather they wrote long elaborative dialogues when Shephard is talking to a Krogan? That would be awfully unnatural and something to actually whine at.

The problem with VO is rather that in order for the VO actor to sound believable the main character needs a fleshed out personality like that of Shephard. Of course people still want to roleplay so you get the good old good-evil-neutral system which doesn't really help but rather further limits the possibility of interesting choices, since regardless of whatever moral allignment you choose the main character retains the same personality. Shephard for example may indeed be good neutral or evil, but he/she still allways carries the same pragmatic marine like personality. With a non voiced PC this is usually not a problem as there are more dialogue options and the options themselves are also more varied, although any limited amount of dialogue does, in the end create something of a limited persona it's much less apparent than with a voiced PC who has no vacuum for me to fill with my own thoughts and motivations.

Nonetheless I like VO Pc's to although they never feel quite as intimate as silent ones naturally.
I do think however, that this could at least partly be remedied by the replacing of the boring and predictable good and evil scale with a more complex philosophical one. Imagine playing either as rational logical analytic (Like Russel!) or a romantic emotional irrationalist (Like Nietzche or Rousseau)!

[Therumancer]

In Exile wrote...

On an unrelated note, I haven't hidden the fact I'm a fan of VO over silent-PC, but there are some major problems with the dialogue wheel in ME1. For example, there is a scene where Shepard talks to Wrex. Shepard compares the attempted turian genocide of the krogan with the first contact war. Then we have the following, awesome interaction:
Wrex: It's not the same.
Shepard: [Top-Right] Isn't it? [Middle] Sure it is. [Bottom-Right] Of course it is.
The mind explodes with the role-playing potential inherent in the choice there.

 Well, to be entirely honest while I have no problems with silent PCs, I do not believe that there is a choice between customization or voice. To be entirely blunt we've already seen games like "Saint's Row 2" where they had the scenes in the game acted out by half a dozen people and you wound up with several choices of voice actor for the game. "Saint's Row 2" wasn't even all that big a game release either, being more or less the poor cousin to "Grand Theft Auto". The point being that where you basically had a choice of the white (british) guy, hispanic guy, or black guy (and the same choices for women) there is no real reason why you couldn't have Elf, Human, Dwarf in male and female options for the conversations and scenes in a game like "Dragon Age". Some of the dialogue also changed a bit depending on whom the character was (during cut scenes using spanish at certain points for example). Anyone who claims this can't be done is full of it because it's already been done a couple of years ago.

 What's more even older than "Saint's Row 2" there was a game called "Wizardry 8" and while it didn't feature much in the way of cut scenes or dialogue, it was a game where you could create your entire party from scratch and choose a personality/voice for each character from a ton of options, and the characters would chime in at various points depending on the personality and even occasionally converse with each other a bit. This game is ancient incidently, and while not directly related it also shows something that has been done that most people consider to be impossible (and on a relatively fly by night release), debunking one of the big reasons used to explain why creatable party based RPGs are dead (the real reason being that they take a lot more work than single protaganist games),

  The point I'm making is that there is no real practical reason why a desire to have a voiced protaganist means that you have to be assigned a character with very limited customization. 

 Honestly, the big reason why they are probably going in the "Hawke" direction as it seems is because real, stat based RPGs with a lot of desicians and options are hard work. What's more Mass Effect 2 has seemingly shown that there are a lot of people who are intimidated by desicians and stats who will flock to a twitch based cinematic game. "Hawke" basically being the fantasy version of "Shepard". Dumb it down, twitch it up, and add a voice actor seems to be their design plan. 

 That said while voice is possible, I have no real problem with silent protaganists especially when it's supposed to be a character I created. Truthfully for all of the interaction that you see in a game like "Mass Effect" it tends to ruin any association with the character, or me thinking of him as MY character. What's more, I'll be brutally honest in saying that I felt the conversations in Dragon Age with a silent character felt better than the ones in Mass Effect because steering the intent was typically clear. In Mass Effect the limitations of voice acting generally meant that I couldn't select a clear path, and what I selected oftentimes seemed to have no real bearing on what came out of Shepard's mouth. 

 Not to mention the simple fact that having the conversation go both ways makes these scenes take longer, and while that's cool the first couple of times, once I've already played through the scenes, in other replays I want to get on with the actual gameplay. Double sided voice acting means twice as much garbage to abort through during multiple playthroughs when I already know what is going on and just want to get around to shooting stuff (or whatever). Indeed one of the problems with Bioware's games in general has been that as awesome as the cinematics are, they can sometimes make the game a chore, and sometimes I find myself not wanting to play because of all the junk I have to slog through. The first couple of times you talk to everyone on your ship or in camp for rep points for example it's cool, but since you NEED to do this to succeed at the game it means that it becomes soul-killing busywork once it gets old. A silent protaganist doesn't solve this problem but DOES make it a little more bearable if your going to play a lot. 

 Such are my thoughts, though honestly between this and my other really long message I have no idea if anyone is even going to read this.




  

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

"well, at least Dragon Age is great and their side of things does nothing but good work (beyond the advertising anyway...) and I can trust Dragon Age to be a good strong RPG series that's consistent."

They lost their consistency after Neverwinter Nights. Then it was KotOR, JE, ME, Sonic, then DA. Where's the pattern?

[Terror_K]

@Pocketgb: all those games still felt well defined and didn't contradict each other within their own IP though. That said, until the failure that was ME2 as a sequel, BioWare hadn't done one since BG2. After seeing the direction DA2 is taking I'm just wondering whether sequels are where BioWare falls down these days. I still think it's because they take their feedback and make their changes from the wrong places and that they're too concerned about putting off today's mass mainstream gamers, but... I dunno. DA2 looks like something you'd expect another company picking up the franchise to do rather than the work of the original team, like ME2 did for the most part. Feels like when Michael Bay got his mits on Transformers, J.J. Abrams on Star Trek and Tim Burton on Planet of the Apes.



I don't necessarily expect a sequel to carry on from where I left of and feature the same characters as the first game, but I do expect it to at least feel like the same game and feel like it's in the same universe and using the same IP, rather than this "retooled by the network" feel that I'm getting from DA2 so far.

[In Exile]

Hollingdale wrote...
Sigh. The top right is the openminded willing to listing maybe I am wrong-good answer, the middle is the no I don't agree-neutral answer and the bottom is the you are wrong I am right narrowminded evil-answer. I don't see what youre getting at here, the options are perfectly fine when judged in their context and given how the dialogue wheel works with good, evil and neutral, just read between the lines man.

The problem is you can't actually agree with Wrex that it's not the same. Or think that it's not the same . You just think you get to decide how you say you think it is the same. As it turns out Shepard says the exact same thing with the same tone in either case, but they removed that for ME2, which is a dramatic improvement. Now each paraphrase relates to a unique statement Shepard can make.

Or would you rather they wrote long elaborative dialogues when Shephard is talking to a Krogan? That would be awfully unnatural and something to actually whine at.

I would rather they give me the option to agree with Wrex that it isn't. The whole conversation is designed to let Wrex get off a few lines. Mass Effect did this a lot where they foregrounded the NPCs line and background Shepard's to characterize the NPC. Foregrounding the PC is why I love the VO; background the PC is why I hate silent PCs. So when I see a game that allows me to drive the action, and then suddenly I'm being used as a set piece so whoever wrote Wrex can get a one-liner they really like in, it bothers me. A lot.

The problem with VO is rather that in order for the VO actor to sound believable the main character needs a fleshed out personality like that of Shephard. Of course people still want to roleplay so you get the good old good-evil-neutral system which doesn't really help but rather further limits the possibility of interesting choices, since regardless of whatever moral allignment you choose the main character retains the same personality. Shephard for example may indeed be good neutral or evil, but he/she still allways carries the same pragmatic marine like personality. With a non voiced PC this is usually not a problem as there are more dialogue options and the options themselves are also more varied, although any limited amount of dialogue does, in the end create something of a limited persona it's much less apparent than with a voiced PC who has no vacuum for me to fill with my own thoughts and motivations.

There isn't a need to explain this to me. I like. VO. I happen to think VO leads to better role-playing than non-VO. I happen to think that VO allows for a character to be a leader instead of just a set-piece.

That doesn't mean there aren't problems with the implementation. And when there isn't actually a choice in what you say, that's a problem.

It is not even a matter in that case of Shepard being a pragmatic marine. It's a matter of him being allowed to only have one opinion? The only possible reason for that is for the writers to get off the line they want. They do this with the CSEC chief in ME1 too, and with the Council scenes. They  largely avoided this in ME2, but there were still a few odd times when Shepard had to have a fixed attitude to a binary thing, which is just silly. It can't possibly bankrupt the game to record an "I disagree" along with the "I agree" line.

Nonetheless I like VO Pc's to although they never feel quite as intimate as silent ones naturally.
I do think however, that this could at least partly be remedied by the replacing of the boring and predictable good and evil scale with a more complex philosophical one. Imagine playing either as rational logical analytic (Like Russel!) or a romantic emotional irrationalist (Like Nietzche or Rousseau)!

Actually, I think VOs are more intimiate than silent PCs. I can't relate to a set piece, like I said. But it is one thing to appreciate a design stance and quite another to point out poor implementation.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

@Pocketgb: all those games still felt well defined and didn't contradict each other within their own IP though.

Bolded for emphasis, because they weren't. All of Bioware's own systems have been a mix of the following: imbalanced, easy, or broken. I've never, ever, ever been satisfied with the depth of a Bioware game, never felt like I've been challenged appropriately, and never found much depth to their systems.

But where they lack in depth they make up for in fun. Aesthetically things have always been great. I like ME2's combat a lot because not only is it appealing it's also caught me off guard on occasion.

In regards to DA2's direction, I'm excited and anticipating it for a few reasons:

1. Third-person narrative. The reason I'm comfortable with this direction is because I received closure with my Warden. What excites me about it is seeing the potential in Warden's Fall, because *that* guy was quite awesome. If they can make such poignent moments with Hawke I'll be pretty pleased.

2. Revamping combat mechanics. You know how you feel being "let-down" by ME2's direction? I sympathize because that's what I was expecting with DA:O. To see Bioware go back to the glory days of great story-telling and characters topped off with awesome fights made me really anticipate the game. Instead I received horrendously balanced classes, static progression, and incredibly fragile combat (the number of times I acidentally broke the game was atrocious).

Combat was a HUGE let-down with DA:O, so any news about any forms of revamps is a plus. Here's hoping they get rid of the game-ruining threat mechanics.

3. Art direction. LOVE the look of the new Darkspawn thus far, nothing else to say here. Toe-mato, tah-mato.

You should pay attention back to this thread, because it's been getting a bit interesting.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 18 juillet 2010 - 05:55 .

[AlanC9]

Pocketgb wrote...
Combat was a HUGE let-down with DA:O, so any news about any forms of revamps is a plus. Here's hoping they get rid of the game-ruining threat mechanics.

Way OT, but what would you replace the threat mechanism with?

[AlanC9]

Pocketgb wrote...

They lost their consistency after Neverwinter Nights. Then it was KotOR, JE, ME, Sonic, then DA. Where's the pattern?

Hell, NWN1 got flamed from one end of the old boards to the other because it supposedly didn't continue the BG2 tradition, which was all of 1-1/2 games long by then. My favorite rant was people demanding that Bio hire back the writers who did BG2 and fire the guys who wrote NWN1....

[AlanC9]

Therumancer wrote...
...debunking one of the big reasons used to explain why creatable party based RPGs are dead (the real reason being that they take a lot more work than single protaganist games),

How so? You're not doing any writing for the NPCs that aren't there, but this results in more work somehow?

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

@Pocketgb: all those games still felt well defined and didn't contradict each other within their own IP though.

Bolded for emphasis, because they weren't. All of Bioware's own systems have been a mix of the following: imbalanced, easy, or broken. I've never, ever, ever been satisfied with the depth of a Bioware game, never felt like I've been challenged appropriately, and never found much depth to their systems.

But where they lack in depth they make up for in fun. Aesthetically things have always been great. I like ME2's combat a lot because not only is it appealing it's also caught me off guard on occasion.

In regards to DA2's direction, I'm excited and anticipating it for a few reasons:

1. Third-person narrative. The reason I'm comfortable with this direction is because I received closure with my Warden. What excites me about it is seeing the potential in Warden's Fall, because *that* guy was quite awesome. If they can make such poignent moments with Hawke I'll be pretty pleased.

2. Revamping combat mechanics. You know how you feel being "let-down" by ME2's direction? I sympathize because that's what I was expecting with DA:O. To see Bioware go back to the glory days of great story-telling and characters topped off with awesome fights made me really anticipate the game. Instead I received horrendously balanced classes, static progression, and incredibly fragile combat (the number of times I acidentally broke the game was atrocious).

Combat was a HUGE let-down with DA:O, so any news about any forms of revamps is a plus. Here's hoping they get rid of the game-ruining threat mechanics.

3. Art direction. LOVE the look of the new Darkspawn thus far, nothing else to say here. Toe-mato, tah-mato.

You should pay attention back to this thread, because it's been getting a bit interesting.

I was mostly referring to consistency regarding the IP as far as its setting, lore, etc. went more than gameplay, but even then these games were what they were and for the most part they worked.

Seems to me now that BioWare's answer to gameplay problems is to just overly simplify everything to remove complexity and thus remove anything that can cause too many issues. The problem is that doing this also removes depth, variation and choice. Simplification is not the answer, and just just leads to you going backwards instead of forwards, which is kind of ironic now because many other game developers are starting to actually make things more complex now. Seems BioWare is wanting function over form these days.

Modifié par Terror_K, 18 juillet 2010 - 07:20 .