100 réponses à ce sujet

[Kaiser Shepard]

Khavos wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

And this is were all your previous arguments become meaningless.

Do we really need to rehash EA's track record?  They've gotten a lot better since Riccitiello took over, but if you think they don't manage their acquisitions, you're out of your mind.

Well, you implied that it was a bad thing, while I'd argue the opposite.

That fact that you are able to acknowledge Riccitello as the one that turned the company into a better direction makes me retract my previous statement, though, you do (somewhat) know what you are talking about.

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 13 juillet 2010 - 06:41 .

[Ecael]

Khavos wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

And this is were all your previous arguments become meaningless.

Do we really need to rehash EA's track record?  They've gotten a lot better since Riccitiello took over, but if you think they don't manage their acquisitions, you're out of your mind.

Manage their acquisitions, not develop for them.

I don't suppose you go up to the cashier at a fast food restaurant and accuse their whole corporation of appealing to the meat or fish-eating masses when there's too much lettuce in your chicken sandwich?

[Deathstyk85]

Lord_Saulot wrote...

DA:O was targeted to multiple markets, including the "casual" one, through the use of different difficulty levels. It was a pretty popular game.

Anyway, Bioware put a lot of work into that game. They are, to be honest, much more invested emotionally and financially in the first Dragon Age and in making DA2 a similar game. So, there isn't really much reason to worry that they will widely change the format, though they will certainly try to make developments and push some boundaries.

this, both masseffect and dragon age arnt a "hardcore v casual" type of game. infact both play and loved them.
its a moot point.
my only complaint so far, is that this seems to come across to me as a merger game. i dont want to play "dragon effect" i want two seperate game franchises, with seperate play styles.

[Kalfear]

Lord_Saulot wrote...

DA:O was targeted to multiple markets, including the "casual" one, through the use of different difficulty levels. It was a pretty popular game.

Anyway, Bioware put a lot of work into that game. They are, to be honest, much more invested emotionally and financially in the first Dragon Age and in making DA2 a similar game. So, there isn't really much reason to worry that they will widely change the format, though they will certainly try to make developments and push some boundaries.

Before ME2 I would have agreed 110% with the bolded part Saulot but ME1 was also successful and they completely and utterly gutted it and still havent given a reason why beyond "we could so we did" for those changes.

So we can no longer just assume they going to leave DA franchise as complexe and involved as it was in DA:O.

In fact, assuming that opens you up to a surprise thats not very much fun let me say!

Bioware used its one free get outta jail card with ME2, now its up to the community to not blindly greenlight everything as in the past but question and inspect making sure the product is not tampered with as ME2 was.

Modifié par Kalfear, 13 juillet 2010 - 06:57 .

[LPPrince]

Ecael wrote...

I don't suppose you go up to the cashier at a fast food restaurant and accuse their whole corporation of appealing to the meat or fish-eating masses when there's too much lettuce in your chicken sandwich?

That made me rofl and hungry.

[Deathstyk85]

not really paying attention to the ea argument what not, but my over simplified statement on it will be that ea, is the money machine behind other companies that actually make games. its like a stock broker, they dont actually make the product, but they invest in it, and reap the benefits of it being successful. sure they have some say in certain game decisions, but their mostly the wallet that bioware barrows from to make things.

[lhaymehr]

Does any one of you actually believe Bioware gives a damn about your complaints? They have actual numbers, statistics, telemetry, your save games. And they like more money more than less money.



I don't really care about main char having voices. In fact, that *might* be a little more engaging to the story, however subjective the appreciation of the actual voice actor is.



I don't care having only one character even though that is a big step away from classic RPG template and a HUGE hit to player customization. OK, so let's count that as a ballsy risk in other to innovate, be unique..



But one thing I am absolutely positive: this game is going towards Mass Effect 2 style of gameplay where they dazzle with cinematics and story but provide standard consolized cut-down repetitive gameplay in order to not strain the average console derp's fragile little indoctrinated mind.



The game lacked challenge as it were, and with DA2 I'm expecting something along the lines of Ubisoft games like the last Prince Of Persia which I could probably play to the end blindfolded while being beaten over the head with a n00bstick.



Maybe we get traces of PC riches in DA2 with their announcement that they're splitting two ways gameplay-wise, but somehow I think that is also a perfect excuse for "cutting expenses" and integrating it into one big pile of you-know-what for DA3.



But ultimately, whatever. It's my money.

[Deathstyk85]

Kalfear wrote...

Lord_Saulot wrote...

DA:O was targeted to multiple markets, including the "casual" one, through the use of different difficulty levels. It was a pretty popular game.

Anyway, Bioware put a lot of work into that game. They are, to be honest, much more invested emotionally and financially in the first Dragon Age and in making DA2 a similar game. So, there isn't really much reason to worry that they will widely change the format, though they will certainly try to make developments and push some boundaries.

Before ME2 I would have agreed 110% with the bolded part Saulot but ME1 was also successful and they completely and utterly gutted it and still havent given a reason why beyond "we could so we did" for those changes.

So we can no longer just assume they going to leave DA franchise as complexe and involved as it was in DA:O.

In fact, assuming that opens you up to a surprise thats not very much fun let me say!

Bioware used its one free get outta jail card with ME2, now its up to the community to not blindly greenlight everything as in the past but question and inspect making sure the product is not tampered with as ME2 was.

personally, i liked the changes from me1 to me2.
i just dont want da2 to be an me2 with swords :/

[Khavos]

Ecael wrote...
I don't suppose you go up to the cashier at a fast food restaurant and accuse their whole corporation of appealing to the meat or fish-eating masses when there's too much lettuce in your chicken sandwich?

No.  Then again, I'm also aware that it's the corporation that decided what goes into that chicken sandwich, not the franchise manager.

Maybe you want to try a better analogy? 

[FieryDove]

[quote]Ecael wrote...


If there's anything Electronic Arts is "guilty" of, it's trying to port all their games to every single platform possible. Yet if it weren't for that, Mass Effect would have remained a console-exclusive game instead of being ported to the PC, and Dragon Age: Origins would have remained a PC-exclusive game.

[quote]

Yes EA ports everything to everything. But I wish you would quit saying the above. MS planned for a later PC release all along.

As far as the topic, Bio will try to improve the game for as many platforms as possible to hopefully make the most people happy.

Modifié par FieryDove, 13 juillet 2010 - 07:04 .

[Deathstyk85]

lhaymehr wrote...

Does any one of you actually believe Bioware gives a damn about your complaints? They have actual numbers, statistics, telemetry, your save games. And they like more money more than less money.

I don't really care about main char having voices. In fact, that *might* be a little more engaging to the story, however subjective the appreciation of the actual voice actor is.

I don't care having only one character even though that is a big step away from classic RPG template and a HUGE hit to player customization. OK, so let's count that as a ballsy risk in other to innovate, be unique..

But one thing I am absolutely positive: this game is going towards Mass Effect 2 style of gameplay where they dazzle with cinematics and story but provide standard consolized cut-down repetitive gameplay in order to not strain the average console derp's fragile little indoctrinated mind.

The game lacked challenge as it were, and with DA2 I'm expecting something along the lines of Ubisoft games like the last Prince Of Persia which I could probably play to the end blindfolded while being beaten over the head with a n00bstick.

Maybe we get traces of PC riches in DA2 with their announcement that they're splitting two ways gameplay-wise, but somehow I think that is also a perfect excuse for "cutting expenses" and integrating it into one big pile of you-know-what for DA3.

But ultimately, whatever. It's my money.

i was with you, until you turned this into a console v pc argument.
insulting console players doesnt make the game come out the way you want. nor are consoles the reason for game changes. games have to appeal to a greater audience, the biggest chunk of that audience, be it pc or consoles, are the not so elite. the gamers who fumble with joy sticks and fat finger the wrong key on the keyboard all too often.
so your a great gamer, awesome. unfortunately the gaming industry doesnt cater to you. nor will they ever no matter how greatly you master their products. they need money, and you just dont have enough to make them design the game for you.
but please, dont give in to the typical "i blamez teh console gamuhz" ignorance and idiocy to make your point.

[Khavos]

Deathstyk85 wrote...

not really paying attention to the ea argument what not, but my over simplified statement on it will be that ea, is the money machine behind other companies that actually make games. its like a stock broker, they dont actually make the product, but they invest in it, and reap the benefits of it being successful. sure they have some say in certain game decisions, but their mostly the wallet that bioware barrows from to make things.

Except that it's not really like a stockbroker, because the power in the stockbroker/client relationship lies with the client. 

Check out the Activision/Infinity Ward fiasco if you want an idea of how ugly publisher/developer relationships can get. 

[Ecael]

Khavos wrote...

Ecael wrote...
I don't suppose you go up to the cashier at a fast food restaurant and accuse their whole corporation of appealing to the meat or fish-eating masses when there's too much lettuce in your chicken sandwich?

No.  Then again, I'm also aware that it's the corporation that decided what goes into that chicken sandwich, not the franchise manager.

Maybe you want to try a better analogy?

Chicken, bread, lettuce, possibly pickles?

I don't suppose "the corporation" comes down to every restaurant to make sure people are putting the right amount of lettuce on every sandwich. Not to mention franchise managers all have different rules and standards depending on the restaurant and what health regulations they have to follow (depending on state).

You seem to believe that corporations have absolute control over game design and writing, so why would they bother buying BioWare in the first place when they can do it themselves?

[Bryy_Miller]

ozenglish wrote...

Real Gamers: People who play games, and enjoy them for the worlds they create outside of this hellhole we dug ourselves into.

You invalidated your post by giving a definition to "real" gamers.

[Khavos]

Ecael wrote...

You seem to believe that corporations have absolute control over game design and writing, so why would they bother buying BioWare in the first place when they can do it themselves?

Of course I believe that, because it's true.  Whether they choose to exercise it or not is a separate matter.  Do you honestly believe Bioware could make a game that EA didn't want to publish, or forbade them from making in the first  place?  EA owns Bioware.  Bioware does what EA tells it to do.

Now, you're going to assume that I mean EA always tells Bioware what to do with every single aspect of game design.  No.  EA bought Bioware because it was an established studio with a good reputation that put out quality games.  I imagine they're left to run fairly autonomously.  However, if EA decides that adding or subtracting a certain feature from a Bioware game would make it more marketable, it certainly has the power to see to it that said feature is added or subtracted.

If you fundamentally don't understand how corporate relationships work, then I really don't know what else I can tell you.

Modifié par Khavos, 13 juillet 2010 - 07:57 .

[MFCell]

If you, like many of us, are very unsatisfied with the direction Dragon Age 2 is taking, and did not ever care much for Mass Effect 1 and 2, and do not want to see DA2 look like SW:TOR, I beg you, please continue to come and make posts on these forums letting Bioware see how unhappy you are with their decision.

Bioware, I do not feel like you took your time to develop a proper sequel to Dragon Age. DA:O took 5 years to develop, how is it viable to make a proper sequel in 18 months? You guys should barely have the groundwork laid out for DA2, yet it is gonna release in March 2011? The words "rushed for the money" come to mind. Or maybe the EA Execs yelled at you when you said you wanted 3 to 5 years for a proper sequel? I do not, in any way, buy that it took them 3.5 years to make the game engine.   If it did, the engine would be much, much, MUCH more robust, like Rockstars RAGE was. 

Bioware, Bioware. Listen for a moment to a true fan, someone who has played DA for nearly a thousand hours, is near 100%, has beaten the game on nightmare, seen every main ending and DLC, and completed nearly every sidequest. Having Hawke as the main charachter may be the root of an AMAZING story, but to your fanbase, it just looks like a copout. To your fanbase, it looks like you decided the human warrior origin was the most popular, so you you just made Dragon Age 2 feature a human warrior. That's really what it seems like to me, that Hawke is the easiest "one size fits all" hero you could come up with.

I think, after all the researching I've done, my playtime in Mass Effect 1 and 2, and my playtime in Dragon Age(by far the most) leads me to beleive that Bioware is for once, making a mistake. Dragon Age stood out from the crowd because of 2 things. 1) It was IMMENSELY polished. Every line of dialogue and each scene played out exactly as the should have. The combat on PC was unmatched in any game to date. 2) It relied on tried and true game mechanics and moved them forward into the current generation of hardware.


Now as far as I can tell, you have removed both aspects of the game. You are not ( I repeat, there is NO WAY possible) for you to polish DA2 like you did with DA:O. So, the "amazingness" factor will be lower, as conversations don't hold the promise of multiple hidden dialogue options and areas have little depth besides questing through them. Hawke will spend 10 years in this game? How do you expect to polish 10 years of in game time in 18 months? By skipping VAST portions of it, therfore making Hawke less heroic, and making the game flow in a wierd way (think "and then, 2 years later")...

Dragon Age also relies on tried and true game mechanics. The RPG combat is nearly identical to KOTOR and Baldur's Gate. If any tweaks are made to this system, the result could be literally catastrophic for DA2. Having the game play like ME2 with a sword is going to absolutely destroy the team based combat experience that DA:O flaunts so heavily. With so many other aspects of the game going completely ME on us, I wonder what the console versions will turn out like. I can imagine people running around taking cover from fireballs and then running in and spamming the attack button. Like some freakish GoW/ME wanna be.

Really Bioware, this is a sink or swim kind of thing for you guys. If you screw this up trying to make more money off of it, then your fanbase can only assume the same for your next titles. How do you plan on stealing WoW's playerbase if you've already set your fans on fire with this simple announcement? You guys don;t seem to understand the idea behind consistency.

I have on question for you guys, and it is a really important one.

Why Bioware, WHY, do you think Starcraft 2 is a nearly EXACT replica of Starcraft 1? Why, also, does Starcraft 2 not feature the VASTLY popular "Heroes" aspect from Warcraft 3? Because Bioware, just like DA and ME, while Warcraft and Starcraft are VERY SIMILAR, they are also very different. It is those differences which define the two games. Not the similarities. By establishing an IP vastly different from the ME one, you created something very similar to the Starcraft/Warcraft duality. You must NOT close the gap betwen the two franchises, instead, you must ESTABLISH the gap between the two. You guys, as the developers, have the reigns on this project, and it seems to many people like you are making decisions that do not suit you in the long term, nor do they characterise the development style we are used to from Bioware.

Anyways, it's not my job to make sure you guys are doing you job right. If you guys screw this up royally, then by all means, that was your decision to do so. It can be you guys decision to run Bioware's sparkling reputation right into the ground, make sure that none of WoW's playerbase leaves for TOR, make sure DA2 in no way follows DA:O, make sure ME3 just ends in another reaper battle, the list goes on and on. The ball is always in you guys court, until release day. I really think that the decisions you guys have made recently, since DA:O, do not reflect the Bioware the made KOTOR so great, so many years ago.

Modifié par MFCell, 13 juillet 2010 - 08:05 .

[Ecael]

Khavos wrote...

Ecael wrote...

You seem to believe that corporations have absolute control over game design and writing, so why would they bother buying BioWare in the first place when they can do it themselves?

Of course I believe that, because it's true.  Whether they choose to exercise it or not is a separate matter.  Do you honestly believe Bioware could make a game that EA didn't want to publish, or forbade them from making in the first  place?  EA owns Bioware.  Bioware does what EA tells it to do.

Now, you're going to assume that I mean EA always tells Bioware what to do with every single aspect of game design.  No.  EA bought Bioware because it was an established studio with a good reputation that put out quality games.  I imagine they're left to run fairly autonomously.  However, if EA decides that adding or subtracting a certain feature from a Bioware game would make it more marketable, it certainly has the power to see to it that said feature is added or subtracted.

If you fundamentally don't understand how corporate relationships work, then I really don't know what else I can tell you.

Let me sort this out for you: It doesn't matter to me or many fans here whether or not the main character is voiced, whether or not the gameplay is revamped, because BioWare is capable of producing a great game regardless.

Thus, I wouldn't be complaining if Dragon Age: Origins stayed the same, or if it happened to turn into some other version of one of BioWare's other games (which it hasn't, considering we don't know much at this point).

You, on the other hand, believe that not only are the speculated changes to the game detrimental, but entirely profit-driven as well. Since you cannot "understand" how game development allows for improvements or changes, why should I believe you when you claim to know more about either game development or "corporate relationships"?

People demand that BioWare keep the game the same because it was successful before, and then turn around and say that they're not keeping the game the same because it now it'll be successful.

Modifié par Ecael, 13 juillet 2010 - 08:18 .

[Kalfear]

Deathstyk85 wrote...

Kalfear wrote...

Lord_Saulot wrote...

DA:O was targeted to multiple markets, including the "casual" one, through the use of different difficulty levels. It was a pretty popular game.

Anyway, Bioware put a lot of work into that game. They are, to be honest, much more invested emotionally and financially in the first Dragon Age and in making DA2 a similar game. So, there isn't really much reason to worry that they will widely change the format, though they will certainly try to make developments and push some boundaries.

Before ME2 I would have agreed 110% with the bolded part Saulot but ME1 was also successful and they completely and utterly gutted it and still havent given a reason why beyond "we could so we did" for those changes.

So we can no longer just assume they going to leave DA franchise as complexe and involved as it was in DA:O.

In fact, assuming that opens you up to a surprise thats not very much fun let me say!

Bioware used its one free get outta jail card with ME2, now its up to the community to not blindly greenlight everything as in the past but question and inspect making sure the product is not tampered with as ME2 was.

personally, i liked the changes from me1 to me2.
i just dont want da2 to be an me2 with swords :/

Not me

ME1 is my favorite RPG of all time, ME2 I dont even call a RPG, it was a shooter with a back story.

Ahhhh but this not the ME2 boards
hehe (I avoide those boards cause of the gang mentality the pro ME2 posters have against anyone that didnt like game)

In all honesty, DA:O would probably be my number 1 game if it wasnt fantasy, im just so burned out on fantasy after all these years. I almost skipped DA:O because of my fantasy burn out till I read some reveiws that sounded to good to be true! So glad I did!

I have no worries about the combat aspect going ME2 style as Bioware already said combat (PC Versin) stays the same so DA:O tactical combat (with a few glitchs like overly aggressive mages) still in rather then ME2 twicth combat!

What Im personally worried about is

1) Immersion. Originally VO of main character wasnt a huge concern but then I played Leliannas Song and got to admit, It was far less immersive then Awakening was. ME2 was also very less immersive cause Sheppard never quite said things in the way and manner you wanted him to! Tone and emotion was off.

2) Size. Someone else pointed out that the DA:O devs originally said if they had VO the main character in DA:O, game would of had to been 1/2 its size. THIS CONCERNS ME! DA:O was large and that was one of its strong points. Awakening was to small (about half the size of DA:O, maybe smaller). Id love for a dev or writer to say the relative size stays the same or grows. Not file size but playable area in game.

3) Inventory. I know no one brought it up but a quick, no changes to inventory system would be greatly appreciated after the total gutting that happened in ME2.

4) Story and interaction. This is the big one for me. ME2 sucked for story and character interaction and the game suffered for it. I love the bickering between Lelianna and Morrigan over me as a romance interest. I love the constant battleing between Alister and Morrigan. ect ect ect. The characters are so alive in game because of all thise. I feel this should be EXPANDED ON, if anything. Not diminished like it was in ME2.

This is my biggest fear that suddenly the characters all stop talking to each other because its faster and moves game along faster to just do a few cut screens rather then 20 none cinematic exchanges.

ME2 suffered greatly because of this and sooooo many personality conflicts were left unexplored and left open then game ultimately felt unfinished.

These are but a few examples of how I dont want ME2 infecting DA2 in any way shape or form.

ME1 lost its soul already, leave DA2 for the role playing customer base. 

[Onyx Jaguar]

Bioware could end up like Westwood, Origin, Looking Glass, Bullfrog and Maxis sure. But it would have been worse if they had stayed in partnership with pandemic

[Khavos]

Ecael wrote...
Let me sort this out for you: It doesn't matter to me or many fans here whether or not the main character is voiced, whether or not the gameplay is revamped, because BioWare is capable of producing a great game regardless.

Thus, I wouldn't be complaining if Dragon Age: Origins stayed the same, or if it happened to turn into some other version of one of BioWare's other games (which it hasn't, considering we don't know much at this point).

You wouldn't?  That's fine.  Plenty of folks have expression opposition to the notion of DA Effect.

You, on the other hand, believe that not only are the speculated changes to the game detrimental, but entirely profit-driven as well.

Do you believe that Bioware could be making whatever changes they're making to DA2 in order to lose profits?  I really can't believe I'm having to argue that Bioware is in business to make money in the first place, but are you honestly suggesting that Bioware would make changes to a game expecting to lose money because of them? 

Since you cannot "understand" how game development allows for improvements or changes, why should I believe you when you claim to know more about either game development or "corporate relationships"?

Improvement or changes to games are made in order to sell more games.  Period.  End of story.  If this wasn't the case, we'd still be playing Pong, because if people simply bought the same thing over and over, we wouldn't need anything else.  I really don't know how I can explain this more clearly: Bioware would like to sell as many copies of DA2 as possible.  

People demand that BioWare keep the game the same because it was successful before, and then turn around and say that they're not keeping the game the same because it now it'll be successful.

Having never been in the "demanding to keep it the same" camp, I'll have to take your word for it.  I'm also not arguing that the changes they're making will make it more successful.  I'm arguing that given their recent track record as exemplified by Mass Effect 2, they want to make changes to "streamline" their games in order to give them a broader appeal than just the RPG nerd fanbase, and thus sell more copies and make more money.  If they're doing the same with DA, it's because they believe it will sell more copies. 

Again, I have to ask: you do understand that the people developing DA2 have to be paid, right?  They won't just work for free?  And that their business model is to provide consumers with a video game in return for money (or "cash")?

[Khavos]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Bioware could end up like Westwood, Origin, Looking Glass, Bullfrog and Maxis sure. But it would have been worse if they had stayed in partnership with pandemic

Westwood, Origin, Looking Glass, Bullfrog, and Maxis never happened, because EA doesn't shut down studios perceived to be underperforming, because profit is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT in the video game industry.  I've just learned that from helpful forumites.  

[LOLZAO]

MFCell wrote...

If you, like many of us, are very unsatisfied with the direction Dragon Age 2 is taking, and did not ever care much for Mass Effect 1 and 2..............

Man all treads that i enter you have that thing(Wall of text)posted it is not going to make bioware staff see it.

on a serius note i dont think DA:2 will suck just cause the PC will be voiced and there are no origins because Da:origins alrealdy done that,well it is in the name itself, i think Da:O was meant to introduce  us in the  Wolrd of Thedas And Da:2 to tell us a history of a guy(Hawke) that sets a chain of events to  motion that will be the history of future Dragon Age installments, so Rpg all the way .

And about the Casual players thing what about it?they pay the games the exact same way  you do, the majority buys the expack(maybe not the DLCs),just cause they don´t come to this forums to whine and troll about a game that is like 9 moths from launch  doens´t mean you are better then they.

and about the consle players i have only one thing to say   http://i19.photobuck...Master_Race.jpg

[Onyx Jaguar]

Westwood did underperform. Renegade and especially Earth and Beyond killed them. Expect the same if TOR flops for bioware.



Origin was transformed because of the success of Ultima online and the failure of Ultima 9



Maxis was bought up after a series of miscues, but the success of The Sims turned them into pretty much what they are today



Looking Glass, I have no idea why they were shut down and Bullfrog, the same.