771 réponses à ce sujet

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

The Hardest Thing In The World wrote...

This ranting just reminds me of the "I want inventory management" brigade before DAO was released. Where is that brigade now, if that was such an important issue for you back then, shouldn't you be here "requesting" Bioware to bring back inventory management for DA2? Or was it actually NOT that important?
 
It will be the same for the dialogue wheel. When DA3 gets announced these people who are complaining about the dialogue wheel today, would have forgotten about the damn thing.

I want them to demand an inventory system that handles weight and volume realistically.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

AlanC9 wrote...

also as far as I can remember the party members in Baldur's Gate 2 had a lot more to offer in terms of impacting the journey than Origins ever did.

This strikes me as completely false. Could you explain what you're talking about here?

Not so much the main quest but the sidequests which played a much bigger part than they did in Origins. However this is mostly due to the fact that you can only have 5 companions at a time where in Origins you can have them all at camp and still experience their side quests so take of it what you will.

AlanC9 wrote...

You are so caught up in the big things that you forget completely about the smaller things, you also forget about the impact that these things have on the journey, sure your actions in Baldur's Gate diddnt have much effect on the main plot but then in Origins your actions diddnt have much effect altogether. Sure you get to choose sides between the werewolves and the elves or Behlen and Harrowmont but really what effect did your actions actually have on the game other than the units you have available to summon in the final battle?

So at best this is a tie between BG2 and DAO, and it's only a tie if you don't care about the end state of the gameworld.

Oh I never said that I dont care about the end state however the only thing that choices between Behlen and Harrowmont effected was the armies you had available in the final battle and the small where are they now description at the end of the game while the choices you made in the Baldur's Gate games had a bigger effect on the journey which in my opinion is much more important.

AlanC9 wrote...

The only choices that had any real effect on the story happened near the end of the game and even then all the endings felt roughly the same.

Even the US ending? 

Pretty much, the only real difference between endings is who is king or queen and whether they are praising a live warden or a corpse, other than that they all play out pretty much the same.

However I dont know about you but to me the US ending always felt a bit tacky, almost like the main character was just being stubborn and refused the dark ritual simply because he thought that throwing himself on a sword would make for a more emotional ending. But then this really comes down to how you view the dark ritual and whether or not it is an evil act.

Modifié par Gandalf-the-Fabulous, 16 août 2010 - 06:07 .

[The Hardest Thing In The World]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

The Hardest Thing In The World wrote...

This ranting just reminds me of the "I want inventory management" brigade before DAO was released. Where is that brigade now, if that was such an important issue for you back then, shouldn't you be here "requesting" Bioware to bring back inventory management for DA2? Or was it actually NOT that important?
 
It will be the same for the dialogue wheel. When DA3 gets announced these people who are complaining about the dialogue wheel today, would have forgotten about the damn thing.

I want them to demand an inventory system that handles weight and volume realistically.

Start demanding fervently like the way it was back then, it's sad to see people who aren't firm on things they think they believe on.

[Addai]

I don't have an opinion on whether BioWare is dead, because DAO was the first BioWare game I played.

It does seem like the game experience of DAO is sputtering, though.  It started with Awakening and the relatively paltry party interaction.  This weekend I played Leliana's Song, and found myself thinking that although it was well made, it felt like playing Mass Effect, not Dragon Age.  Since my love of DAO did not carry over to Mass Effect, that's not a compliment.  I felt the same disengagement from my character, the same restlessness (i.e. boredom) at all the cutscenes, the same abruptness when I had to switch from passive watching to the intense combat and back.

Since this is apparently what we're going to get even more of in DA2, I'm prepared to believe that Dragon Age is dead, at least in its (as I have found it) unique gameplay experience.

Modifié par Addai67, 16 août 2010 - 06:11 .

[AlexXIV]

PPF65 wrote...

aksoileau wrote...

Loved all the BG games. Loved NWN. Loved KOTOR. Loved ME, Loved DAO. Loved ME2. Didn't play JE because I'm not a fan of Kung Fu stuff. Whether old bioware or new bioware, they make fabulous games. Change is inevitable.

This.

Instead of only enjoying mute heroes or only enjoying fixed roles, can't we all just like Mass Effect AND Dragon Age?

I am a different type I guess. I loved ME1/2 and DA:O. But I am not sure what Bioware are doing there with DA2 and other sequels. Going to a different place with different people is more like a new game to me than a sequel. It's not like BG->BG2, but rather BG->NWN.

[j_j_m]

I actually had big hopes for DA2. It all seemed entirely possible to create a game equally as great as Baldur's Gates with few improvements over DA:O. 4 party members was not far from 6. The game world was moving outside the limits of Ferelden. The spell count could have been increased, with more variety. A couple of more character classes or specializations would have solved the problem of the lack of variety in them. We could have finally gotten rid of that level-scaling, which made the combat boring. I was positive we might see some of these improvements. The first game was what looked like a great base for great sequels.



What I totally did not expect them to do is start stripping off features, and changing - not improving - the core game mechanics to that of Mass Effect (this coming from someone that never found Mass Effect appealing). The combat system is transitioning from a tactical thinking man's combat to reaction-based action combat in hopes to attract more casual gamers to the series. It's an entirely different type of game. It's just one step towards FPS games. And of course, the dialogue wheel is VERY unRPG-like, which is a reason alone for me to be turned off by the game. I am quite shocked with these decisions.



I don't understand how some of you posters feel the need to tell us we're wrong about raising our opinions, when we have quite sound arguments as to why we're unhappy. There is severe lack of understanding of the words "improvement" and "change" by some of you. I do not call it "evolving" when a game changes so drastically between two titles.

[Addai]

PPF65 wrote...

aksoileau wrote...

Loved all the BG games. Loved NWN. Loved KOTOR. Loved ME, Loved DAO. Loved ME2. Didn't play JE because I'm not a fan of Kung Fu stuff. Whether old bioware or new bioware, they make fabulous games. Change is inevitable.

This.

Instead of only enjoying mute heroes or only enjoying fixed roles, can't we all just like Mass Effect AND Dragon Age?

??  What if you just don't like one or the other?  And why can't the franchises remain unique?

"Change is inevitable"- a saying vacuous enough to be found in a fortune cookie, and just as meaningless.

[David Gaider]

slimgrin wrote...
Not sure that's true David. I think you underestimate the devotion of a fan base, Bioware's in particular. In fact, sometimes that devotion is downright blind, to the publishers gain. I sense this remark is directed at some of the embittered posters on this forum, which must represent a drop in the bucket in the overall market. I can say I'm proud to have made my small contribution to Bioware with the few games I've bought.

It's not directed at the embittered specifically-- I think most fans would be uninterested in the business needs of a developer. In fact, most of them probably wish we didn't have those needs period. I don't begrudge someone that viewpoint. If anything I begrudge the idea that to some people it is somehow more honorable for a company to make unsuccessful games and go under then to actually make games that are profitable.

Ideally there's a way to do both. Not all "mass market" games are crap any more than all mass market movies are crap. In either case if the sole inspiration behind it is to make money you're not likely to end up with quality results, but I don't really see the assumption that this is what we're doing here at BioWare. Clearly we're part of a big corporation that needs to see financial results, but surely we can do that and still make the games we want to make-- even if they're made for the hoi polloi out there and not the "real gamers" here, perhaps? Or perhaps that's just cynicism talking? Let's hope so.

The reference to GOG is important, as is any reference to CD Projekt, which came out of nowhere with a title that was largely foreign outside of Poland. There was no reason to think The Witcher would do as good as it did, and on one, 'obsolete' platform no less. But Cd Projekt's philosophy appears to differ from yours. They are one of the few companies that plunged headlong into a niche market, and they look to be bringing that market to the masses. If you read about the TW2, it's easy to see there's no sense of them compromising or altering their creative vision to compliment current trends. After reading your post, that seems to be what you deign necessary for Bioware to stay afloat. 

It's not what *I* deem necessary-- I don't set BioWare corporate policy. I'm not sure where you see our creative vision being compromised, however. That would involve an assumption that we're not working on something we want to work on, I guess? Which is an odd thing to assume, and perhaps even a little arrogant. I hope I'm reading that wrong.

CD Projekt is an excellent example, though. They're a small team, and one for whom the level of sales they received on TW was sufficient to meet their needs. If they intend to grow, their needs may also increase and they may need to think about how they'll get bigger sales for their future games-- or they'll have the same fate as other companies that didn't do that, and have their names invoked in the future alongside companies like Troika and Looking Glass Studios. Which is maybe good, I don't know. Not so good for the people who worked at such places, though they made some kick-ass games. Hopefully a company like CD Projekt can find the fine line between growth and vision. I know I certainly wish them well-- I enjoyed TW quite a bit. But if they did decide to change their vision I certainly wouldn't look on it as a betrayal even if what they made wasn't of interest to me personally.

[Saibh]

Addai67 wrote...

PPF65 wrote...

aksoileau wrote...

Loved all the BG games. Loved NWN. Loved KOTOR. Loved ME, Loved DAO. Loved ME2. Didn't play JE because I'm not a fan of Kung Fu stuff. Whether old bioware or new bioware, they make fabulous games. Change is inevitable.

This.

Instead of only enjoying mute heroes or only enjoying fixed roles, can't we all just like Mass Effect AND Dragon Age?

??  What if you just don't like one or the other?  And why can't the franchises remain unique?

"Change is inevitable"- a saying vacuous enough to be found in a fortune cookie, and just as meaningless.

Well...I agree and disagree. I liked both games, and some of the more self-righteous on this forum will chase you out screaming with pitchforks if that's the case.

Regardless (and I direct this generally, not at you), change happens. No one is going to be pleased with that. It's a basic truth--why not wait until you can actually play the game to see if it's worth complaining about? Until then, the devs aren't going to take anyone here seriously, since the forum is doomcasting over the most trivial bits of info that we have.

[Bryy_Miller]

bcrankshaw wrote...

ME2 is a watered down and painfully simple game that doesn't challenge you in any respect
It is entertaining but it is a  shoddy comparison to its predecessor

So, the combat and inventory that actually work, plus the actual RP elements, are shoddy in comparison to ME1's controls and inventory system and lack of interaction? 

[Dave of Canada]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

So, the combat and inventory that actually work, plus the actual RP elements, are shoddy in comparison to ME1's controls and inventory system and lack of interaction? 

I loved ME2's combat but I'd rather want the ME inventory than the ME2 inventory.

[AlanC9]

Huh? Who said inventory management was supposed to go away in DA2? I'm not aware of any changes. Have I missed something?

Modifié par AlanC9, 16 août 2010 - 06:42 .

[Dave of Canada]

AlanC9 wrote...

Huh? Who said inventory management went away in DA2?

People who compare it to ME2, although it's not going away.

[Sylvius the Mad]

We absolutely should care about BioWare's financial viability.

I certainly do. This is why my suggestions for game design either don't change how the game behaves from the point of view of most players, or dan't require extra design resources, or reduce development costs overall in order to maintain a sustainable ROI.

[adneate]

David Gaider wrote...

Clearly we're part of a big corporation that needs to see financial results, but surely we can do that and still make the games we want to make-- even if they're made for the hoi polloi out there and not the "real gamers" here, perhaps?

Sorry I don't mean to be rude but from a bunch of people that sold their company to Electronic Arts that has to be a bad joke of some sort. EA is known for taking studios and people with exactly that mentality and driving them into the ground and forcing them make games that utterly betray their original vision, then taking them to the slaughterhouse when they somehow don't sell as good as previous iterations. I bet the people at Bullfrog Studios, Origin Systems, Maxis, Westwood Studios and Pandemic thought exactly the same thing and where are they all now? What was said about the games they made in their final days, were they what they wanted to make? In the war of profits versus quality profits will always win even if it turns out to be a Pyrrhic victory.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I loved ME2's combat

I find ME2's combat too fast-paced to be enjoyable, and sometimes I find it too difficult.

[Dave of Canada]

slimgrin wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

So, the combat and inventory that actually work, plus the actual RP elements, are shoddy in comparison to ME1's controls and inventory system and lack of interaction? 

I loved ME2's combat but I'd rather want the ME inventory than the ME2 inventory.

You have to be joking. I don't want either. I liked DA's inventory.

I meant between ME and ME2. I much prefer DA:O's inventory over the ME series.

[Merced256]

Saving your own ass is largely what has brought US politics to its worst point yet. Just sayin'

[Bryy_Miller]

slimgrin wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

So, the combat and inventory that actually work, plus the actual RP elements, are shoddy in comparison to ME1's controls and inventory system and lack of interaction? 

I loved ME2's combat but I'd rather want the ME inventory than the ME2 inventory.

You have to be joking. I don't want either. I liked DA's inventory.

Let me clear up a few things: I was not stating what I would like transfered from the ME franchise to the DA franchise. Both are separate and should remain so simply because ME2's changes made sense within the context of the ME universe.