454 réponses à ce sujet

[Morroian]

Therumancer wrote...
 To put things into perspective, "Dragon Age: Origins" was a game that was popular for it's amazing depth of character customization, up to and including multiple origin stories for the character which was a really incredible thing. It was also a true RPG with stat allocation, and skill and abillity selection, even if it was not the deepest system of it's kind to ever be created. All of these things were praised by RPG fans. 

 From what has been said by the Devs, and there is no way to "misunderstand" these things the game is both being simplified, and character generation/selection is also being greatly limited. Neither of these things are good by the standards of most RPG players. 

So I take it The Witcher and Planescape Torment (both of whom have less customisation than even that described for DA2) are not true RPGs? Or even the Gothic RPGs IIRC.

Also the depth of customisation for DAO was not that great compared to some RPGs, Oblivion for example. 

[Roland Aseph]

Therumancer wrote...

Jasuke34 wrote...

I just want to say to the devs to keep their hearts up despite all the flak they are getting about the changes to DA2. While I admit I am a little concerned about the changes, I trust that Bioware will continue to make the same great games they always have. Don't get discourage because of all the flames you are receiving. You have made great games and you will continue to do so. Keep up the amazing work.

To everyone else, please support the devs. They work hard to provide us with awesome entertainment. Be glad that they are devoted to such excellence.

I don't mean to fill the forum with more clutter, but I felt that the devs need some support and encouragement after all the junk I have read people saying about them.

Once again, Keep up the amazing work devs!

 Actually, I don't think "we" want the Devs to keep their hearts up, but to abort this project and work on a proper sequel to "Dragon Age: Origins". If they are becoming disheartened, well... that's the point of feedback sometimes. My big fear right now is that the reaction to this news is going to be dismissed as general internet negativity, with people screaming about how this is somehow getting similar to the "No Mutants Allowed" schtick did for "Fallout".

 To put things into perspective, "Dragon Age: Origins" was a game that was popular for it's amazing depth of character customization, up to and including multiple origin stories for the character which was a really incredible thing. It was also a true RPG with stat allocation, and skill and abillity selection, even if it was not the deepest system of it's kind to ever be created. All of these things were praised by RPG fans. 

 From what has been said by the Devs, and there is no way to "misunderstand" these things the game is both being simplified, and character generation/selection is also being greatly limited. Neither of these things are good by the standards of most RPG players. 

 It should be noted that the simplification of "Mass Effect" in it's sequel was not an unmitigated success as is believed. Almost from the beginning there were tons of complaints from people who did not like the fact that they turned it into a slightly customizable shooter with a lot of cut scenes. While a good game, and one I would have tried at some point, as it was it was not something I would have budgeted money for so I could run right out and get a collector's edition on day #1. I am also far from being alone in this respect. 

 Bioware said a lot of the same things about "Mass Effect 2" while keeping the details close to their chest. A lot of people like me who took a "trust Bioware" approach wound up being seriously disappointed with the results. The game barely had any remaining RPG elements. They didn't improve itemization and inventory, they wound up removing it outright. Where the old vehicle sections were boring, they managed to both make hunting minerals MORE boring, and when they finally released vehicle sections (as a free download) they turned it into what amounts to a platformer where your doing presician jumping with your tank. Heck, with "Firewalker" you can't even save game during missions, which makes the thing like bloody "Mario Brothers" since dying makes you restart the level. Sorry, that is *NOT* an RPG. You might not want to believe me, but there are a LOT of people who think exactly like I do, and I think the backlash Bioware is receiving is a sign of this, and they are probably surprised by the vehemence
due to the simple fact that they managed to convince themselves that people really did universally love what they did with "Mass Effect 2" when it's simply not true. A lot of their sales were due to a level of trust and support of the "Bioware" name which has now taken a hit at least in the eyes of their RPG fans who are becoming considerably
more cynical. 

 At any rate I got the impression that "Dragon Age" was a bigger success than they anticipated. A lot of what they are doing with the "sequel" seems to be a rush job, justified by people's love of the simplification of "Mass Effect". I mean I don't think "Origins" is even a year old yet, and we still have DLC being made for it. This whole "Hawke" thing seems like a quick cash in project, I'd expect a proper sequel to "Origins" to take years to develop, and just what they have said so far shows that massive corners are apparently being cut compared to the original to make this relatively quick release practical. 

 A lot of fans have been wondering how "Bioware" could keep up the quality of their RPGs with so many balls in the air at once. I mean simultaneously developing for "Dragon Age", "Mass Effect", and a big-budget MMORPG is enough to strain anyone, especially if they decide to try and release something quickly. Simply put "Dragon Age 2" is a ball that is about to hit the ground... and really I think they need to grab it and get it on track. Everything from the somewhat limited concept to the reduced options to the simplified combat and character development is a strike against it, not in it's favor as Bioware seemed to think we'd take it. Sorry but having a voice actor does not equal all of the game play and RPG elements being removed... and heck, there is absolutly no reason why multiple voice actors could not be used based on differant origins and so on. Games like "Saint's Row 2" have hours of dialogue and had multiple voice actors doing everything for the main character, you'd select your character's Voice/VA as part of the customization process. There is no reason at all why the same cannot be done here. What's more anyone who claims voice actors are hugely expensive within these budgets is a bit mistaken, I've read stuff on voice actors who do Anime and computer games and such over the years (producing hours upon hours of material) and while they make a living at it, it doesn't seem like they are exactly cruising around in Lamborginis.... the point being that while the main character having a voice is not a bad thing, it is not so much of an advantage that it excuses all of these sacrifices, especially seeing as there is no reason to have one and only one "protaganist" voice actor.

 Basically my suggestion is that they should scrap "Hawke" and what they have so far entirely. I'm sure a lot of the assets in terms of voice, graphics, locations, etc... can be salvaged and built into another game which means they wouldn't be losing everything. The game is currently slotted for a release date in 8 months, this wouldn't be the first game to see a release date delay of a year or so, so add another year to this and aim for March of 2012 and produce a quallity sequel that genuinely follows in the footsteps of "Origins". 

 Bioware dropped their information for feedback, they got it, no cards they might be keeping close to their chest are likely to overcome the problems people have with what has been clearly stated so far. I think Bioware needs to stop acting all hurt because the feedback wasn't what they expected, and adapt to their customers.    

 

A lot to be pondered and considered there Therumancer...though at this stage I doubt that scrapping and starting over is an option. We can only hope that given the feedback over the various issues will be listened to and then see how the general fans react when the game actually hits the market.

IF there is at that point (once players have had time to review the finished product) enough of a voice and objection to certain mechanics and/or storylines, graphics what have you....and sales are lower than expected or wanted. Then perhaps they will listen to fan input a bit closer and at that point we can all collectively "hope" that DA3 will be more thought out and reflective to it's majority fanbase.

Right now though it's a toss up as to how everyone will ultimately react to the finished product.

While it might be ok, I don't see it being the success that DAO have achieved thus far.

Time will tell...

[Bratt1204]

Therumancer wrote...

Jasuke34 wrote...

I just want to say to the devs to keep their hearts up despite all the flak they are getting about the changes to DA2. While I admit I am a little concerned about the changes, I trust that Bioware will continue to make the same great games they always have. Don't get discourage because of all the flames you are receiving. You have made great games and you will continue to do so. Keep up the amazing work.

To everyone else, please support the devs. They work hard to provide us with awesome entertainment. Be glad that they are devoted to such excellence.

I don't mean to fill the forum with more clutter, but I felt that the devs need some support and encouragement after all the junk I have read people saying about them.

Once again, Keep up the amazing work devs!

 Actually, I don't think "we" want the Devs to keep their hearts up, but to abort this project and work on a proper sequel to "Dragon Age: Origins". If they are becoming disheartened, well... that's the point of feedback sometimes. My big fear right now is that the reaction to this news is going to be dismissed as general internet negativity, with people screaming about how this is somehow getting similar to the "No Mutants Allowed" schtick did for "Fallout".

 To put things into perspective, "Dragon Age: Origins" was a game that was popular for it's amazing depth of character customization, up to and including multiple origin stories for the character which was a really incredible thing. It was also a true RPG with stat allocation, and skill and abillity selection, even if it was not the deepest system of it's kind to ever be created. All of these things were praised by RPG fans. 

 From what has been said by the Devs, and there is no way to "misunderstand" these things the game is both being simplified, and character generation/selection is also being greatly limited. Neither of these things are good by the standards of most RPG players. 

 It should be noted that the simplification of "Mass Effect" in it's sequel was not an unmitigated success as is believed. Almost from the beginning there were tons of complaints from people who did not like the fact that they turned it into a slightly customizable shooter with a lot of cut scenes. While a good game, and one I would have tried at some point, as it was it was not something I would have budgeted money for so I could run right out and get a collector's edition on day #1. I am also far from being alone in this respect. 

 Bioware said a lot of the same things about "Mass Effect 2" while keeping the details close to their chest. A lot of people like me who took a "trust Bioware" approach wound up being seriously disappointed with the results. The game barely had any remaining RPG elements. They didn't improve itemization and inventory, they wound up removing it outright. Where the old vehicle sections were boring, they managed to both make hunting minerals MORE boring, and when they finally released vehicle sections (as a free download) they turned it into what amounts to a platformer where your doing presician jumping with your tank. Heck, with "Firewalker" you can't even save game during missions, which makes the thing like bloody "Mario Brothers" since dying makes you restart the level. Sorry, that is *NOT* an RPG. You might not want to believe me, but there are a LOT of people who think exactly like I do, and I think the backlash Bioware is receiving is a sign of this, and they are probably surprised by the vehemence
due to the simple fact that they managed to convince themselves that people really did universally love what they did with "Mass Effect 2" when it's simply not true. A lot of their sales were due to a level of trust and support of the "Bioware" name which has now taken a hit at least in the eyes of their RPG fans who are becoming considerably
more cynical. 

 At any rate I got the impression that "Dragon Age" was a bigger success than they anticipated. A lot of what they are doing with the "sequel" seems to be a rush job, justified by people's love of the simplification of "Mass Effect". I mean I don't think "Origins" is even a year old yet, and we still have DLC being made for it. This whole "Hawke" thing seems like a quick cash in project, I'd expect a proper sequel to "Origins" to take years to develop, and just what they have said so far shows that massive corners are apparently being cut compared to the original to make this relatively quick release practical. 

 A lot of fans have been wondering how "Bioware" could keep up the quality of their RPGs with so many balls in the air at once. I mean simultaneously developing for "Dragon Age", "Mass Effect", and a big-budget MMORPG is enough to strain anyone, especially if they decide to try and release something quickly. Simply put "Dragon Age 2" is a ball that is about to hit the ground... and really I think they need to grab it and get it on track. Everything from the somewhat limited concept to the reduced options to the simplified combat and character development is a strike against it, not in it's favor as Bioware seemed to think we'd take it. Sorry but having a voice actor does not equal all of the game play and RPG elements being removed... and heck, there is absolutly no reason why multiple voice actors could not be used based on differant origins and so on. Games like "Saint's Row 2" have hours of dialogue and had multiple voice actors doing everything for the main character, you'd select your character's Voice/VA as part of the customization process. There is no reason at all why the same cannot be done here. What's more anyone who claims voice actors are hugely expensive within these budgets is a bit mistaken, I've read stuff on voice actors who do Anime and computer games and such over the years (producing hours upon hours of material) and while they make a living at it, it doesn't seem like they are exactly cruising around in Lamborginis.... the point being that while the main character having a voice is not a bad thing, it is not so much of an advantage that it excuses all of these sacrifices, especially seeing as there is no reason to have one and only one "protaganist" voice actor.

 Basically my suggestion is that they should scrap "Hawke" and what they have so far entirely. I'm sure a lot of the assets in terms of voice, graphics, locations, etc... can be salvaged and built into another game which means they wouldn't be losing everything. The game is currently slotted for a release date in 8 months, this wouldn't be the first game to see a release date delay of a year or so, so add another year to this and aim for March of 2012 and produce a quallity sequel that genuinely follows in the footsteps of "Origins". 

 Bioware dropped their information for feedback, they got it, no cards they might be keeping close to their chest are likely to overcome the problems people have with what has been clearly stated so far. I think Bioware needs to stop acting all hurt because the feedback wasn't what they expected, and adapt to their customers.    


 

First of all - awesome post. I cannot agree with your sentiments more. Many DA:O players feel exactly the same as you do.

Hats off to your eloquence.

Modifié par Bratt1204, 19 juillet 2010 - 01:15 .

[_-Greywolf-_]

David Gaider wrote...

people fear change.

Dont give us that bull****. I support change especially if you guys decided to scrap the "Hero joins super awesome club and saves the world" storylines you seem so fond of and do something different for a change, I would welcome that change with open arms, I would support any change that I think could only make a game better. However the problems that most of us have with the changes you are making to DA2 is that we have seen these changes at work in 2 games released prior called Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2, if we diddnt like the changes in the Mass Effect games why the hell should we like them in DA2?

I have accepted that DA2 will not be the same as Origins and I will probably enjoy DA2 for what it is but dont try to feed us this "people fear change" bull****.

[WilliamShatner]

David Gaider wrote...

Jasuke34 wrote...
I just want to say to the devs to keep their hearts up despite all the flak they are getting about the changes to DA2. While I admit I am a little concerned about the changes, I trust that Bioware will continue to make the same great games they always have. Don't get discourage because of all the flames you are receiving. You have made great games and you will continue to do so. Keep up the amazing work.

To everyone else, please support the devs. They work hard to provide us with awesome entertainment. Be glad that they are devoted to such excellence.

I don't mean to fill the forum with more clutter, but I felt that the devs need some support and encouragement after all the junk I have read people saying about them.

Once again, Keep up the amazing work devs!

Thanks! Though I'll point out that

a) we're used to this.

people fear change.

c) not everyone's going to be on board as a result of (, especially here on these forums-- after all, the people who are most going to dislike any changes are those who liked everything exactly the way it was so much that they're hanging out on the game's forums many months after release, no? They're free to express their discontent, or wait to be convinced. It doesn't hurt our feelings.

But thank you for the vote of confidence.

What about when your company's games break our hearts?  Do you feel that or does it merely smash against your cold, stone heart? 

[_-Greywolf-_]

Morroian wrote...

So I take it The Witcher and Planescape Torment (both of whom have less customisation than even that described for DA2) are not true RPGs? Or even the Gothic RPGs IIRC.

Also the depth of customisation for DAO was not that great compared to some RPGs, Oblivion for example. 

Would you consider The Witcher and Gothic to be great RPGs? I cant speak for the Gothic series as I have only played the 3rd in the series (which was absolutely horrible) but while The Witcher was a very good RPG I would hardly class it among the best. Planescape Torment on the other hand is a totally different kettle of fish.

Sure Planescape Torment had less customization in terms of looks and background but then the Nameless One's looks and background were both vital to the plot, I wouldnt mind if DA2 had a predefined character that is vital to the plot however if Hawke is a character with shoes anyone could fill (like Shepard and Geralt) why cant we fill them with our own character? In Planescape Torment the story was focused around the Nameless One, the Nameless One is what made the story so interesting and the game so great, Planescape Torment wouldnt be the game it is today without the Nameless One.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Everytime someone brings up Planescape: Torment I must post



Onyx Jaguar approves +8

[thegoldfinch]

_-Greywolf-_ wrote...
... I wouldnt mind if DA2 had a predefined character that is vital to the plot however if Hawke is a character with shoes anyone could fill (like Shepard and Geralt) why cant we fill them with our own character?

You can fill in Hawke with your own character. The only parameters is that the character must be human. All that
"Hawke" is, as a protagonist, is a walking shell with a last name. Your role playing style should fill in the empty spaces to determine his or her personality. Or at least that's what Hawke should be - the marketing department wants to tell a different story sometimes, it seems.

I understand wanting more customization for the sequel. I seriously do. I mean, could only ever play a City Elf in DA:O because I love their lore and their look so much better than any other class and I hated - absolutely hated - playing as a human (It's a fantasy game! Who wants to be a boring old human when you could be a different species?) And no offense meant to anyone, but dwarf stumpiness has always been a huge turn off.

You get my point.

Although storytelling and budget-wise, I can understand the need to have this one human shell, rather than many shells of many races. I don't want to be putting words into anyones mouths, but I think I can safely assume that it is cheaper for the writers to write for just a human instead of three races when much of the budget is now going into VAs and presumably more animations/cinematics, which I am to undertand gets pricey. I can also probably assume that it gives them more time and leeway to focus on the overarching plot intricacies.

From what I have come to learn, it isn't the writers decision to make that single human 'shell' or have a VO rather than a silent protagonist. They have parameters to work within given from The Man, and I can dig that. It's a business. I'm sorry that people are upset, but I just personally value a fascinating story over very specific customization. As long as I can be a girl, I can sympathize with Hawke and her comrades, and I can get sucked into another awesome story, I'm happy and I can roll with the changes like I would with the black and oily waves at my beach.

And like I've said before, I'm way more confident in the Dragon Age team than I am in the Mass Effect one. They have proven in their first game and here on the boards that they are competant and skilled. Like, you know, they actually reads these things called "books" and stuff like that. The ME team... geez, I don't know. They can make scenary look pretty and very Hollywood, but their grasp of human nature and character development leaves much to be desired.

Modifié par pixieface, 19 juillet 2010 - 03:40 .

[Mike Laidlaw]

Therumancer et al, you make some excellent points, and I can understand why you're having your reaction. As I've said elsewhere, we have almost entirely talked about points of differentiation between Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age II thus far, largely because saying that "we were making the exact same game, and you don't need to worry about it!" would make all of you -very- angry later. So, to your point, this feedback was, actually, what we were expecting. I'm well aware that change is scary, because it's very possible that in changing things, we could screw them up. We certainly don't think we're doing so, but there's no real way to prove that to you, and so, we endure some angst. It's part of the job.



Nothing here is being ignored as "internet hate" (well, except for the obvious internet hate), but you have to accept that we do stand in a position of seeing a more complete view of the Dragon Age 2 product than you have at this point.



As such, we look (very closely, in fact) at the most pressing concerns and then we look at our design and make sure that, yes, when the game is on shelves the vast majority of those concerns will be addressed. We can't address them all right now. There's no way to know that the story of DA2 will rock until you play it, that's just the way of things.



Still, do I think the game is dumbed down and consolized? No. Do I think we are improving a lot of systems, and changing our approach to make a game that we, as a team, think is going to kick major ass, yet still feel like it's a Dragon Age game? Yes. For one example: I think our character progression is -more- complex than it was in Origins, but I also think it's better-presented. It's like having cake and eating it too.



Do I expect you to believe me on raw faith? Nope. Sadly there will be a window between announcement and release, just like every other game, where you simply won't know whether the cat is alive or dead. (http://en.wikipedia....roedinger's_Cat) Thing is, I really, really like cats, so you can expect us to do everything we can to keep that feline kicking. Of course, we could cheat, and put Ser Pouncealot in there, because we know Anders wouldn't let a damn thing happen to him. But I digress.



Maybe I'm wrong, and we should have just stapled 2 Archdemons together, let your character meet a mentor named "Tuncan" and knocked off early, but the simple truth is that's not the game I or the team wanted to make.



Also, WilliamShatner, Dave's heart is not made of stone. You're thinking Priestly.

[Collider]

You're thinking Priestly.

Priestly is my idol.

[Arttis]

Collider wrote...

You're thinking Priestly.

Priestly is my idol.

why?

[Onyx Jaguar]

This is what I like to see

[Roland Aseph]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Therumancer et al, you make some excellent points, and I can understand why you're having your reaction. As I've said elsewhere, we have almost entirely talked about points of differentiation between Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age II thus far, largely because saying that "we were making the exact same game, and you don't need to worry about it!" would make all of you -very- angry later. So, to your point, this feedback was, actually, what we were expecting. I'm well aware that change is scary, because it's very possible that in changing things, we could screw them up. We certainly don't think we're doing so, but there's no real way to prove that to you, and so, we endure some angst. It's part of the job.

Nothing here is being ignored as "internet hate" (well, except for the obvious internet hate), but you have to accept that we do stand in a position of seeing a more complete view of the Dragon Age 2 product than you have at this point.

As such, we look (very closely, in fact) at the most pressing concerns and then we look at our design and make sure that, yes, when the game is on shelves the vast majority of those concerns will be addressed. We can't address them all right now. There's no way to know that the story of DA2 will rock until you play it, that's just the way of things.

Still, do I think the game is dumbed down and consolized? No. Do I think we are improving a lot of systems, and changing our approach to make a game that we, as a team, think is going to kick major ass, yet still feel like it's a Dragon Age game? Yes. For one example: I think our character progression is -more- complex than it was in Origins, but I also think it's better-presented. It's like having cake and eating it too.

Do I expect you to believe me on raw faith? Nope. Sadly there will be a window between announcement and release, just like every other game, where you simply won't know whether the cat is alive or dead. (http://en.wikipedia....roedinger's_Cat) Thing is, I really, really like cats, so you can expect us to do everything we can to keep that feline kicking. Of course, we could cheat, and put Ser Pouncealot in there, because we know Anders wouldn't let a damn thing happen to him. But I digress.

Maybe I'm wrong, and we should have just stapled 2 Archdemons together, let your character meet a mentor named "Tuncan" and knocked off early, but the simple truth is that's not the game I or the team wanted to make.

Also, WilliamShatner, Dave's heart is not made of stone. You're thinking Priestly.

Thanks a lot Mike for your comments and reassurance!

I/we...hope for the best

[joriandrake]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
 It's like having cake and eating it too.

The cake is a lie!

[thegoldfinch]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Therumancer et al, you make some excellent points, and I can understand why you're having your reaction. As I've said elsewhere, we have almost entirely talked about points of differentiation between Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age II thus far, largely because saying that "we were making the exact same game, and you don't need to worry about it!" would make all of you -very- angry later. So, to your point, this feedback was, actually, what we were expecting. I'm well aware that change is scary, because it's very possible that in changing things, we could screw them up. We certainly don't think we're doing so, but there's no real way to prove that to you, and so, we endure some angst. It's part of the job.

Nothing here is being ignored as "internet hate" (well, except for the obvious internet hate), but you have to accept that we do stand in a position of seeing a more complete view of the Dragon Age 2 product than you have at this point.

As such, we look (very closely, in fact) at the most pressing concerns and then we look at our design and make sure that, yes, when the game is on shelves the vast majority of those concerns will be addressed. We can't address them all right now. There's no way to know that the story of DA2 will rock until you play it, that's just the way of things.

Still, do I think the game is dumbed down and consolized? No. Do I think we are improving a lot of systems, and changing our approach to make a game that we, as a team, think is going to kick major ass, yet still feel like it's a Dragon Age game? Yes. For one example: I think our character progression is -more- complex than it was in Origins, but I also think it's better-presented. It's like having cake and eating it too.

Do I expect you to believe me on raw faith? Nope. Sadly there will be a window between announcement and release, just like every other game, where you simply won't know whether the cat is alive or dead. (http://en.wikipedia....roedinger's_Cat) Thing is, I really, really like cats, so you can expect us to do everything we can to keep that feline kicking. Of course, we could cheat, and put Ser Pouncealot in there, because we know Anders wouldn't let a damn thing happen to him. But I digress.

Maybe I'm wrong, and we should have just stapled 2 Archdemons together, let your character meet a mentor named "Tuncan" and knocked off early, but the simple truth is that's not the game I or the team wanted to make.

Also, WilliamShatner, Dave's heart is not made of stone. You're thinking Priestly.

[Hayes1987]

The only concerns I have for this game is that the darkspawn appear to be different. I wouldn't have expected them to simply change in appearance like that. And since this begins while the first was being carried out they couldn't have evolved or anything. This really throws me off. Also, I play on a PS3 and I really hope that when I buy this game( I probably will no matter what ) I'm not playing Dragon May Cry 2. Everything else that we've been informed of is superb and I'm most excited for this game to release.

[errant_knight]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Therumancer et al, you make some excellent points, and I can understand why you're having your reaction. As I've said elsewhere, we have almost entirely talked about points of differentiation between Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age II thus far, largely because saying that "we were making the exact same game, and you don't need to worry about it!" would make all of you -very- angry later. So, to your point, this feedback was, actually, what we were expecting. I'm well aware that change is scary, because it's very possible that in changing things, we could screw them up. We certainly don't think we're doing so, but there's no real way to prove that to you, and so, we endure some angst. It's part of the job.

Nothing here is being ignored as "internet hate" (well, except for the obvious internet hate), but you have to accept that we do stand in a position of seeing a more complete view of the Dragon Age 2 product than you have at this point.

As such, we look (very closely, in fact) at the most pressing concerns and then we look at our design and make sure that, yes, when the game is on shelves the vast majority of those concerns will be addressed. We can't address them all right now. There's no way to know that the story of DA2 will rock until you play it, that's just the way of things.

Still, do I think the game is dumbed down and consolized? No. Do I think we are improving a lot of systems, and changing our approach to make a game that we, as a team, think is going to kick major ass, yet still feel like it's a Dragon Age game? Yes. For one example: I think our character progression is -more- complex than it was in Origins, but I also think it's better-presented. It's like having cake and eating it too.

Do I expect you to believe me on raw faith? Nope. Sadly there will be a window between announcement and release, just like every other game, where you simply won't know whether the cat is alive or dead. (http://en.wikipedia....roedinger's_Cat) Thing is, I really, really like cats, so you can expect us to do everything we can to keep that feline kicking. Of course, we could cheat, and put Ser Pouncealot in there, because we know Anders wouldn't let a damn thing happen to him. But I digress.

Maybe I'm wrong, and we should have just stapled 2 Archdemons together, let your character meet a mentor named "Tuncan" and knocked off early, but the simple truth is that's not the game I or the team wanted to make.

Also, WilliamShatner, Dave's heart is not made of stone. You're thinking Priestly.

You get HUGE points for the Schroedinger's cat reference. Huge. Especially since it's such a good analogy.

[JediHealerCosmin]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Dave's heart is not made of stone. You're thinking Priestly.

Oh c'mon, I'm sure the man has pet a kitten at least once in his life

[TheMadCat]

Nothing here is being ignored as "internet hate" (well, except for the
obvious internet hate), but you have to accept that we do stand in a
position of seeing a more complete view of the Dragon Age 2 product than
you have at this point.

At the same time though you fine folks ar also in a position of bias. Obviously none of you are going to come here and say "We didn't like this and that idea but did it anyways" or "That really doesn't work well, but it was a necessary change to broaden appeal". You guys and gals spend countless hours developing these games and it'd be unnatural to think anything negative about it, I mean even the developers of some of the crappiest games ever created say they love it and thoroughly enjoy their products, even though those of us with a much lower emotional attachment realize otherwise. So while you've obviously got a much broader view of what DA2 truly is, it's also going to be skewed in favor of it and at least for me personally it makes any developer affirmations about sketchy features a bit tough to swallow.

I'm kind of surprised about how uninformative the announcement was though, bunch of genericly phrased features and a little exclusive that raised more questions then it led to answers. Nothing shown to affirm any stance really.

Modifié par TheMadCat, 19 juillet 2010 - 04:48 .

[DOYOURLABS]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Therumancer et al, you make some excellent points, and I can understand why you're having your reaction. As I've said elsewhere, we have almost entirely talked about points of differentiation between Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age II thus far, largely because saying that "we were making the exact same game, and you don't need to worry about it!" would make all of you -very- angry later. So, to your point, this feedback was, actually, what we were expecting. I'm well aware that change is scary, because it's very possible that in changing things, we could screw them up. We certainly don't think we're doing so, but there's no real way to prove that to you, and so, we endure some angst. It's part of the job.

Nothing here is being ignored as "internet hate" (well, except for the obvious internet hate), but you have to accept that we do stand in a position of seeing a more complete view of the Dragon Age 2 product than you have at this point.

As such, we look (very closely, in fact) at the most pressing concerns and then we look at our design and make sure that, yes, when the game is on shelves the vast majority of those concerns will be addressed. We can't address them all right now. There's no way to know that the story of DA2 will rock until you play it, that's just the way of things.

Still, do I think the game is dumbed down and consolized? No. Do I think we are improving a lot of systems, and changing our approach to make a game that we, as a team, think is going to kick major ass, yet still feel like it's a Dragon Age game? Yes. For one example: I think our character progression is -more- complex than it was in Origins, but I also think it's better-presented. It's like having cake and eating it too.

Do I expect you to believe me on raw faith? Nope. Sadly there will be a window between announcement and release, just like every other game, where you simply won't know whether the cat is alive or dead. (http://en.wikipedia....roedinger's_Cat) Thing is, I really, really like cats, so you can expect us to do everything we can to keep that feline kicking. Of course, we could cheat, and put Ser Pouncealot in there, because we know Anders wouldn't let a damn thing happen to him. But I digress.

Maybe I'm wrong, and we should have just stapled 2 Archdemons together, let your character meet a mentor named "Tuncan" and knocked off early, but the simple truth is that's not the game I or the team wanted to make.

Also, WilliamShatner, Dave's heart is not made of stone. You're thinking Priestly.

Why can't the mass effect forums get employees this cool? All we have is priestly and woo 

[WilliamShatner]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Therumancer et al, you make some excellent points, and I can understand why you're having your reaction. As I've said elsewhere, we have almost entirely talked about points of differentiation between Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age II thus far, largely because saying that "we were making the exact same game, and you don't need to worry about it!" would make all of you -very- angry later. So, to your point, this feedback was, actually, what we were expecting. I'm well aware that change is scary, because it's very possible that in changing things, we could screw them up. We certainly don't think we're doing so, but there's no real way to prove that to you, and so, we endure some angst. It's part of the job.

Nothing here is being ignored as "internet hate" (well, except for the obvious internet hate), but you have to accept that we do stand in a position of seeing a more complete view of the Dragon Age 2 product than you have at this point.

As such, we look (very closely, in fact) at the most pressing concerns and then we look at our design and make sure that, yes, when the game is on shelves the vast majority of those concerns will be addressed. We can't address them all right now. There's no way to know that the story of DA2 will rock until you play it, that's just the way of things.

Still, do I think the game is dumbed down and consolized? No. Do I think we are improving a lot of systems, and changing our approach to make a game that we, as a team, think is going to kick major ass, yet still feel like it's a Dragon Age game? Yes. For one example: I think our character progression is -more- complex than it was in Origins, but I also think it's better-presented. It's like having cake and eating it too.

Do I expect you to believe me on raw faith? Nope. Sadly there will be a window between announcement and release, just like every other game, where you simply won't know whether the cat is alive or dead. (http://en.wikipedia....roedinger's_Cat) Thing is, I really, really like cats, so you can expect us to do everything we can to keep that feline kicking. Of course, we could cheat, and put Ser Pouncealot in there, because we know Anders wouldn't let a damn thing happen to him. But I digress.

Maybe I'm wrong, and we should have just stapled 2 Archdemons together, let your character meet a mentor named "Tuncan" and knocked off early, but the simple truth is that's not the game I or the team wanted to make.

Also, WilliamShatner, Dave's heart is not made of stone. You're thinking Priestly.

Now I know game companies live in a fantasy world where the laws of common sense come and go as they like but there were several things you (as in your company, or those in charge of this announcement) could have to to put out the fire on a great deal of the concern from the get go.  For example, you had to know these changes would be controversial so why not reveal them with gameplay videos?  Show how they improve the game.  If the game is as "kick-ass" as you say it is surely that would sway a lot of people to your side?

An announcement with lots of controversial changes with no evidence of how they will improve the game seems like an extremely bad promotion to me - as the fairly negative reaction would back up.

[Collider]

Arttis wrote...

Collider wrote...

You're thinking Priestly.

Priestly is my idol.

why?

Because he's funny as hell.

[AntiChri5]

WilliamShatner wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Therumancer et al, you make some excellent points, and I can understand why you're having your reaction. As I've said elsewhere, we have almost entirely talked about points of differentiation between Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age II thus far, largely because saying that "we were making the exact same game, and you don't need to worry about it!" would make all of you -very- angry later. So, to your point, this feedback was, actually, what we were expecting. I'm well aware that change is scary, because it's very possible that in changing things, we could screw them up. We certainly don't think we're doing so, but there's no real way to prove that to you, and so, we endure some angst. It's part of the job.

Nothing here is being ignored as "internet hate" (well, except for the obvious internet hate), but you have to accept that we do stand in a position of seeing a more complete view of the Dragon Age 2 product than you have at this point.

As such, we look (very closely, in fact) at the most pressing concerns and then we look at our design and make sure that, yes, when the game is on shelves the vast majority of those concerns will be addressed. We can't address them all right now. There's no way to know that the story of DA2 will rock until you play it, that's just the way of things.

Still, do I think the game is dumbed down and consolized? No. Do I think we are improving a lot of systems, and changing our approach to make a game that we, as a team, think is going to kick major ass, yet still feel like it's a Dragon Age game? Yes. For one example: I think our character progression is -more- complex than it was in Origins, but I also think it's better-presented. It's like having cake and eating it too.

Do I expect you to believe me on raw faith? Nope. Sadly there will be a window between announcement and release, just like every other game, where you simply won't know whether the cat is alive or dead. (http://en.wikipedia....roedinger's_Cat) Thing is, I really, really like cats, so you can expect us to do everything we can to keep that feline kicking. Of course, we could cheat, and put Ser Pouncealot in there, because we know Anders wouldn't let a damn thing happen to him. But I digress.

Maybe I'm wrong, and we should have just stapled 2 Archdemons together, let your character meet a mentor named "Tuncan" and knocked off early, but the simple truth is that's not the game I or the team wanted to make.

Also, WilliamShatner, Dave's heart is not made of stone. You're thinking Priestly.

Now I know game companies live in a fantasy world where the laws of common sense come and go as they like but there were several things you (as in your company, or those in charge of this announcement) could have to to put out the fire on a great deal of the concern from the get go.  For example, you had to know these changes would be controversial so why not reveal them with gameplay videos?  Show how they improve the game.  If the game is as "kick-ass" as you say it is surely that would sway a lot of people to your side?

An announcement with lots of controversial changes with no evidence of how they will improve the game seems like an extremely bad promotion to me - as the fairly negative reaction would back up.

They let us tire ourselves out with ragefull hating (get it out of our system) and then come along with our favourite passifier later on and we are just so gosh darn gratefull.

All this hate is exactly what they foresaw.

You are playing right into their hands........

[Terror_K]

I wouldn't have as much of a problem if there were an in-universe explanation as to why the appearance of the darkspawn has changed so much (e.g. an experiment from The Architect with a virus changed the darkspawn somehow but not in the way intended.) but all we've been told is that "the lead artist changed" and "we listened to a bunch of whiners saying it was too close to PJ's LotR" etc.



As it stands, the game just no longer looks or feels like Dragon Age to me at may as well be a new IP.

[Arttis]

What does IP mean?