1133 réponses à ce sujet

[Novadove]

yeah, try changing your ME, DA character to mickey mouse and see anyone of you will start playing.





and to stanley, good job on using batman as an example.



i want to point out that change is good and is definitely correct. However, your example is not an apple to apple comparism. You guys want to change it for better but neglect to see 2 very important factors.



First is WHY do you want a change.

Second is HOW can it be changed.



Every time i watch superhero movies, my 1st impression is i am going to see the same guy flying around with his underwear on his head for the 10th year.



However, WHY is it that they never change after 10 years?

The answer is NO, they do not change, reasons being their identity will be gone.



What changed, is their alter ego circus suit. They were made from table cloth to synbiotitaniummetamollecular materials because technology ADVANCED.



Bear in mind the colour does not change.



Spider man trys to change to black but eventually went back to red for a reason.



DA2 lacks the solid founding reason to change from DA1 to current artstyle.



Changes is good, what you say is true, but i feel it is not relevant here. Staying on the topic, even tho ME1 and ME2 has streamline inventory or minimal/maximal RPG, to me IT IS FINE simply because they are CONSISTENT throughout from 1 to 2.



You dont start with ME1 then in ME2 suddenly changed to NWN or BG structure.



now, DA1 to DA2 changes for no reason. whatever reason there is, it is not justifiable, dont even compare to the batman example you give. the entire comparison is not apple to apple and is rather misleading.



So, How is it going to change?



very sorry, i do not know how you want to changed an already perfect marketing product.

Bring the product to a whole new level is not the same as changing to another direction.

[filetemo]

relhart wrote...

filetemo wrote...

people who voices loudly their discomfort are the ones that make designers rethink their steps, as much as they say it doesn't. A bunch of yes-sir people would eat any crap presented at them, because they do not care or do not know what they like.Thanks to this people we have Madden games and NBA games every year. If you do not care about dragon age being bastardized, go ahead. I'll stay here till they ban me because their character is as theirs than mine for me and because I'll point at them at whatever lie I think they say.

Specially pathetic are the forum posters who cheered the post of Woo like their elder brother came to save them from a bully.Argue for yourselves.

You've obviously never created anything in your life.  Try writing a novel and then tell me how hard you start laughing at the random forum nobody that shows up and tries telling you what you can and can't do with the sequel.

if I wanted to create crazy spinoffs, I'd do fanfiction. But I, as a fan, I'm more entitled to say what is right and wrong than a paid writer who has no interest in Batman, who is commanded by a DC exec who tells him, "change Batman totally! we need to sell more and attract people who doesn't like Batman!

[SirOccam]

filetemo wrote...

relhart wrote...

filetemo wrote...

people who voices loudly their discomfort are the ones that make designers rethink their steps, as much as they say it doesn't. A bunch of yes-sir people would eat any crap presented at them, because they do not care or do not know what they like.Thanks to this people we have Madden games and NBA games every year. If you do not care about dragon age being bastardized, go ahead. I'll stay here till they ban me because their character is as theirs than mine for me and because I'll point at them at whatever lie I think they say.

Specially pathetic are the forum posters who cheered the post of Woo like their elder brother came to save them from a bully.Argue for yourselves.

You've obviously never created anything in your life.  Try writing a novel and then tell me how hard you start laughing at the random forum nobody that shows up and tries telling you what you can and can't do with the sequel.

if I wanted to create crazy spinoffs, I'd do fanfiction. But I, as a fan, I'm more entitled to say what is right and wrong than a paid writer who has no interest in Batman, who is commanded by a DC exec who tells him, "change Batman totally! we need to sell more and attract people who doesn't like Batman!

No, you're not. You said it yourself, a DC exec tells him to. You are definitely entitled to not buy it if you don't like it though, or rage about it on the internet.

Modifié par SirOccam, 12 août 2010 - 02:57 .

[filetemo]

Archdemon Cthulhu wrote...

If you had tried to be constructive, and say, expressed concern and used some points of actual substance to point out why you have those concerns.  Then, yes, that helps.  This is not what you did.

You can't be constructive when they straight up lie to you. They do not push the genre or revamp gameplay or hot rod the art or improve the franchise, they have a goal: make games that sell 10 million units, if their market studies tell them they have to get rid of the rpg label, they will.

[mydisplaynameisawsome]

filetemo wrote...

people who voices loudly their discomfort are the ones that make designers rethink their steps, as much as they say it doesn't. A bunch of yes-sir people would eat any crap presented at them, because they do not care or do not know what they like.Thanks to this people we have Madden games and NBA games every year. If you do not care about dragon age being bastardized, go ahead. I'll stay here till they ban me because their character is as theirs than mine for me and because I'll point at them at whatever lie I think they say.

Specially pathetic are the forum posters who cheered the post of Woo like their elder brother came to save them from a bully.Argue for yourselves.

i think you might need to calm down. There are such few facts about the game at the moment saying it bastardized the original is a little extreme. And wheather you like it or not bioware holds the power and being nasty to people isn't going to change that

[Maverick827]

The Batman defense...is this anything like the Chewbacca defense?

[SirOccam]

filetemo wrote...

Archdemon Cthulhu wrote...

If you had tried to be constructive, and say, expressed concern and used some points of actual substance to point out why you have those concerns.  Then, yes, that helps.  This is not what you did.

You can't be constructive when they straight up lie to you. They do not push the genre or revamp gameplay or hot rod the art or improve the franchise, they have a goal: make games that sell 10 million units, if their market studies tell them they have to get rid of the rpg label, they will.

But they're not lying. Maybe they feel like pushing the genre, revamping gameplay, hot-rodding the art, or improving the franchise is what it will take to earn those 10 million sales.

They want to make the game the best game they can, because the best games will sell more. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Just because they want to sell a lot, it doesn't mean they don't really think the changes they are making are for the best.

Modifié par SirOccam, 12 août 2010 - 03:05 .

[filetemo]

SirOccam wrote...


No, you're not. You said it yourself, a DC exec tells him to. You are definitely entitled to not buy it if you don't like it though, or rage about it on the internet.

wait till they change something you really like into some other thing you really know it's just for the sake of money, let's see if you "just do not buy the product and leave calmly and peacefully the forums and go play something else"

[In Exile]

condiments1 wrote...

However, no developer has the ability to warp a genre definition to fit to their changing priorities. Screaming at the top of their lungs that "things have changed" doesn't change at the core what RPGs have been for decades. They can make different games, but they won't be RPGs.

Well, RPGs haven't been the same thing for decades. You're going to tell me FFI was the same thing as Ultima, despite the fact they have the same broad label? No - we've created several subclasses classes for this.

An adventure game is not an appropriate description for what Bioware is making, because they are not centered on an adventure. Even if they only go foward with the ME formula, entries like that (e.g. Alpha Protocol) have a degree of character customizability, story interactivity, etc. that this genre just does not capture.

Moneky Island is an adventure game - ME is just not. Maybe we need a subclassification for this story branch just like the Japanese melodrama anime RPGs have the RPG subcategory.

But saying that Bioware is now making subcategory games does not mean the same thing as saying something is or isn't an RPG, because that's all terribly subjective.

It's like saying IWD was a great RPG. I happened to think it was absolutely garbage. PS:T was decent if boring, and BG was fun (just very dated when I played it) but we're going to disagree on thigs like these precisely because we disagree as to the core elements of a genre.

First-person-shooter is easy to clasify - any game that has this design is a first person shooter. But what the hell does "role playing" mean? Does it mean PnP? Because even if it did, PnP could absolutely be about not stats (or as few stats as possible), no inventory, and all create-your-own story driven. The wording is so nebulous that comparing it to other genres is just pointless as a demarcation criterion because they are just NOT similar in kind.

Modifié par In Exile, 12 août 2010 - 03:07 .

[SirOccam]

filetemo wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

No, you're not. You said it yourself, a DC exec tells him to. You are definitely entitled to not buy it if you don't like it though, or rage about it on the internet.

wait till they change something you really like into some other thing you really know it's just for the sake of money, let's see if you "just do not buy the product and leave calmly and peacefully the forums and go play something else"

Well I've gone on record as saying I don't like the new look of the darkspawn. You don't see me throwing a temper tantrum over it.

And my problem is with your claim that "you really know it's just for the sake of money" anyway. It's just a ridiculous conclusion to jump to, and no one can take you seriously when you throw around things like that.

[TSamee]

eh, i'm obviously not as anti-DA2 as some of you at the moment. And yes, I did cheer the Coming of Woo. I'm sorry for changing my view in light of a rational argument which makes sense to me. The "big brother" analogy was well-placed, if vicious and unnecessary. We fight for our views by not buying the game, nothing more, nothing less. I doubt the majority of DA2 buyers will be forum members, so even if some of us decide not to buy DA2 the game's direction won't change, and it won't impact future releases. The only way for a consumer to affect a product is through their wants and their wallets.

I have a proposal for you... instead of ****ing on the forum, how about we try and make a difference? Get your friends to play the original DA, see if they like it, whether they're shooter fans or otherwise. Raise some support for the classic RPG by showing people you know, those who you call "console babies" and the like, how great that genre can be. I personally have a friend who's just picked up Origins on the Xbox, and he loves it. He doesn't have a forum account, he doesn't read these threads, but he got really, really annoyed when he heard about the proposed changes in DA2.

[filetemo]

SirOccam wrote...


And my problem is with your claim that "you really know it's just for the sake of money" anyway. It's just a ridiculous conclusion to jump to, and no one can take you seriously when you throw around things like that.

Greg zeschuk said that they want to sell 10 million units in an interview while Ray Muzika was in Vegas in some high stakes poker tournament
it makes you wonder.

[Daryn Mercio]

Bioware's perfect game would be: premade character, choices, love interests, different endings and simple combat "press A to win" they are moving slowly to that, Heavy Rain with swords and magic.

Funny, in DA:O you do get to make your own character (with a minor background story to flesh out the PC as a person and not just some hero who rises out of nowhere), you do get to make choices that do have an effect (albeit minor or slightly more) on the game throughout based on how you decide to see your character.
The first time I played DA:O (first BW game) I thought it would just be running in there and killing monsters so I set it to hard, and got my @ss kicked. It does require some strategy and skill in how to make your character. But as with all things, practice makes perfect, and if you play enough, it won't be difficult anymore

[Archdemon Cthulhu]

filetemo wrote...

SirOccam wrote...


No, you're not. You said it yourself, a DC exec tells him to. You are definitely entitled to not buy it if you don't like it though, or rage about it on the internet.

wait till they change something you really like into some other thing you really know it's just for the sake of money, let's see if you "just do not buy the product and leave calmly and peacefully the forums and go play something else"

Heroes changed.  I just stopped watching/buying episodes on itunes.  No tantrum.  Tekken changed to a slower fighter, didn't buy Tekken 6.  No temper tantrum.  Thomas Pynchon wrote a novel that was nothing like Gravity's Rainbow or Against the Day a couple years back, and was far more accessible to new readers (a lot like your complaints about Bioware actually).  I didn't buy the book.  No tantrum.

It's not difficult.

[hexaligned]

filetemo wrote...

SirOccam wrote...


No, you're not. You said it yourself, a DC exec tells him to. You are definitely entitled to not buy it if you don't like it though, or rage about it on the internet.

wait till they change something you really like into some other thing you really know it's just for the sake of money, let's see if you "just do not buy the product and leave calmly and peacefully the forums and go play something else"

You are a meat cog in the gears of capitilism, nothing more, work with what limited infinitesimal influence you DO have, and don't buy it.  You have an overinflated opinion of what you deserve, or what rights you have in the matter.  You have none.  Bioware has no obligation to you in anyway (well aside from basic QA laws)  I'm not happy with the direction they took the game either, and won't be buying it before I play it, raging about it is worse than useless though. 

Modifié par relhart, 12 août 2010 - 03:17 .

[SirOccam]

filetemo wrote...

SirOccam wrote...


And my problem is with your claim that "you really know it's just for the sake of money" anyway. It's just a ridiculous conclusion to jump to, and no one can take you seriously when you throw around things like that.

Greg zeschuk said that they want to sell 10 million units in an interview while Ray Muzika was in Vegas in some high stakes poker tournament
it makes you wonder.

So go ahead and wonder all you like. It doesn't automatically mean everything they do is compromising quality because they think it will sell better. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for the changes they've made that have nothing to do with money, except perhaps indirectly, as in "a better game will make more money."

[bzombo]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Ensgnblack wrote...

I just caught up to reading the whole thread, and Stanely, I agree with everything you said there. COnsumers are not the ones creating the game. Let the designers design and purchase it if you endorse their product.

True. And let me reiterate that there's nothing wrong with loving a product, character, or setting so much that you don't want it to change, or so much that it becomes a part of you. Nothing wrong with that, despite my aversion to some of the fanfic and fan art out there. but stamping one's feet and saying "no, it can't change" and holding one's breath as if to stop creators from doing  their job is a little nonsensical.

Where would some of our most beloved characters and settings be without some kind of change or addition? i already used Batman as an example. Look at how much more popular the Lord of the Rings became after the movies came out. And the movies changed things, and purists were outraged! didn't stop the movies from being good and enjoyable and spawning many different board game products and RPGs and action figures and things.

i may be biased, but I don't think Dragon Age 2 is going to be the "death of all RPGs" or "killing of my favourite puppy" that some folks fear it will be. It certainly won't be quite the same as DAO, but we think it'll have more than enough "Dragon Age-ness" in it to keep folks satisfied. And even if you don't agree, that's just us having a difference of opinion rather than us deliberately ruining your favourite game and your favourite genre and the industry as a whole for no reason other than money money money money money bwahahahaha. it's a big difference.

while i do agree with what you have said for the most part, let me just point out that batman evolved over a period of 70+ years while dragon age has "evolved" over less than one year.

[filetemo]

SirOccam wrote...

filetemo wrote...

SirOccam wrote...


And my problem is with your claim that "you really know it's just for the sake of money" anyway. It's just a ridiculous conclusion to jump to, and no one can take you seriously when you throw around things like that.

Greg zeschuk said that they want to sell 10 million units in an interview while Ray Muzika was in Vegas in some high stakes poker tournament
it makes you wonder.

So go ahead and wonder all you like. It doesn't automatically mean everything they do is compromising quality because they think it will sell better. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for the changes they've made that have nothing to do with money, except perhaps indirectly, as in "a better game will make more money."

they are not compromising quality, they are changing the game they do, they are entering a market that allows you to make fast money and sell 10 million units but also a market that makes you produce annual iterations of your franchise to not lose field to your competitors, who change of being just rpg developers with their share of market and makes them compete with hundreds of action games, diversifying the market and also making your annual game of the franchise lose quality every year, so thaty big money may become financial losses in a 5 year lifespan, your producer spits you out ofr sells you and here we go, bioware the thousand studio killed by EA. Then they regret they stopped making traditional rpgs to go big.

[condiments1]

In Exile wrote...
Well, RPGs haven't been the same thing for decades. You're going to tell me FFI was the same thing as Ultima, despite the fact they have the same broad label? No - we've created several subclasses classes for this.

An adventure game is not an appropriate description for what Bioware is making, because they are not centered on an adventure. Even if they only go foward with the ME formula, entries like that (e.g. Alpha Protocol) have a degree of character customizability, story interactivity, etc. that this genre just does not capture.

Moneky Island is an adventure game - ME is just not. Maybe we need a subclassification for this story branch just like the Japanese melodrama anime RPGs have the RPG subcategory.

But saying that Bioware is now making subcategory games does not mean the same thing as saying something is or isn't an RPG, because that's all terribly subjective.

It's like saying IWD was a great RPG. I happened to think it was absolutely garbage. PS:T was decent if boring, and BG was fun (just very dated when I played it) but we're going to disagree on thigs like these precisely because we disagree as to the core elements of a genre.

First-person-shooter is easy to clasify - any game that has this design is a first person shooter. But what the hell does "role playing" mean? Does it mean PnP? Because even if it did, PnP could absolutely be about not stats (or as few stats as possible), no inventory, and all create-your-own story driven. The wording is so nebulous that comparing it to other genres is just pointless as a demarcation criterion because they are just NOT similar in kind.

"Role-playing" was unfortunately applied originally in its similarities to traditional D&D.

Whats AT THE CORE pf RPGs has remained the same for decades. Both Ultima and Final Fantasy might be designed differently, but at the core they emphasis "character skill over player skill". Stats are merely numerical represenation of a character's strengths and weaknesses and how you should apply them. Its less about reactive and twitch reactions, and a more cerberal approach. Just because you didn't like a few games doesn't change what was at the core of the experience. This applies to narrative also, like Planescape Torment wasn't an RPG for its legendary story, it was how your stats could radically effect the overall experience. Just like how in Fallout, if you had low intelligence you're character was basically a retard who couldn't form sentences thus you had less conversation options.

Now understand this covers a wide range of things, but at the core this applies to what most would consider "core RPGs". Elements and narrative might be applied to different genres, but it doesn't change what RPGs are.

Modifié par condiments1, 12 août 2010 - 03:23 .

[Angel of Nessus]

mydisplaynameisawsome wrote...

filetemo wrote...

people who voices loudly their discomfort are the ones that make designers rethink their steps, as much as they say it doesn't. A bunch of yes-sir people would eat any crap presented at them, because they do not care or do not know what they like.Thanks to this people we have Madden games and NBA games every year. If you do not care about dragon age being bastardized, go ahead. I'll stay here till they ban me because their character is as theirs than mine for me and because I'll point at them at whatever lie I think they say.

Specially pathetic are the forum posters who cheered the post of Woo like their elder brother came to save them from a bully.Argue for yourselves.

i think you might need to calm down. There are such few facts about the game at the moment saying it bastardized the original is a little extreme. And wheather you like it or not bioware holds the power and being nasty to people isn't going to change that

This.  Your "argument" (see: "uninformed nerdrage/trolling"), filetemo, is a whole lot of assumption based off of vague statements made by the dev team.  Nothing but the art style has been previewed, so for all we know, the changes they make might very well be fore the better.  Perhaps this "hit X to attack" function is a cross between standard attack/delay/attack functions and MUCH NEEDED interactivity; if that's what it is, then I wholeheartedly welcome it, since combat in the original could be pretty lackluster in this regard.

It all boils down to a single fact- this is a NEW F**KING GAME- if I wanted to play the "original" DA again, I'd just go and do that.  BeCAUSE it is a new game, it is not, in any way save setting, bound to DA:O.  If they want to go for a new art style, FINE- I would welcome it.  I don't CARE if they gave some Qunari horns, since they were always hinting about it anyway!  I don't CARE if they railroaded a character race- it just means that there will be more character immersion!  If these things, or indeed ANYTHING they have changed so far is really, REALLY pissing you off so much that you have to come online to insult people, you really need a new perspective on life.

You seem to think that being a loud, whining child = being a constructive voice.  Well, guess what: this is NOT a remake of DA:O, so there is no reason for the devs to NOT try new things.  It is NOT a bastardization of DA:O for that sole reason.  Go outside, do something other than pout, and come back and say something sensible.

NOT NOT NOT, etc.

[Bryy_Miller]

filetemo wrote...
 Then they regret they stopped making traditional rpgs to go big.

I resisted posting up until now - which was not easy, given the point that I wanted to post "missed the point" about 40000 times. But this is just stupid. Who are you to say what anyone at BioWare is or will ever think?

[FlyinElk212]

I have to agree on Mr. Woo on a lot of his points made in his long post. The hate and arguments over Hawke seem to be unfair, in that it is a character CREATED by Bioware for the public to enjoy. Nowhere do I see the logic in that the character is ours, and we have the right to flame and expect change.

Where I believe a more appropriate rage (if rage can even be considered appropriate) can be found is the fact that Hawke was even created in the first place. I think that a lot of people take offense to that not because of Hawke himself, but what Hawke represents. Hawke is a character created by Bioware and given to us, within a game series that encouraged the PLAYER to create their own character. Even in the advertising, Dragon Age:Origins makes sure to drive home the point, "YOU are a Grey Warden".

I understand that Hawke can still have his/her appearance, personality, and choices within the game changed, but I believe most people dislike the thought of the developers taking away the privilege of creating their own character. No matter how you spin it, you are still giving them your character, and telling them to do with that character what you want.

I have no qualms with this and don't view it as such a big issue, but I believe that people take offense to having the feature itself of creating something from scratch, something that they can call their own characters, being taken away from them. Perhaps they view it as a feature being taken away from the game.

[jonluke93]

meh read the whole thread and well.... whatever

[Angel of Nessus]

FlyinElk212 wrote...

I have to agree on Mr. Woo on a lot of his points made in his long post. The hate and arguments over Hawke seem to be unfair, in that it is a character CREATED by Bioware for the public to enjoy. Nowhere do I see the logic in that the character is ours, and we have the right to flame and expect change.
Where I believe a more appropriate rage (if rage can even be considered appropriate) can be found is the fact that Hawke was even created in the first place. I think that a lot of people take offense to that not because of Hawke himself, but what Hawke represents. Hawke is a character created by Bioware and given to us, within a game series that encouraged the PLAYER to create their own character. Even in the advertising, Dragon Age:Origins makes sure to drive home the point, "YOU are a Grey Warden".
I understand that Hawke can still have his/her appearance, personality, and choices within the game changed, but I believe most people dislike the thought of the developers taking away the privilege of creating their own character. No matter how you spin it, you are still giving them your character, and telling them to do with that character what you want.
I have no qualms with this and don't view it as such a big issue, but I believe that people take offense to having the feature itself of creating something from scratch, something that they can call their own characters, being taken away from them. Perhaps they view it as a feature being taken away from the game.

While your point is valid, it still seems to me like the only people who are really upset over this issue is the group who can't seem to play anything but elves (ie, "Oh, I can't be an elf?!?  Damn you, BioWare, I demand you change it so I can have pointy ears and feel sorry for myself!").  As such, I really can't find any sympathy for such issues.  You are also speaking of the franchise as a single game, which, it MUST BE NOTED, it is NOT- as such, there are no features being taken from the game- DA:O is still as customizable as it ever was.

Modifié par Angel of Nessus, 12 août 2010 - 03:36 .

[Kileyan]

Maverick827 wrote...

The Batman defense...is this anything like the Chewbacca defense?

LOL, if the gloves fit, CHEWBACCA!

Modifié par Kileyan, 12 août 2010 - 03:48 .