87 réponses à ce sujet

[derkaderka-]

i've decided to play dao once again on nightmare setting, just to kill some time and get my mind off these announcements. looking at dao now, I would like to see a beter character creation. those voice options in character creation for dao were pretty bad. i'm not against voice acting, but i hope bioware doesnt cut rpg elements like me2 did from me1. they dumbed down the loot, inventory management, leveling / xp system, etc... for me i need some footage of this dialogue wheel, but i'm definitely not happy about it because it means if i want to appreciate the writing i have to save and reload several times to see it.

Modifié par derkaderka-, 26 juillet 2010 - 04:04 .

[Sidney]

Addai67 wrote...

1. The fact that you have X number of options isn't the point.  It is "dumbed down" that people don't want to have to think about the actual wording of their response, rather than pointing at a little picture.  "Hawke happy now!"  "Hawke fight!"  I wonder if they test the icons on monkeys using flash cards.  Heh.

2. So babysitting the imagination by imposing a voice actor onto my character is an unnecessary and unwelcome intrusion in my book.  If I could customize the voice and intonation as easily as I can the appearance of my character, I could accept this as a good development.  Naturally, that's not going to happen.

Goes to limiting RP choices.  Again, if you were actually trying to understand the critics' POV rather than trying to be cute... well, I guess you'd have nothing to post about.

I've tried to understabnd the luddites but I've given up they are so hidebound they've ceased to make any sense. They bleat about in forums where they know they'll be largely unchallenged and can make statemtns that have no bearing on reality.

1. You still don't think about the actual wording in DAO. You read it. That is still a passive process. People act like they create dialog in DAO and they undeniably do not. Someone else thought about it and all those words are are masks for : Good, Evil Neutral answers in almost every case. You don't pick from a variety of good answers you pick the "good" answer. Again, if you feel that trying to sort out good and bad from "I'll help you poor peasant" vs  "Sorry, weak people should die" is an intellectual action then so be it.

2. No that would be ideal but in the world of things to cry about it shouldn't even rate. The voice is imposed on you but it doesn't affect your character. You didn't choose your voice. I don't mean some character I mean your own voice that comes out of your mouth. You are still you, that voice didn't determine your character. Your character is about the choices and decisions you make not about things like appearnace and voice that you had zero control over. Apparently life is a really limiting RPG. :happy:

3. Being an elf or not doesn't limit choices. Why does it have to? I have 3 races in DAO and other than some small options in the origins it has no effect on the rest of the game other than, as a mentioned, a few throw away dialog lines? You can be a inch deep and a mile wide by having a ton of races or you can be an inch wide and a mile deep. I prefer the latter. There's nothing about few race choices that limits your ability to make deciions and choices.

Adventure gaming your character has no effect on the world. In an RPG your character should have a major effect on the world. Changing color schemes in Assasin's Creed and picking armor and weapons doesn't make that an RPG nor does having leveling make Bioshock an RPG.  Your character must be able to make distinct and (hopefully) meaningful choices and as long as that is preserved then the rest is just cosmetics.

[In Exile]

Telum101 wrote...
I understand a need to evolve with sequels, but with the information we have of DA2, it seems less like evolving or expanding on the game, and more like going off on a tangent. I'd like to know why Bioware thought it was necessary to change, rather than improve. Why Bioware wanted DA2 to be a story told to us, rather than improving the simple RPG approach of DA:O. Why Bioware wanted to change the graphics and art style to appear more 'cartoon-ish'.

The problem, when you're sitting in a boardroom at talking about how to improve on a product, is that you need to identify what it is that made your product succesful and made it have commercial appeal.

Was it that the Dragon Age setting was what drew players to it, as it provided a new and brilliant fantasy environment that could take advantage of the commercial success of LoTR, WoW, etc? Was it that some gameplay features were not D&D, but rather similar to MMOs on the PC, and that drew players to it? Was it that there was a silent PC? Was it the variability in player design?

You start doing market research, you generate hypotheses, and you look toward what direction you can take your franchise to make it more succesful.

I think the fundamental issue, which seems just incomprehensible to a lot on this board, is that Bioware legitimately feels that the direction of DA2 is superior to DAO.

Look at the games they've made: BG/BG2, NWN, KoTOR, JE, ME, DA. BG/BG2 were single player campaign driven RPGs in a vein similar to IWD, but instead of just having a player created party, they drove storytelling to further and further heights. BG2 compared to BG was far more story driven; it was frankly a major success completely unlike pS:T because it had fun gameplay and a decent (if IMO inferior) story.  NWN went in the opposite direction and had no story (really) and no singleplayer campaign until Hordes of the Underdark and Shadows of Urentide.

But after that, independent of gameplay features (no isometric combat in KoTOR as a console game, human-only protagonist; action RPG in JE, when Bioware could design whatever game they wanted after KoTOR). ME was a project Bioware started before they were owned by EA, and it went right in the vein of JE. Action versus tactical combat, story driven and a tight protagonist and VO.

People talk about Bioware as if BG/BG2 is what defines them, and I understand that to some fans it does, but Bioware's design history is just very different than that. They're always switching gears and playing around with the direction of their IPs.

I'm not saying DA2 will be bad, or that the direction Bioware is heading is wrong but as I understand, DA:O was quite successful as it is, so I don't see much of a reason to change it so dramatically.

BG was succesful, but BG2 took a fair number of BG features in return for a much tigher, much more scripted narrative (including overriding your choices at the end of BG re: your party).

[BallaZs]

I like the way where DA2 is heading.

Voicing the character will make him/her look more realistic.

There would be no point to pull the Warden's story through DA2. It would be strained. His/her time downgraded. I understand that many are emotionally connected to their character, but c'mon, u'll have ur chance to make a new 1, even if he/she only can be a human.

And the flips... Didn't Alistar made unbeliveable moves on the Dragon's head while he made the finsihing move? Theres no way he could stay on it's head. That flip is nothing compared to that.

Peolple fear change, but try to be open minded.

[In Exile]

[quote]Gatt9 wrote...

Seriously,  there's something horribly wrong when you've gotta label your dialogue to tell people if they saying nice or mean stuff.  That's pretty much the definition of "Dumbed down".  Don't even bother reading it,  just look for the little olive branch symbol and click it. [/quote]

So people say - the dialogue wheel is poor implementation, I can never predict what the tone is. That wrecks roleplay! Bioware: we will add indicators for tone, so that beyond the context in the paraphrase, you will also know the tone which the line is said, so you will not be surprised by the action. Fans: OMGWTFBBQQ!!! U R TEH DUMBING

[quote[Sounds like you may want to reflect on whether or not you like RPGs,  or if what you actually prefer is an Adventure Game.  They're two distinct genres,  but one doesn't have the classes and levels you are disenfranchised with.[/quote]

It's good that you descendent from Mt.Sinai with the 10 Commandments of RPGs to let us to which features are decreed by divine fiat to be RPG-like and which are not. I particularly recall how Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, lacking levels, was not an RPG at all, despite the incredible quest lines, multiple solutions, multiple origins...

Yup, you're a divine arbiter.

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...
Once again, adventures in missing the point.  It is discouraging- incredible, even- to read Bioware devs talk about the DAO protagonist as having no more reaction to the Blight than a raised eyebrow.  As if they don't realize what roleplaying IS.  The options shown us in the game, whether text or video, are simply a spur to the creativity of the player, hinges to hang your creativity on, not the whole sum of the story.  I don't need to see it on the screen to know that my Warden cried, raged, loved, that her bowels turned to water facing a horde of enemies, or any number of other things that I never actually saw either in text or animation.

It's awesome that you think the game happens in your head, but for those of us who are a little more in tune with physical reality, we want our games to reflect that.

It's awesome you want to play with Lego blocks and use your imagination. Some of us pay money for video-games to play videogames.

Otherwise they could just sent us clay figures and a script, and we'd absolutely be in the same place but for $50 cheaper.

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
Once again, adventures in missing the point.  It is discouraging- incredible, even- to read Bioware devs talk about the DAO protagonist as having no more reaction to the Blight than a raised eyebrow.  As if they don't realize what roleplaying IS.  The options shown us in the game, whether text or video, are simply a spur to the creativity of the player, hinges to hang your creativity on, not the whole sum of the story.  I don't need to see it on the screen to know that my Warden cried, raged, loved, that her bowels turned to water facing a horde of enemies, or any number of other things that I never actually saw either in text or animation.

It's awesome that you think the game happens in your head, but for those of us who are a little more in tune with physical reality, we want our games to reflect that.

It's awesome you want to play with Lego blocks and use your imagination. Some of us pay money for video-games to play videogames.

Otherwise they could just sent us clay figures and a script, and we'd absolutely be in the same place but for $50 cheaper.

Hey, you do empty cynicism really well.

[Addai]

BallaZs wrote...

Peolple fear change

I'm going to make a drinking game out of how many times we see that phrase in this forum.

Modifié par Addai67, 26 juillet 2010 - 04:45 .

[gingerbill]

Captain Crash wrote...

I trust Bioware,

I remember flipping out when I learnt ME2 was less RPG and more shooter. In fact I flipped out big time. They pulled it off though. So much so that were seeing some of those changes come into Dragon Age. Although I admit some of the things I have seen have me nervous.

i agree with this .

people blaming consoles make me laugh , first they moaned about DAO , Now they moan they want DA2 to be exactly like DAO and if its not exactly like how they want , 'blame the consoles' .

Also it's been heavily hinted by the devs that hawke is somehow unique and the reason we play him . So if thats what the story is about it makes sense you can only play hawke.

Modifié par gingerbill, 26 juillet 2010 - 04:49 .

[Herr Uhl]

gingerbill wrote...

Captain Crash wrote...

I trust Bioware,

I remember flipping out when I learnt ME2 was less RPG and more shooter. In fact I flipped out big time. They pulled it off though. So much so that were seeing some of those changes come into Dragon Age. Although I admit some of the things I have seen have me nervous.

i agree with this .

people blaming consoles make me laugh , first they moaned about DAO , Now they moan they want DA2 to be exactly like DAO and if its not exactly like how they want , 'blame the consoles' .

The difference is that the "they" have changed to another "they".

[KristofCoulson]

I'm happy as long as my Hawke warrior can wield a two-handed sword and not make me wince at ugly or embarrassing animations. I like the look of the two-handed sword he's holding in the released pictures!

[Behindyounow]

Bratt1204 wrote...

Telum101 wrote...

Why not do the same with the characters we are attached to? Warden did the ultimate sacrifice? Use magic! You did it with Shepard. The point is, our wardens still have another 20 or so years(?) to do something interesting, and it would surely feel much more like a sequel if we were able to expand on the dragon age as it is, rather than rewriting it.

I could not agree with you more. This DA:2 will not be a sequel to DA:O  but an entirely new game.  It's a real shame that this is the direction Bioware is going, although I am not surprised. It always seem that whenever a really fantastic, epic game is released all of the expansion and follow up material is just not worthwhile. Although DA:2 may be an entertaining game on its own, I doubt it will have any true continuity with DA:O and will tremendously disappoint those who were hoping to have some continuation and closure to their Warden's storyline. There seemed to have been so much storyline to expand upon (with our Warden who did not do the US) that I just cannot believe creating an entirely new character and storyline would be the best choice for a sequel 

But why? Whats the point of carrying on playing as a Warden when the focus of the game isn't fighting Darkspawn?

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...
Hey, you do empty cynicism really well.

Not quite sure I get the comment.

I do apologize for being snarky, but I just find this notion that video-games are supposed to happen in your imagination very, very annoying. To me, that's absolutely the worst of both worlds. I love using my imagination as a creative force. Writing, day-dreaming scenarios, etc. It's all great fun. What isn't fun is when you have limits on it, in particular limits decided by the A-B filler. What I mean is, in a game all you can use your imagination for is to fill in some event between two fixed poinst. And that's restrictive, and not fun.

Which is why I happen to want my videogames to reflect reality. If it doesn't happen on screen, then it doesn't happen.

[AllThatJazz]

Ildaron wrote...

AllThatJazz wrote...

Telum101 wrote...

So as the title says, It would be nice if we could get an official response for why there have been so many changes. If there's another thread like this, forgive me, but I Haven't seen it.

Firstly, this isn't really a QQ thread (though I'm mostly against all the information we've heard so far), so I'd prefer if the trolls to go elsewhere, and before anyone goes ahead and says "We don't have enough information yet", I'm going to list the changes that I would like an answer for. Feel free to argue with anything I say (constructively of course), or add to my points.

1. Silent protaganist swapped out for voiced, 'pre-set' character: I understand that you (Bioware) probably wanted to show us the dragon age from a different perspective, but I don't see why he/she has to be so 'predefined' in comparison to our wardens. Going from a silent and diverse character who actuall, and then to Hawke, a character from a story that will be told to us doesn't exactly scream 'sequel' to me, and on that note...


To be honest, I felt very connected to my voiced Shepard/Geralt/Michael Thorton. Playing Origins after ME1 felt strange, as though my character was a bit passive, mute in this story she was supposedly the heroine of. As long as there isn't too much of a trade-off between voice acting and game content (and we don't know enough yet to make a supposition), I'm okay with it. And as far as the preset thing goes, I can still choose gender, appearance, class, presumably sexual preference and most importantly, my Hawke's morality. I don't see how having a narrator interjecting every so often changes this 

2. Entirely different story: A lot of people have said that the wardens' story is finished, but the fact is, with Hawke, you're writing a new story from scratch (I'd hope so). Why not do the same with the characters we are attached to? Warden did the ultimate sacrifice? Use magic! You did it with Shepard. The point is, our wardens still have another 20 or so years(?) to do something interesting, and it would surely feel much more like a sequel if we were able to expand on the dragon age as it is, rather than rewriting it.

Perhaps for some who did the US, doing a Shepard on the Warden would cheapen the sacrifice that they had their character make, rendering it completely meaningless in fact. There's also the fact that, while yes, there are more stories that could be told about the Warden, and he/she is by no means irrelevant, the main point of a Grey Warden is to defeat Archdemons. Which means that DA2 would kind of have to mainly be about Blights/Archdemons/Darkspawn, in order to give the Warden real purpose. I already have that game. And I don't believe anyone is rewriting the Dragon Age. No-one (ie the Devs) ever said that the whole DA universe revolves around Wardens. They're just part of it - an important, fascinating and fabulous part, to be sure, but there are other stories to be told, and I want those too, rather than lots of stories about the same character/organisation. Thedas is an interesting place, I'd like to explore it through different eyes.

3. New art style: Again, going from a dark fantasy style to having Hawke doing flips around sad humans with skin diseases on the surface of the sun (ok maybe that's a tiny bit exaggerated) isn't what I'd expect in a sequel. Forgive me for being a bit offensive here, but please get rid of the person who thought spikes coming out of everyones' chests would be a good idea. It looks absolutely terrible and impractical.

On this, I don't have much of an opinion. Origins looked okay. DA2 so far looks ... okay. Though Bethany's cute, fire is pretty and the ManBeard is Awesome.

That's actually all I have right now. Other features like the dialogue wheel and alleged simplified combat don't really appeal to me either, but I think those fit in with point 1.

Are all these changes a decision to market to a different audience? experimenting with something new? is the game being rushed out? was DA:O not successful enough? Some official response would be much appreciated.

Obviously I'm not an official person. I'd guess, though, that because they're telling a different story with a different kind of focus, they've decided to tell it in a different way is all. And since ME is so darned popular, they're using some of the bits they like best from those games and seeing how they work in DA. I'm all for experimentation - and if it doesn't work as well as Bio hoped, they can always return to their .. er .. Origins (see whut I done thar?) for DA3. No harm, no foul.

Just my opinions, obviously, and not disrespecting yours or anyone else's 

However for me there is plenty harm and foul. If a gameline doesn't support the sort of game I want to play I play something else. I play other series. I move on and do other things. I do not have a money tree and I spend my money on things I consider to be valuable. At best DA2 will be a bargain bin game for me. It does not seem all that interesting, however by the time it drops down low enough in price, Fable II may be on the PC (or I might purchase an Xbox for it finally.)

That is the thing for me. I already have an action/RPG line I enjoy. I will not jump ship and switch because it has a DA or Bioware logo on it. If Bioware creates the sort of games I enjoy (RPG) I'll buy them. If not I'll search for and buy pure RPGs from other companies.

I'd imagine these things (in bold) are true for most people. What I was getting at is that if  DA2 isn't to many people's liking, and sells less well than Origins as a result, or succeeds in alienating existing fans, then Bio may go back to their original format with the next game in the franchise (and I'm pretty sure that DA2 will sell well enough for there to be a DA3). Then you can decide whether to buy that game based on its attributes. Or are you saying that because DA2 isn't to your tastes, then the entire series is kaput for you?

Frankly, even if DA2 is a phenomenal success, Bio may do something completely different again with DA3. Dragon Age Tetris, for example. Uncover naked pictures of Morrigan, Leliana, and all your Dragon Age favourites! I wouldn't like it, no. Would it sell? Sigh. Probably. 

[Addai]

Sidney wrote...

1. You still don't think about the actual wording in DAO. You read it. That is still a passive process. People act like they create dialog in DAO and they undeniably do not. Someone else thought about it and all those words are are masks for : Good, Evil Neutral answers in almost every case. You don't pick from a variety of good answers you pick the "good" answer. Again, if you feel that trying to sort out good and bad from "I'll help you poor peasant" vs  "Sorry, weak people should die" is an intellectual action then so be it.

DAO was dumb, so let's make the sequel even dumber?

You don't need to take "the Luddites'" word for it, BTW.  It's the devs who said that they're changing the dialogue system because of all that pesky "reading and analyzing" you had to do in Origins.

2. No that would be ideal but in the world of things to cry about it shouldn't even rate. The voice is imposed on you but it doesn't affect your character. You didn't choose your voice. I don't mean some character I mean your own voice that comes out of your mouth. You are still you, that voice didn't determine your character. Your character is about the choices and decisions you make not about things like appearnace and voice that you had zero control over. Apparently life is a really limiting RPG. :happy:

Sure, I didn't choose my own physical voice.  And I play a roleplaying game so that I can exactly replicate the limiting experience of my everyday life...

I'm so looking forward to "Gods of the Cubicle III".  LOL

3. Being an elf or not doesn't limit choices. Why does it have to? I have 3 races in DAO and other than some small options in the origins it has no effect on the rest of the game other than, as a mentioned, a few throw away dialog lines? You can be a inch deep and a mile wide by having a ton of races or you can be an inch wide and a mile deep. I prefer the latter. There's nothing about few race choices that limits your ability to make deciions and choices.

Again, if all you go by in creating and fleshing out a character is what the game gives you, I can see why it would make no difference to you whether you could play an elf or a human.

Adventure gaming your character has no effect on the world. In an RPG your character should have a major effect on the world. Changing color schemes in Assasin's Creed and picking armor and weapons doesn't make that an RPG nor does having leveling make Bioshock an RPG.  Your character must be able to make distinct and (hopefully) meaningful choices and as long as that is preserved then the rest is just cosmetics.

What you're saying is that characterization is irrelevant to a story and plot is the only thing that matters.  I fall in love with characters in stories because of the "cosmetics."  That is what makes them three-dimensional.

[Solid N7]

"Hardcore" fans are selfish lil whiners who want the same thing the same way forever and will cry & cry hope'n to get their way, progress and sales numbers will always dictate things, not crying on a forum

[Marionetten]

gingerbill wrote...

people blaming consoles make me laugh

They are right though.

Most of the changes are being made to accomodate the consoles.

Modifié par Marionetten, 26 juillet 2010 - 04:59 .

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
Hey, you do empty cynicism really well.

Not quite sure I get the comment.

I do apologize for being snarky, but I just find this notion that video-games are supposed to happen in your imagination very, very annoying. To me, that's absolutely the worst of both worlds. I love using my imagination as a creative force. Writing, day-dreaming scenarios, etc. It's all great fun. What isn't fun is when you have limits on it, in particular limits decided by the A-B filler. What I mean is, in a game all you can use your imagination for is to fill in some event between two fixed poinst. And that's restrictive, and not fun.

Which is why I happen to want my videogames to reflect reality. If it doesn't happen on screen, then it doesn't happen.

Do you routinely encounter wizards and dragons in your physical reality?

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...
People talk about Bioware as if BG/BG2 is what defines them, and I understand that to some fans it does, but Bioware's design history is just very different than that. They're always switching gears and playing around with the direction of their IPs.

This is Bio's own fault, thanks to that "spiritual successor" line. I've said this before, but I think there's a disconnect between how Bio sees BG and how some of the self-described BG fans see it. BG is a big, successful A-list game to them, not a niche product for a niche market.

[TheSeeker2654]

Actually, if you read the new GI you will see they are keeping the tactical side of things, and in some instances actually beefing up the tactics. For instance, in the first game there were very few combinations of powers that you could use. In this one you will be able to do a sunder armor then immediately do a rogue backstab and the damage from that is greater then if you just did those two seperately and not combined in a single moment.



It sounds like they ARE getting rid of some of the more useless and superfluous spells and abilities, but in response they are making the spells and abilities they are keeping more customizable. So you could tailor your Fireball spell to be very different then mine to suit your play style. At least thats the way they explained it in the GI magazine.

[AlanC9]

Marionetten wrote...
They are right though.

Most of the changes are being made to accomodate the consoles.

Really? A voiced protagonist is for the consoles? A defined protagonist is for the consoles?

The new combat system is for the consoles, true, but since that's only for the consoles, who the hell cares?

[Marionetten]

AlanC9 wrote...

Really? A voiced protagonist is for the consoles? A defined protagonist is for the consoles?

Most of those complaints did stem from console players. Dragon Age: Origins was more or less universally praised by PC gamers while the console gamers commented on how it looked outdated and how the silent protagonist just wasn't believable.

Do note that I'm generalizing here.  I full well realize that a lot of console gamers are unhappy with these changes.

AlanC9 wrote...

The new combat system is for the consoles, true, but since that's only for the consoles, who the hell cares?

The few console gamers who enjoyed Dragon Age: Origins for what it was?

There's also plenty of zots being wasted here.  Zots which could have been spent on horses and cloaks.

Modifié par Marionetten, 26 juillet 2010 - 05:09 .

[TheSeeker2654]

AlanC9 wrote...

Marionetten wrote...
They are right though.

Most of the changes are being made to accomodate the consoles.

Really? A voiced protagonist is for the consoles? A defined protagonist is for the consoles?

The new combat system is for the consoles, true, but since that's only for the consoles, who the hell cares?

All the doubters need to read the new GI. I think you guys are misreading or misinterpreting some statements. Yes, the consoles will have a different engine. But the functional differences will be few. Tactical combat is still in consoles because of combinations of spells and abilities. You can still level up and progress your guys the same as the PC version which adds to tactics obviously. You cans till change the char you are controlling same as pc. The big difference is camera angle and responsiveness. It soundsl ike they are just changing the console verison to be a more responsive version. So they when you go to choose a move they do the move and a fluid, lifelike manner. so that the fighting is more responsive and fluid. Tactics come from combinations and level/outfitting your guys. And also in tweakign the tactics system, which better still be present in DA2.

[McHoger]

Seems to me the majority of PC Gamers derided it for not being Baldur's Gate 3.

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...
Do you routinely encounter wizards and dragons in your physical reality?

Do you routinely have events happen exclusively in your head?