1230 réponses à ce sujet

[Adanu]

Stanley, you're assuming that time is not a factor. Some people will almost certainly judge your game based on the little that has been shown... considering this is human nature and expected, this is fine. However, humans are emotional creatures that will decide a series is not worth more of their time if they feel they are being ignored.



As it stands, ME2 was turned from an RPG shooter type game into an action game with dialogue and powers thrown in. If you cannot see that, it is really no surprise that people are scratching their heads to your mentality.



As it stands, if you want to alienate your fans by changing your games all the time, that is your money lost. Suikoden is a very good example of *GOOD* evolution. That is improvement without sacrifice what makes the series great. This is what we hope for when you improve.



As it stands, I just want to know *one * thing:



Will all future releases of games be voiced PCs?

[2papercuts]

MoSa09 wrote...

[b]On realism:
The combat is really over the top. It looks crazy,
but when you’re actually playing it’s very satisfying to do the
whirlwind and see all those legs standing there that don’t know they’re
dead yet.

Finally someone who understands why i play Dragon Age. I wanna see chopped of legs everywhere wondering why they're dead. Hopefully mom will buy it for me as i am not old enough yet.

[Davasar]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

Davasar wrote...

I seem to remember one of the devs critisizing how games being exactly the same is a bad thing (refering to how making DA2 anywhere near DOA would be bad).

Yet, here we are.  A seeming veritable copy and paste of the same game of a differing title onto an existing franchise.

Ironic, that he critisized the very thing they are doing now.

Well it would be ironic if:
a) what you said was at all realistic and not just absurd hyperbole.
we changed the definition of "irony" to that of "hypocrtical"

Thankfully, neither requirement has been met so no irony has occured!
Hurray!

Situational irony is the disparity of intention and result:  when the result of an action is contrary to the desired or expected effect.

Hmm, check your dictionary if you have trouble finding more then one meaning to a word

[Davasar]

Roland...Adanu...



If/when they check this thread, hope they have their blinders off.

[Davasar]

Roland Aseph wrote...

If you had come out and said, here's a new game in the DA Universe, we're taking a bit different approach that we did in Origins...but it tells a cool story and we hope you like it"  Called it DA: Hawke's Redemption or blablabla whatever...that would probably have gone a lot better than coming out with "sequel" , calling it DA2 and changing almost every look and design and style of the game that everyone had come to love and want more of!!!

It's ludacris to re-vamp a model and style that sold you millions of copies and created a huge fan base.  If you wanted to try something different fine. But you shouldn't have slapped DA2 on the title. There "should" of been a DA2 that improved on the Origins game and not completely destroyed the look and feel of the original.

This.

[Jimmy Fury]

Davasar wrote...

Jimmy Fury wrote...

Davasar wrote...

I seem to remember one of the devs critisizing how games being exactly the same is a bad thing (refering to how making DA2 anywhere near DOA would be bad).

Yet, here we are.  A seeming veritable copy and paste of the same game of a differing title onto an existing franchise.

Ironic, that he critisized the very thing they are doing now.

Well it would be ironic if:
a) what you said was at all realistic and not just absurd hyperbole.
we changed the definition of "irony" to that of "hypocrtical"

Thankfully, neither requirement has been met so no irony has occured!
Hurray!

Situational irony is the disparity of intention and result:  when the result of an action is contrary to the desired or expected effect.

Hmm, check your dictionary if you have trouble finding more then one meaning to a word

No, I know the definition of situational irony. I also know the definitions of literal irony, dramatic irony, and socratic irony. (btw, the latter is about to be demonstrated )

In order for what you said to be situational irony, you would have to believe they didn't intend for DA2 to be a clone of Mass Effect or any other game. You would have to state that any similarity between DA2 and any other game was entirely accidental, thus meaning you could no longer complain that BioWare is trying to dumb it down or appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Because the key to situational irony is in the intent. "When the intended outcome is contrary to the actual outcome" is situational irony.
If they stated "making two games exactly the same is bad" and then set out with the intention to make DA2 completely unique, but upon doing so inadvertantly made it exactly like another game. Then yes, that would be situational irony.
But you yourself have claimed many times that BioWare is intentionally trying to make DA2 like ME2 to appeal to the masses. According to your belief, situational irony could not occur here because that was the intent all along.

Simply saying "that is bad" is not neccesarily a statement of intent. It's just a statement of beleif. Hypocrisy is when actions are contrary to beliefs. Which you could still claim under your beliefs.
But in order for you to claim situational irony you would have to admit that Bioware never intended to make DA2 an ME2 clone .

(now you might want to check your dictionary for the definition of socratic irony )

[AlanC9]

A small amendment:

Jimmy Fury wrote...
 You would have to state that any similarity between DA2 and any other game was entirely accidental, thus meaning you could no longer complain that BioWare is trying to dumb it down or appeal to the lowest common denominator without becoming logically incoherent.

We''ve seen plenty of premise shifting here, sometimes in the same post or even the same paragraph.

[Jimmy Fury]

very good point.

[pmaura]

people need to realize this is no longer bioware, its EA and EA is not that great of a company they take great franchises and dumb them down mass produce for the money and spit it out.



Man I was hoping for a decent follow up to DAO. Instead its going the way of Mass Effect, a Shooter RPG, that just turned into a FPS with some interesting Dialogue options

[Rogue Unit]

pmaura wrote...

people need to realize this is no longer bioware, its EA and EA is not that great of a company they take great franchises and dumb them down mass produce for the money and spit it out.

Man I was hoping for a decent follow up to DAO. Instead its going the way of Mass Effect, a Shooter RPG, that just turned into a FPS with some interesting Dialogue options

You and Kodaris just hop from thread to thread bashing this game, huh?

[Jimmy Fury]

pmaura wrote...

people need to realize this is no longer bioware, its EA and EA is not that great of a company they take great franchises and dumb them down mass produce for the money and spit it out.

Man I was hoping for a decent follow up to DAO. Instead its going the way of Mass Effect, a Shooter RPG, that just turned into a FPS with some interesting Dialogue options

EA owned Bioware for 2 years before DAO was released. If they were so intent on dumbing everything down and stealing Bioware's creativity why didn't they start there?

I really don't understand why people find it so impossible to consider that maybe Bioware wanted to make the changes...

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 24 juillet 2010 - 06:06 .

[AlanC9]

Rogue Unit wrote...


You and Kodaris just hop from thread to thread bashing this game, huh?

In Kodaris' defense, he's been unlucky about having threads locked under him.

[AlanC9]

Edit: DP

Modifié par AlanC9, 24 juillet 2010 - 06:14 .

[Davasar]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

Davasar wrote...

Jimmy Fury wrote...

Davasar wrote...

I seem to remember one of the devs critisizing how games being exactly the same is a bad thing (refering to how making DA2 anywhere near DOA would be bad).

Yet, here we are.  A seeming veritable copy and paste of the same game of a differing title onto an existing franchise.

Ironic, that he critisized the very thing they are doing now.

Well it would be ironic if:
a) what you said was at all realistic and not just absurd hyperbole.
we changed the definition of "irony" to that of "hypocrtical"

Thankfully, neither requirement has been met so no irony has occured!
Hurray!

Situational irony is the disparity of intention and result:  when the result of an action is contrary to the desired or expected effect.

Hmm, check your dictionary if you have trouble finding more then one meaning to a word

No, I know the definition of situational irony. I also know the definitions of literal irony, dramatic irony, and socratic irony. (btw, the latter is about to be demonstrated )

In order for what you said to be situational irony, you would have to believe they didn't intend for DA2 to be a clone of Mass Effect or any other game. You would have to state that any similarity between DA2 and any other game was entirely accidental, thus meaning you could no longer complain that BioWare is trying to dumb it down or appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Because the key to situational irony is in the intent. "When the intended outcome is contrary to the actual outcome" is situational irony.
If they stated "making two games exactly the same is bad" and then set out with the intention to make DA2 completely unique, but upon doing so inadvertantly made it exactly like another game. Then yes, that would be situational irony.
But you yourself have claimed many times that BioWare is intentionally trying to make DA2 like ME2 to appeal to the masses. According to your belief, situational irony could not occur here because that was the intent all along.

Simply saying "that is bad" is not neccesarily a statement of intent. It's just a statement of beleif. Hypocrisy is when actions are contrary to beliefs. Which you could still claim under your beliefs.
But in order for you to claim situational irony you would have to admit that Bioware never intended to make DA2 an ME2 clone .

(now you might want to check your dictionary for the definition of socratic irony )

Right.  And their intent was to make a game that was just as appealing to the long time, loyal fans (unless you are saying they went out of their way to make those people not like the game) who enjoyed DAO for the features that are being replaced while grabbing more of the mass market with features that arent considered good by the very loyal fanbase that helped put them where they are at now.  They have failed in that respect.  Look around you at the many locked threads.


So yeah: 

Intent:  Make game enjoyable to their core audience while grabbing more mass market

Result:  Alienation of that loyal fanbase (to whatever extent that might be)



And please avoid the cherry picking, somantics argumentation and superlative heisting when that isnt the intent.

[Davasar]

Roland Aseph wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

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.

Sorry Stanely , it's quite a bit more than "one lone voice", have you scanned the forums lately? 

Have you read the read posts from other sites?

The entire reason that people are posting their displeasure with certain aspects of the "so-called" new & improved vision for the DA IP is "because" we have looked at every piece of info and graphics available and.../drum roll, we're not pleased with what we're being shone.

DA needed some touching up and fixing this is true. What you've rolled out as DA2 is nothing short of a failed plastic surgery face lift and a collagen lip injection gone horribly wrong.

The whole argument of  "we can't keep going to the well before it goes dry" just doesn't fly. Those elements that were touted as "the spiritual successor of BG" were what got you the fan for the new DA IP to begin with. And how long between the Balder's Gate games till now has it been? 10 years...? Wow...really been sucking that well dry!

If you had come out and said, here's a new game in the DA Universe, we're taking a bit different approach that we did in Origins...but it tells a cool story and we hope you like it"  Called it DA: Hawke's Redemption or blablabla whatever...that would probably have gone a lot better than coming out with "sequel" , calling it DA2 and changing almost every look and design and style of the game that everyone had come to love and want more of!!!

It's ludacris to re-vamp a model and style that sold you millions of copies and created a huge fan base.  If you wanted to try something different fine. But you shouldn't have slapped DA2 on the title. There "should" of been a DA2 that improved on the Origins game and not completely destroyed the look and feel of the original.

The fans would of been fine and you'd have 2 game to be selling instead of pissing off a lot of the people who made the original game a success to begin with.

And you get critical complaints across the board and your answer to that is not to consider that hey maybe we mis-judged this situation and jumped too soon with too many changes...no your answer is that those of us who are concerned and are critical of what we consider to be un-need changes and backwards thinking stylistic designs, nope we just don't know what we're talking about. 

wow

Well, I think you guys need to scroll down the posts of several more threads and actually see what a large portion of your target audience is saying.

Because it's hardly all good.

This is entirely worth a repeat.

[Jimmy Fury]

Davasar wrote...
And please avoid the cherry picking, somantics argumentation and superlative heisting when that isnt the intent.

Is it weird that i'm actually proud of the fact that you're the second person to start arguing semantics with me who then went for the old "don't argue semantics!" line?
I mean seriously... you told me to go get a dictionary...

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 24 juillet 2010 - 11:35 .

[In Exile]

I think people take "Dont argue semantics!" as some kind of magic argument win, as opposed to a situational point that is only valid when the whole debate didn't start about the meaning of words. I mean, you two were arguing about the meaning of irony! That's by definition semantics.

[AlanC9]

Jimmy, this is getting old. By now we're all familiar with Davasar's style. I don't really need to see you nailing him again.

[Davasar]

AlanC9 wrote...

Jimmy, this is getting old. By now we're all familiar with Davasar's style. I don't really need to see you nailing him again.

Right.  Because using bulls**t debate tactics and misrepresentation is MUCH better.  You know, like label insinuation and playing to the crowd as your above statement shows.  And if it's getting old and you don't need to see it...

then bye. 

Modifié par Davasar, 26 juillet 2010 - 06:22 .

[AlanC9]

Hey, if you really want Jimmy to keep at it, I'll stand aside.

[Stanley Woo]

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

[Faust1979]

I would like to say that I'm happy with the direction and a new direction is good. I like the idea of the way the story is being told and that is what has got me most interested in playing the game because it's something Bioware hasn't done before. It's exciting and there aren't a lot of RPGs that have tried to tell a story in such a way. It's time for something new!

[Reubs1982]

17thknight wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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.

The fault does not lie with us for judging the scant details, the fault lies with Bioware for releasing only scant details. Of course the fans are going to react to details about the game, especially when they specifically suggest a drastic departure from the original game, which they loved.We are responding to what wea are shown. If the picture is incomplete, that is the fault of those releasing incomplete information.

Since Dragon Age was billed as "The Spiritual Successor to Baldur's Gate" (can we all count the 10,000 times we heard that phrase?) and it is being moved in a direction away from Baldur's Gate, why should we, the fans who purchased this game specifically for this reason, not be grossly disappointed with what we have learned about DA2 so far?

Yes, ME and DA2 are different games, but the similarities that we dislike between Mass Effect and Dragon Age are the similarities that we already know exist.  This is not information we are inferring, nor is it information that you have implied, this is information that Bioware has confirmed.  The problem is that Dragon Age was meant to take us back to old-school rpg's, not emulate modern rpgs.

Baldur's Gate 2 did not drastically deviate from Baldur's Gate, it merely improved on it. More options, better writing, a stronger plot. Yes, the storytelling grew exponentially from BG1 to BG2 but so did the customization. No race, name, character class, etc. was forced upon the player by the sequel. Expanding one element of the game does not mean that you must necessarily shrink the other.

The single most unique element of Dragon Age was the Origin stories. It immersed you into the character in a way that very very few RPG's have ever come close to realizing. Of course we're going to be disappointed when that is not only not expanded upon, but completely eliminated.  I'm sure anyone could forgive the lack of customization if they were playing as their original character,  it would even be understandable.  As that is obviously not the case, we are understandably upset that we have lost  both our original character and story as well as the ability to create a new character and story.  Instead, we are shackled to Bioware's  character "Hawke", whether we like it or not.

Yes, we are only reacting to some information about the game, not the game as a whole, but that is wholly irrelevant. The bits of info we have are  what we do not like. If there is an extensive amount of character customization, then we aren't being told about it, and we aren't seeing it. You absolutely cannot fault us for reacting negatively to the information you have given us. It paints a specific picture that has yet to be empirically refuted.

We want to customize our character. It is really that simple.

Wow i really couldn't have said it better myself. I completly agree. What i dont understand is why change a winning formula? Its like my house im renovating, its old and beautiful, its built with class and quality its everything I want in a house except its getting alittle old now. So I patch up the cracks I paint it I put on a new roof and a fancy new shed out the back, I give it a some new wiring and plumbing I polish the woodwork. What i dont do is knock the F+++ing thing over and build a Damn prefab modern home with white tiles on the loung room floor.

[Faust1979]

Reubs1982 wrote...

17thknight wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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.

The fault does not lie with us for judging the scant details, the fault lies with Bioware for releasing only scant details. Of course the fans are going to react to details about the game, especially when they specifically suggest a drastic departure from the original game, which they loved.We are responding to what wea are shown. If the picture is incomplete, that is the fault of those releasing incomplete information.

Since Dragon Age was billed as "The Spiritual Successor to Baldur's Gate" (can we all count the 10,000 times we heard that phrase?) and it is being moved in a direction away from Baldur's Gate, why should we, the fans who purchased this game specifically for this reason, not be grossly disappointed with what we have learned about DA2 so far?

Yes, ME and DA2 are different games, but the similarities that we dislike between Mass Effect and Dragon Age are the similarities that we already know exist.  This is not information we are inferring, nor is it information that you have implied, this is information that Bioware has confirmed.  The problem is that Dragon Age was meant to take us back to old-school rpg's, not emulate modern rpgs.

Baldur's Gate 2 did not drastically deviate from Baldur's Gate, it merely improved on it. More options, better writing, a stronger plot. Yes, the storytelling grew exponentially from BG1 to BG2 but so did the customization. No race, name, character class, etc. was forced upon the player by the sequel. Expanding one element of the game does not mean that you must necessarily shrink the other.

The single most unique element of Dragon Age was the Origin stories. It immersed you into the character in a way that very very few RPG's have ever come close to realizing. Of course we're going to be disappointed when that is not only not expanded upon, but completely eliminated.  I'm sure anyone could forgive the lack of customization if they were playing as their original character,  it would even be understandable.  As that is obviously not the case, we are understandably upset that we have lost  both our original character and story as well as the ability to create a new character and story.  Instead, we are shackled to Bioware's  character "Hawke", whether we like it or not.

Yes, we are only reacting to some information about the game, not the game as a whole, but that is wholly irrelevant. The bits of info we have are  what we do not like. If there is an extensive amount of character customization, then we aren't being told about it, and we aren't seeing it. You absolutely cannot fault us for reacting negatively to the information you have given us. It paints a specific picture that has yet to be empirically refuted.

We want to customize our character. It is really that simple.

Wow i really couldn't have said it better myself. I completly agree. What i dont understand is why change a winning formula? Its like my house im renovating, its old and beautiful, its built with class and quality its everything I want in a house except its getting alittle old now. So I patch up the cracks I paint it I put on a new roof and a fancy new shed out the back, I give it a some new wiring and plumbing I polish the woodwork. What i dont do is knock the F+++ing thing over and build a Damn prefab modern home with white tiles on the loung room floor.

They didn't say every game would take us back to Baulders gate way of playing. Just Dragon Age Origins would they never claimed the entire franchise would play the exact same way. People are getting way to out of hand with the complaining. It's just a video game it's not the end of the world.