771 réponses à ce sujet

[Bryy_Miller]

Estel78 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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.

I have to ask, how can such a supposedly small team like CD Projekt make a game that from a standpoint of production values rivals or even surpasses Bioware titles? I think saying that Witcher 2 looks absolutely gorgeous is not an overstatement. Are they just more efficient? Why would they even want to grow when they can already do titles like Witcher 2 now?

I can't speak for Gaider, but I don't think that he's in a position - for a variety of reasons - to answer that. Simply put, he's not privy to CD Projeckt's inner workings.

[adneate]

David Gaider wrote...

Sorry, but I can only speak from my personal experience with EA-- not what they've done in the past or what they might do. Certainly there's many things that they might do, but currently EA is focused on making quality, top-tier, profitable games and that's not mutually exclusive with our own vision.

Just as I can only go on what I've seen over the years, the company has proved time and time again they don't really care about quality. They've said they want to change, that the BioWare/Pandemic accusition was supposed to be part of a general movement towards new IP. That being said Pandemic is dead now and everything I've heard about DA2 has made it sound like the Baldur's Gate roots the game touted have been stripped out for a game much more similar to the Mass Effect series. I don't trust EA, they already killed two studios I loved and drove their games into the ground to add insult to injury. I don't want the same thing to happen to another company I like, but in the end there isn't much anyone can do about it since it's too late to turn back now.

[Saibh]

Addai67 wrote...

Saibh wrote...

ME-style gameplay? I see no guns, I see no ammo. They said it's "quicker" but who knows what that means? ME-style characterization? You mean having a human who's name is Hawke? You mean, the same way you have human who's name is Cousland? 

Again, we know so little, it's hard to take complaints seriously.

The differences between the two games are obviously not apparent to you.  But since the devs have said they are moving DA2 in a direction more like Mass Effect, they agree with me that there are differences.

You're just confirming what I said, that the "change happens" mantra is a meaningless dismissal.  We know what we know, so we can react to that much.

Yes, they're moving it in that direction, but the cries of Dragon Effect are hardly warranted is moy point.

[MerinTB]

Kerridan Kaiba wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
making games with a 5-year development cycle is not exactly the path to riches for anyone.

*coughcoughcough*blizzard*coughcoughcough*starcraft, diablo, warcraft...
*coughcoughcough*valve*coughcoughcough*half-life...
*coughcoughcough*maxis*coughcoughcough*sims...

How long did Dragon Age: Origins take?  How successful was that for BioWare compared to, say, ME2 and it's shorter development cycle?

The funny thing about that is Blizzard can afford to take forever to make games and get away with it. They are Activision's cash cow. They throw around the "When it's done." mantra and we all eat it up and wait for the next version of whatever series we're looking for. I wish I could find the article that said World of Warcraft makes up 90% percent of Activision’s revenue. If everyone started leaving World of Warcraft in mass today or tomorrow Activision would be sunk to hell in a hand basket. However, since they are making them so much money I think Activision is lax with Blizzard's development times. They know they have digital gold when they release a game.

Same with Valve and Maxis.

Uhm, WoW first appeared in late 2004.  I can't say WHEN it became king of MMO's, as Everquest was king at that time, but it probably took about a year (maybe more.)  Even so, 2004 was, oh, 2 years after Warcraft III came out.  Warcraft III, which was released roughly 6 years after Warcraft II.  Starcraft 2 was already well in development by the time WoW was released, as was Diablo 3.

Valve and Maxis are "digital gold" and allowed long development times, as compared to what?  You think everything Valve or Maxis did before (Half-Life 2, The Sims) were super-duper money-makers that guaranteed 5 years of development, especially in any way that BioWare is not comprable?

Very weak special pleading.

Modifié par MerinTB, 16 août 2010 - 08:00 .

[Saibh]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

ME style in the sense of a predetermined player character and a "streamlined" conversation system, that if it plays out the same way ME2 did, will flat out suck, as half the conversation choices in that game come out completely different as to whats written on the wheel.

DA:O offered alot of choice,  humans, elves, dwarves etc and various backgrounds as well. Here that choice is gone, in another case of dumbing the game down for the casuals.

Alright, before you had six predetermined characters to choose from, whose differences ceased existing past the Origin stories and occasional bits of dialogues (Yahtzee, Zero Punctuation: "HELLO. YOU ARE AN ELF."). Now, with one predetermined character, it leaves room for far more customized plots and story, which were before limited by all of the Origins.

Hawke is simply one Origin story--one far less predetermined than Shepard. Yes, you had six before, and now you don't. This is an obvious change people just need to accept. It will not make the game worse. Unless someone would like to imply that having only one character to choose from is somehow bad, and thus ignore the many excellent RPGs that are similarly choice-less in that regard.

The streamlined conversation system is an ingenious way to deal with having a voiced-over protagonist. Rather than read the whole line(s), we get a quick version, an icon, and they say it. It is boring to hear them say exactly what you just read. The only issue I'll have with it is if the icon/shortline system isn't accurate.

Also, exactly how is having six Origins to choose from "smarter"? They offer more variety, in some ways, but that doesn't make them instantly more intelligent, and the lack of Origins "dumbed down".

Modifié par Saibh, 16 août 2010 - 08:05 .

[Addai]

Saibh wrote...

Yes, they're moving it in that direction, but the cries of Dragon Effect are hardly warranted is moy point.

Not as far as I can see.  As I started out saying, I kept thinking of Mass Effect while playing Leliana's Song.  Felt very much like a ME game flow, same disengagement from the character, same boredom with the long cutscenes and jarring switch from cutscene to combat and back to another cutscene.  Combined with the devs' statements about what they are doing and the fact that there will be a dialogue wheel (albeit not the same morality system), seems very much like Dragon Effect is what is on offer. 

Granted that Leliana is more of a set character than Hawke will be.  Nevertheless, there are more than swords to what makes DAO what it is.

[Torhagen]

Somehow i put my hope into the old republic i hope the keep their promises on that one
and honestly i hope they uses all their 5-star people for that since i kinda lost hope that ME3 will again be a real RPG with a shooterpart and not the other way around

Modifié par Torhagen, 16 août 2010 - 08:07 .

[Kohaku]

MerinTB wrote...

Valve and Maxis are "digital gold" and allowed long development times, as compared to what?  You think everything Valve or Maxis did before (Half-Life 2, The Sims) were super-duper money-makers that guaranteed 5 years of development, especially in any way that BioWare is not comprable?

That doesn't matter NOW does it? Everything Valve does now, people will buy it mainly because of the Half Life Series and the same with the Sims. It doesn't matter what they did before. It matters what they made recently and how successful it is. That's what affords them to be able to take time with what they do. Some people never even played Bioware's earlier games but will by things NOW because of what they have produced recently, not what they created a while ago. So I don't understand what you're getting at.

Modifié par Kerridan Kaiba, 16 août 2010 - 08:11 .

[MerinTB]

Saibh wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
ME style in the sense of a predetermined player character and a "streamlined" conversation system, that if it plays out the same way ME2 did, will flat out suck, as half the conversation choices in that game come out completely different as to whats written on the wheel.

DA:O offered alot of choice,  humans, elves, dwarves etc and various backgrounds as well. Here that choice is gone, in another case of dumbing the game down for the casuals.

Alright, before you had six predetermined characters to choose from, who's differences ceased existed past the Origin stories and occasional bits of dialogues (Yahtzee, Zero Punctuation: "HELLO. YOU ARE AN ELF."). Now, with one predetermined character, it leaves room for far more customized plots and story, which were before limited by all of the Origins.

Hawke is simply one Origin story--one far less predetermined than Shepard. Yes, you had six before, and now you don't. This is an obvious change people just need to accept. It will not make the game worse. Unless someone would like to imply that having only one character to choose from is somehow bad, and thus ignore the many excellent RPGs that are similarly choice-less in that regard.

The streamlined conversation system is an ingenious way to deal with having a voiced-over protagonist. Rather than read the whole line(s), we get a quick version, an icon, and they say it. It is boring to hear them say exactly what you just read. The only issue I'll have with it is if the icon/shortline system isn't accurate.

Also, exactly how is having six Origins to choose from "smarter"? They offer more variety, in some ways, but that doesn't make them instantly more intelligent, and the lack of Origins "dumbed down".

I'm so ducking out of this thread after this but...

it's really a matter of opinion on what is "better" but for the record I am of the opinion that -

6 Origins > 1 Origin
Dwarf, Elf or Human > Human
No backstory / story integration beyond player's imagination (or a box they can fill in for their own backstory, even with no in-game effect)  > pre-determined backstory deeply intergrated into game story
Create your character with your own name even though name has no in-game effect beyond your "character sheet" > being given a name so that VO can use it and story can be written around it
No VO and much reading of text so $trings can be used for more player customization of names and such > voiced characters

in short

more player control of the character the player ends up playing > super-awesome story with super-awesome "choices" in said story but a pre-defined, VO'd, pre-named character given

Your opinions may be different, and you are entitled to them.  Please stop, however, acting like your opinions are "right" beyond for yourself, or that those who disagree with you are "wrong."

(and yes, I realize that many of my "greaters" were not in Origins.  believe me, I noticed.)

[Addai]

Saibh wrote...

Hawke is simply one Origin story--one far less predetermined than Shepard. Yes, you had six before, and now you don't. This is an obvious change people just need to accept. It will not make the game worse. Unless someone would like to imply that having only one character to choose from is somehow bad, and thus ignore the many excellent RPGs that are similarly choice-less in that regard.

Yes, it is bad in my view.  You're stating your opinion as a fact.

Part of the appeal for DAO has been its massive replayability.  I've more than gotten my money's worth.  Having only one origin, and a race I don't particularly care to play, cuts down my interest in the new game considerably right off the bat.  I may still get it, but I don't want to pay the same that I paid for DAO for a game I know I'm not going to get as much out of.  I don't, actually, "have to" accept the changes, unless by playing DAO I somehow obligated myself to buy everything with Dragon Age on it.

[Torhagen]

MerinTB wrote...


Valve and Maxis are "digital gold" and allowed long development times, as compared to what?  You think everything Valve or Maxis did before (Half-Life 2, The Sims) were super-duper money-makers that guaranteed 5 years of development, especially in any way that BioWare is not comprable?

Very weak special pleading.

dude HAlf-life 1 was already a moneycow

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Saibh wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

ME style in the sense of a predetermined player character and a "streamlined" conversation system, that if it plays out the same way ME2 did, will flat out suck, as half the conversation choices in that game come out completely different as to whats written on the wheel.

DA:O offered alot of choice,  humans, elves, dwarves etc and various backgrounds as well. Here that choice is gone, in another case of dumbing the game down for the casuals.

Alright, before you had six predetermined characters to choose from, whose differences ceased existed past the Origin stories and occasional bits of dialogues (Yahtzee, Zero Punctuation: "HELLO. YOU ARE AN ELF."). Now, with one predetermined character, it leaves room for far more customized plots and story, which were before limited by all of the Origins.

Hawke is simply one Origin story--one far less predetermined than Shepard. Yes, you had six before, and now you don't. This is an obvious change people just need to accept. It will not make the game worse. Unless someone would like to imply that having only one character to choose from is somehow bad, and thus ignore the many excellent RPGs that are similarly choice-less in that regard.

The streamlined conversation system is an ingenious way to deal with having a voiced-over protagonist. Rather than read the whole line(s), we get a quick version, an icon, and they say it. It is boring to hear them say exactly what you just read. The only issue I'll have with it is if the icon/shortline system isn't accurate.

Also, exactly how is having six Origins to choose from "smarter"? They offer more variety, in some ways, but that doesn't make them instantly more intelligent, and the lack of Origins "dumbed down".

Hawke may be less predetermined than Shepard, but for a title based on being a throwback to the BG brand of doing things, it offers very little choice along the lines of traditional RPG cutomization. "Oh yay I get to be female Hawke or male Hawke! how exciting!"  

Personally I liked having complex dialog choices even if it meant reading. Its kinda sad that every game today has to have professional voice overs because todays generation can't be bothered to read a little bit. Worse so in the case of RPG's.  No now we have one line of what will most likely be cheesy dialog to look forward to instead, if awakenings is any indication of the direction they're taking.

Having six origins may not be "smarter" persay but you at least had plenty of choice right out of the gate when it came to customization. Which used to be a pretty big staple of Bioware games. Aparently not so much anymore.

[MerinTB]

Kerridan Kaiba wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Valve and Maxis are "digital gold" and allowed long development times, as compared to what?  You think everything Valve or Maxis did before (Half-Life 2, The Sims) were super-duper money-makers that guaranteed 5 years of development, especially in any way that BioWare is not comprable?

That doesn't matter NOW does it? Everything Vavle does now, people will buy it mainly because of the Half Life Series and the same with the Sims. It doesn't matter what they did before. It matters what they made recently and how successful it is. That's what affords them to be able to take time with what they do. Some people never even played Bioware's earlier games but will by things NOW because of what they have produced recently, not what they created a while ago. So I don't understand what you're getting at.

So.  Missing.  The.  Point.

no, no, I said I was done with this thread.

Long story short - I responded to the "5 year developmen cycles are no the way to make money" and then I pointed at companies with some of the best selling games ever who do exactly that.
Even if they are sequels to existing games from names that are accepted for quality...
how is that different from BioWare?  DA:O was over 5 years, and was BioWare's most successful title to date (amongst a long list of very successful titles) so...

No, no, I'm done.

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...

No backstory / story integration beyond player's imagination (or a box they can fill in for their own backstory, even with no in-game effect)  > pre-determined backstory deeply intergrated into game story

This is a major, major sticking point I think between the different people on this forum. Putting aside gameplay, some people (myself included) see this as completely backwards.

Point at issue is whether Bioware ever thought this was a good idea. Look BG, KoTOR and JE - Bioware even with a silent protagonist anchored a great deal about your character. You were from Candlekeep, raised by Gorion, and a Bhaalspawn; you were formerly Revan, memory wiped away; you were a baby secretly wisped away from the Land of Howling Spirts, raised by Master Li.

The only game you can say Bioware did not really include a background for you was the OC in NWN, and they went right back on that with SoTU and HoTU.

Even Dragon age did not actually do this; the Origins (though to what degree is arguable) worked precisely to make the player part of the story word.

I just find a lot of the posts direct at Bioware moving away from  their so-called roots confusing, because they were never married at their core to these concepts.

We can debate about what directions they're taking them, but in this particular case (as an example) Bioware absolutely never believed this.

As a final piece of evidence - compare ToEE and IWD with BG. Your protagonist is way more fixed in the Bioware game. Bioware was always pushing story integration over imagination, regardless of the time period.

[Laine the Wise]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Saibh wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

ME style in the sense of a predetermined player character and a "streamlined" conversation system, that if it plays out the same way ME2 did, will flat out suck, as half the conversation choices in that game come out completely different as to whats written on the wheel.

DA:O offered alot of choice,  humans, elves, dwarves etc and various backgrounds as well. Here that choice is gone, in another case of dumbing the game down for the casuals.

Alright, before you had six predetermined characters to choose from, whose differences ceased existed past the Origin stories and occasional bits of dialogues (Yahtzee, Zero Punctuation: "HELLO. YOU ARE AN ELF."). Now, with one predetermined character, it leaves room for far more customized plots and story, which were before limited by all of the Origins.

Hawke is simply one Origin story--one far less predetermined than Shepard. Yes, you had six before, and now you don't. This is an obvious change people just need to accept. It will not make the game worse. Unless someone would like to imply that having only one character to choose from is somehow bad, and thus ignore the many excellent RPGs that are similarly choice-less in that regard.

The streamlined conversation system is an ingenious way to deal with having a voiced-over protagonist. Rather than read the whole line(s), we get a quick version, an icon, and they say it. It is boring to hear them say exactly what you just read. The only issue I'll have with it is if the icon/shortline system isn't accurate.

Also, exactly how is having six Origins to choose from "smarter"? They offer more variety, in some ways, but that doesn't make them instantly more intelligent, and the lack of Origins "dumbed down".

Hawke may be less predetermined than Shepard, but for a title based on being a throwback to the BG brand of doing things, it offers very little choice along the lines of traditional RPG cutomization. "Oh yay I get to be female Hawke or male Hawke! how exciting!"  

Personally I liked having complex dialog choices even if it meant reading. Its kinda sad that every game today has to have professional voice overs because todays generation can't be bothered to read a little bit. Worse so in the case of RPG's.  No now we have one line of what will most likely be cheesy dialog to look forward to instead, if awakenings is any indication of the direction they're taking.

Having six origins may not be "smarter" persay but you at least had plenty of choice right out of the gate when it came to customization. Which used to be a pretty big staple of Bioware games. Aparently not so much anymore.

1. Dragon Age: Origins was intended to be a "throwback" to Baldur's Gate.

2. Complex dialog choices and voice-over are not mutually exclusive. And I enjoy reading as well as voice-over.

3. I have a differing point of view, but you are entitled to your own.

[lv12medic]

Bioware is dead?
BIOWARE IS DEAD?!
CLEAR!
[img]http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:B6DwZzTmAGjCSM:http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/2307/1185119301873jx9.jpg&t=1[/img]
*Bioware drops dead*
...
Huh, that usually works in the video games.
...
Oh boy... I'm in trouble.

[Tsuga C]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
 Aparently not so much anymore.

With any luck they're reading this and, after taking a bunch of flack, they'll offer more choice in customizing our next PC in an expansion pack or DA3.  Yes, we can call the shots with our predetermined Hawke PC and steer our protagonist towards the high, middle, or low roads.  This might be sufficient for a one-shot adventure in DA2, but it's just NOT going to cut the mustard in the future.  I'm well aware of their statement that they wanted to play around with different modes of telling the story of Thedas in the Dragon Age, but if this series is to last, it'll have to do better in the future.

REAL cRPGs are about choice regarding the who and why inherent in character creation that guides the development of the PC within the world.  If we're being denied this choice, we're being denied one of the primary attractions of traditional BioWare games.

[jonluke93]

So is new Bioware since they were bought by EA or when they made KOTOR?

[Bobad]

If BioWare are dead who's making DA2 & ME3?, ghosts or undead?

[Torhagen]

jonluke93 wrote...

So is new Bioware since they were bought by EA or when they made KOTOR?

for me since ME2

[SarEnyaDor]

Bobad wrote...

If BioWare are dead who's making DA2 & ME3?, ghosts or undead?

I'm going to go with the undead. Zombies are fleshy, so can type (and thus program) better than ghosts whose phantom fingers will pass straight through the keyboard.

[Bryy_Miller]

Torhagen wrote...

jonluke93 wrote...

So is new Bioware since they were bought by EA or when they made KOTOR?

for me since ME2

That makes absolutely no sense.

[Faust1979]

the problem with the original DA as much as I loved it is that after the origins story all the characters pretty much just blend into one character making the origins pretty meaningless. Sure you can play a dwarf or elf or human but they all have the same dialogue options so you're really just playing one character they made a big deal about the origins but they had little to no impact on the rest of the story

[EpicBoot2daFace]

I don't even see how there can be a debate anymore if you've read the GI magazine. Here is what they said: (paraphrased)



Q: Has Bioware's success with the Mass Effect series affected the studio's approach with Dragon Age?



A: It's fair to say that Mass Effect has had an influence on Dragon Age. We are always trying to make our games more accesible and easier to play while not removing any of the depth and detail that players value. Essentially, you don't want to fix something that isn't broken.



Apparently it doesn't have to be broken for Bioware to deleted it, it just has to be flawed in some way. But by trying to make the games more accessible, they DO have to fix things that aren't broken and that is why game quality suffers.