1279 réponses à ce sujet

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Morroian wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

DAO was by all intents and purposes an old school RPG that sold very well, so I somehow have a hard time believing games of its nature cannot do well when they actually get marketing. And we all know EA has deep enough pockets to make sure of that.

LIke I said before I'd dispute how old school it actually was. It was just as much kotor in fantasy clothing as BG.

Considering Kotor wasn't all that different than BG in the first place, I'm not sure what your point is here.

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
I'd also argue, that regardless if paraphrasing at the end of the day is still a choice technically, its a pretty poor way to go about it because it further devalues the player making an educated choice about how he/she wants to play a particular character.

Morroian wrote...
It only devalues it if the paraphrasing is inaccurate, and it sounds like the DA team are working on ways to increase the the role playing depth as much as possible within that system with the tone icons and the personality fluctuations depending on the dominant tone adopted.  IMHO it has the potential to be more interesting than the DAO system.

Hopefully that pans out to be true.

Modifié par CoS Sarah Jinstar, 01 octobre 2010 - 02:25 .

[Meltemph]

Considering Kotor wasn't all that different than BG in the first place, I'm not sure what your point is here.

0_o I never once thought of BG, when I was playing this game(outside of things obviously giving homage). I mean, I enjoyed the game a lot, but I definitely didn't think it was filling the place of BG, even for a second. But, I guess everyone has different ideas about the game.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Meltemph wrote...

Considering Kotor wasn't all that different than BG in the first place, I'm not sure what your point is here.

0_o I never once thought of BG, when I was playing this game(outside of things obviously giving homage). I mean, I enjoyed the game a lot, but I definitely didn't think it was filling the place of BG, even for a second. But, I guess everyone has different ideas about the game.

In terms of game mechanics it really wasn't all that different. Semi real time combat? check, party based? check, typical Bioware structure of story telling? check.

[Morroian]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Considering Kotor wasn't all that different than BG in the first place, I'm not sure what your point is here.

Sincere question, is kotor considered old school then? It didn't have the overhead tactical view for one thing. I would have thought a lot of the rpg elements were quite streamlined in kotor (and DAO by extension) compared to what I consider old school rpgs eg. the ultima series.

[Riona45]

Morroian wrote...

To bring it back to DA2 I feel the changes made won't impact on the depth so long as the paraphrasing is accurate, the voice acting good and the tactical view of combat is retained. They're not taking out features so much as refining whats already there.

I agree.  I do believe, on the whole, that complaints about ME having inaccurate paraphrasing are overstated (or at least, I certainly never had that much trouble it), but since it's been done before, I think BW will take the opportunity to learn from past mistakes.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Morroian wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Considering Kotor wasn't all that different than BG in the first place, I'm not sure what your point is here.

Sincere question, is kotor considered old school then? It didn't have the overhead tactical view for one thing. I would have thought a lot of the rpg elements were quite streamlined in kotor (and DAO by extension) compared to what I consider old school rpgs eg. the ultima series.

The overhead camera was all it was really missing really imo anyway. You still had a pretty good pool of powers and pause and play was still a viable means to play the game.

[AlanC9]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

What I meant is the hardcore base is still there, but they're not longer the base that's being focused on, due to out of control budgets and a shift in the industry.

So they could sell just as many "hardcore RPGs" now as they ever could, if only they didn't want to market to all of these console kiddies? All it would take is for Bio to accept that their old fanbase is now just a niche, and stay right there?

I just wanted to make sure I'm getting this.

So basically suck it up and conform is your advice. Embrace the removal of actual roleplaying choice and enjoy paraphrased voice overs that have you guessing at what "your" character is going to say among other concessions. Is that basically what you're getting at? At that point why bother even having discussion forums in the first place, really.

Don't be ridiculous, Sarah. I wouldn't ever bother giving you advice; you'd never take it. I was questioning what you think the current realities of game design are. You've been making posts that are either vague or contradictory all day, and I was wondering which one of those represents your actual position.

[AlanC9]

Riona45 wrote...
I agree.  I do believe, on the whole, that complaints about ME having inaccurate paraphrasing are overstated (or at least, I certainly never had that much trouble it), but since it's been done before, I think BW will take the opportunity to learn from past mistakes.

I don't think "overstated" is quite correct. It seems more that some people have a problem and other  people don't.

I'm one of the people who does not. I had a couple of problems in ME, but that's about as many as I had in DA:O, and about par for the course for any RPG with complex dialog.

[Riona45]

AlanC9 wrote...


I don't think "overstated" is quite correct. It seems more that some people have a problem and other  people don't.

You have a point, there.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

AlanC9 wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

What I meant is the hardcore base is still there, but they're not longer the base that's being focused on, due to out of control budgets and a shift in the industry.

So they could sell just as many "hardcore RPGs" now as they ever could, if only they didn't want to market to all of these console kiddies? All it would take is for Bio to accept that their old fanbase is now just a niche, and stay right there?

I just wanted to make sure I'm getting this.

So basically suck it up and conform is your advice. Embrace the removal of actual roleplaying choice and enjoy paraphrased voice overs that have you guessing at what "your" character is going to say among other concessions. Is that basically what you're getting at? At that point why bother even having discussion forums in the first place, really.

Don't be ridiculous, Sarah. I wouldn't ever bother giving you advice; you'd never take it. I was questioning what you think the current realities of game design are. You've been making posts that are either vague or contradictory all day, and I was wondering which one of those represents your actual position.

I thought I laid it out. I realize the "trend" is big bugets and over production. But as DAO has shown more traditional CRPG's can still make money, calling 3 million sales minor (I know it wasn't you that said this but still) is kinda ridiculous, most dev teams would kill to do those kind of numbers. Granted the game was in dev for 5+ years but I wonder how much of that time was other projects being put on the forefront while DA sat on a back burner looking for a publisher among other things. 

Course thats taking into consideration the fallout of Interplay, the unpaid royalties lawsuit that Bioware won against them etc etc. Obviously theres a ton of factors that we're not aware of, but I'm pretty sure 3 million in sales either met or exceeded their expectations. Thats not even counting the money made off of DLC, most of which ended up being pretty "meh" anyways. I won't get into the whole Elevation Partners thing lest Bryy calls me some fanboy again so I won't even bother.

Riona45 wrote...

I agree.  I do believe, on the whole, that complaints about ME having
inaccurate paraphrasing are overstated (or at least, I certainly never
had that much trouble it), but since it's been done before, I think BW will take the opportunity to learn from past mistakes.

Hopefully they can do that, and make it more engaging for those who weren't overly enamored with the way ME handled it. I realize I'm of the minority that isn't excited for the PC being voiced in the first place but still, it was brought to Bioware's attention that some didn't enjoy it much and they're hopefully making adjustments to make it better. Nothing wrong with that imo. Thats what constructive criticism will do for you.

[Meltemph]

But as DAO has shown more traditional CRPG's can still make money, calling 3 million sales minor (I know it wasn't you that said this but still) is kinda ridiculous, most dev teams would kill to do those kind of numbers.

You mean besides the fact that Gaider mentioned that the game didn't do as well, profit wise, as they wanted?  Not shocking though, that you are not taking into account costs, and just looking at amount sold.  Either you don't understand, your you are being willfully ignorant.

Granted the game was in dev for 5+ years but I wonder how much of that time was other projects being put on the forefront while DA sat on a back burner looking for a publisher among other things.

Oh, an expert now are we?  Well good to know that you understand the workings of the company...  Perhaps game companies should hire you for consultation?  With your obvious, vast knowledge of situations you are not apart of.

Course thats taking into consideration the fallout of Interplay, the unpaid royalties lawsuit that Bioware won against them etc etc. Obviously theres a ton of factors that we're not aware of, but I'm pretty sure 3 million in sales either met or exceeded their expectations.

Again, Gaider himself said, while it was a "commercial" success it did not meet their expectations, and he even mentioned due to the time invested was a factor in that.  I'm not going to dig it up for you, but no, 3 million was not meeting or exceeding their expectations.  But just ignore stuff like this because you think 3 milllion is just a super number for the cost of making the game.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Meltemph wrote...

But as DAO has shown more traditional CRPG's can still make money, calling 3 million sales minor (I know it wasn't you that said this but still) is kinda ridiculous, most dev teams would kill to do those kind of numbers.

You mean besides the fact that Gaider mentioned that the game didn't do as well, profit wise, as they wanted?  Not shocking though, that you are not taking into account costs, and just looking at amount sold.  Either you don't understand, your you are being willfully ignorant.

Granted the game was in dev for 5+ years but I wonder how much of that time was other projects being put on the forefront while DA sat on a back burner looking for a publisher among other things.

Oh, an expert now are we?  Well good to know that you understand the workings of the company...  Perhaps game companies should hire you for consultation?  With your obvious, vast knowledge of situations you are not apart of.

Course thats taking into consideration the fallout of Interplay, the unpaid royalties lawsuit that Bioware won against them etc etc. Obviously theres a ton of factors that we're not aware of, but I'm pretty sure 3 million in sales either met or exceeded their expectations.

Again, Gaider himself said, while it was a "commercial" success it did not meet their expectations, and he even mentioned due to the time invested was a factor in that.  I'm not going to dig it up for you, but no, 3 million was not meeting or exceeding their expectations.  But just ignore stuff like this because you think 3 milllion is just a super number for the cost of making the game.

I hadn't read that particular Gaider quote, and no, I never once claimed to be any sort of expert at all. Thanks for putting words in my mouth, appreciate that. That's actually kinda surprising, that they expected some 3 million plus copy turn around when most games are lucky to do half that amount.

Edit: gee I wonder if they consider ME2 selling a little over 2 million copies a failure as well.

Modifié par CoS Sarah Jinstar, 01 octobre 2010 - 05:54 .

[Wyndham711]

Luckily there are some signs that the ME model is not the only way to approach making a story driven RPG. Well, DA:O was certainly one, but there are also interesting upcoming projects like Dead State, (a traditional, turn based, isometric RPG with hardcore mechanics - done by a small team that doesn't worry too much about production values) I'm hoping games like Dead State succeed, proving to other RPG makers that the "Production Values =  Best Possible Profit" line of thinking isn't absolute. This kind of "smaller" project would be something I'd gladly see from BioWare as well, at some point.

[Meltemph]

Thanks for putting words in my mouth

Annoying, isn't it? I never said the sales were minor, but it is very obvious with the amount of time put into DAO(The setting as a whole) that it required A LOT of man hours. It was very successful from a commercial point of view, and they obviously still made a good profit off it, I would have to guess. However, the cost had to be very high(to be expected).



My only point in mentioning it is, while the amount sounds like a smash hit and worth it to us, teh cost of making something like this is very expensive. I mean, I think this is(globally) BW's best selling franchise, unless ME2 beat it.



If they want this to be huge, they obviously are going to want to increase their market. Obviously doing 3million again would mean Dragon Age is a smashing success, but they obviously want it to be huge.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Meltemph wrote...

Thanks for putting words in my mouth

Annoying, isn't it? I never said the sales were minor, but it is very obvious with the amount of time put into DAO(The setting as a whole) that it required A LOT of man hours. It was very successful from a commercial point of view, and they obviously still made a good profit off it, I would have to guess. However, the cost had to be very high(to be expected).

My only point in mentioning it is, while the amount sounds like a smash hit and worth it to us, teh cost of making something like this is very expensive. I mean, I think this is(globally) BW's best selling franchise, unless ME2 beat it.

If they want this to be huge, they obviously are going to want to increase their market. Obviously doing 3million again would mean Dragon Age is a smashing success, but they obviously want it to be huge.

I totally understand where you're coming from, it has to be much harder in some ways to create your own universe rather than work off an already established one (D&D) Making a new engine (Eclipse?) and all the rest that goes along with it. But I'm under the impression that ME2 has sold roughly the same amount so I find it hard to understand if they expect to sell many more copies even with adopting some of ME2's features for the sequel.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Wyndham711 wrote...

Luckily there are some signs that the ME model is not the only way to approach making a story driven RPG. Well, DA:O was certainly one, but there are also interesting upcoming projects like Dead State, (a traditional, turn based, isometric RPG with hardcore mechanics - done by a small team that doesn't worry too much about production values) I'm hoping games like Dead State succeed, proving to other RPG makers that the "Production Values =  Best Possible Profit" line of thinking isn't absolute. This kind of "smaller" project would be something I'd gladly see from BioWare as well, at some point.

Interesting link, that game could very well turn out to be quite awesome.

[Meltemph]

With time invested I would imagine they wanted Assassins Creed type numbers(5-6million) but even still, the argument is that there is a big enough market for DAO.  The market for this kind of a game like this is there, but what if the budget was smaller?  Who knows, but they obviously wanted slight(to me) changes in direction. I guess the argument is moot, point is they want more market for their franchise, and in a market like this(sales down something like 10% at least) they need to increase their base I would imagine.

However all of this could have nothing to do with the change in direction as well, it could easily be a choice in telling this story. Since I would assume they plan on Hawk being a Drizzt Do'Urden/Elminster type in the setting, it would very much make sense that they are doing it this way, which would mean that they are not stuck on any one particular direction.

Modifié par Meltemph, 01 octobre 2010 - 06:22 .

[MerinTB]

Wyndham711 wrote...

Luckily there are some signs that the ME model is not the only way to approach making a story driven RPG. Well, DA:O was certainly one, but there are also interesting upcoming projects like Dead State, (a traditional, turn based, isometric RPG with hardcore mechanics - done by a small team that doesn't worry too much about production values) I'm hoping games like Dead State succeed, proving to other RPG makers that the "Production Values =  Best Possible Profit" line of thinking isn't absolute. This kind of "smaller" project would be something I'd gladly see from BioWare as well, at some point.

I've said this before many times - but in reference to movies, actually.

Instead of making 3 $100 million dollar "summer blockbuster" movies, with that averaging out to $425 million in box office (@150%, 1 sells $250 million, 1 sells $100 million, 1 sells $75 million - net profit, but risky per film), and those 3 films having to be homogenized to be bland enough to be palatable to a large audience...
instead make 30 $10 million dollar "indie" films (read "niche"), with that averaging $800 million in box office (@250%, 1 sells $200 million, 9 sell $50 million, 10 sell $10 million, and 10 sell $5 million - far more net profit, same monetary investment, less risk per film, the breakout film is far more impressive, the loser films are far less hurtful... and with 30 options, you can make broader, deeper stories and appeal to a wider array of audience tastes rather than trying to get 25 million people to see one movie they all kinda want to see, you mostly want to try and get 9 varying groups of 5 million people in to see a movie they really want to see.)

Financially, artistically, industrially, aesthetically... allowing for consumer tastes, choice... giving more creators, actors, film workers, cities where films are made part of the profits... it seems to make far more sense to me.

You can nitpick the numbers I chose to use, but the principle I believe is fairly sound.  With the same amount of money, it's wiser to spread your chances than to limit them.  It creates more work.  It allows for a greater variety of stories and styles.

The only downside is far less bragging rights about "our movie just sold $100 million opening weekend (nevermind it cost us $200 million to make and it's getting trashed by critics and audiences alike.)"

---

Anywho, Dead State looks awesome.  I had heard about it long ago but had forgotten.  Thanks for reminding me!

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]SirOccam wrote...
The game doesn't choose your dialogue choices for you, does it?[/quote]Yes it does.

[quote] You choose whether to encourage or discourage romances[/quote]No.

[quote]save or abandon the Council[/quote]Yes.

[quote]save or destroy the Rachni[/quote]Yes.

[quote]and lots more examples more mundane.[/quote]That were grossly outnumbered by the dialogue choices that were denied us.

[quote]If you had no control, there'd be no dialogue wheel. The whole point of the dialogue wheel is to let you make choices.[/quote]The whole point of the dialogue wheel was to give us something to do that felt like a choice.  it wasn't a choice.

[quote]Don't confuse "not as much control as I would like" with "no control." This is central to my whole argument. Just because you want more doesn't mean there is nothing there.[/quote]There is some threshold below which there isn't choice.

ME was below that threshold.

[quote]You may not know the specifics, but the idea that that's the same as not making a choice is absurd to me. I can fire a gun in the air; not knowing where it will land does not mean I haven't done it.  As inaccurate as the ME paraphrases can be, they're not completely random.[/quote]Random = unpredictable.  If the result cannot be predicted consistently, then it is effectively random.  It being actually random would make no material difference to how the game played.

[quote]You still have an idea of the way you're shaping the course of the conversation, especially considering some of them are color-coded. The differences are mainly cosmetic when they happen. They might not be exactly what you'd like to have said, but for the most part, they get across some workable idea of the intent.[/quote]The idea of intent isn't workable.

[quote]Besides (and I hesitate to bring this up again), you could use that same argument in DAO. You know the words, but you don't know the tone. I know you have your own system for compensating for this, but that's (obviously) not part of the game.[/quote]And again, you're wrong.  You say "you don't know the tone", and in doing so you're presupposing that there is some tone there to know.

There isn't.  There's text.  That's all their is.  The writers wrote assuming a tone, but that tone isn't in the game.  I can't hear it.  Can you hear it?  Make me an audio file of that tone.

The tone isn't there.

[quote]Note the bolded word. Selection. That is choice right there.[/quote]That's choice of a UI element, not character behaviour.

[quote]I'd buy what you're saying if your choices were only labeled by numbers or even left blank. But you do have some idea of what Shepard is going to say or do.[/quote]No.  I repeatedly and consistently did not.
[quote]Yes, it really is. It's an uninformed choice. If I am on a game show and I choose to wager all my winnings against whatever is behind Door #2, even though I don't know what's there, it doesn't mean I didn't make a choice.
[/quote]You chose door #2.

But what you're claiming above is that you chose the goat.

You didn't choose the goat.  you chose door #2.  With ME we were talking about choosing Shepard's actions and directing her behaviour.  We're not allowed to do that.  We're allowed to choose the paragon option, or the option that's paraphrased a certain way, but we're not actually allowed to choose the action.

You're claiming that the game show contestant intentionally and wilfully chose the goat.  And that's just not true.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 01 octobre 2010 - 04:48 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Morroian wrote...

To bring it back to DA2 I feel the changes made won't impact on the depth so long as the paraphrasing is accurate, the voice acting good and the tactical view of combat is retained. They're not taking out features so much as refining whats already there.

I'm not really sure what it would mean for the voice acting to be "good".

Perhaps if the tone with which the lines were delivered was ambiguous.  That might make the voiced protagonist work.

[Meltemph]

And again, you're wrong. You say "you don't know the tone", and in doing so you're presupposing that there is some tone there to know.

There isn't. There's text. That's all their is. The writers wrote assuming a tone, but that tone isn't in the game. I can't hear it. Can you hear it? Make me an audio file of that tone.

The tone isn't there.

Wait, wait, wait... Are you saying books don't have an intended tone, with written characters, if I follow your logic out?

Modifié par Meltemph, 01 octobre 2010 - 04:56 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

Wait, wait, wait... Are you saying books don't have an intended tone, with written characters, if I follow your logic out?

Books often have an explicit tone.  How often did Isaac Asimov write "she replied sardonically"?

[Meltemph]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

Wait, wait, wait... Are you saying books don't have an intended tone, with written characters, if I follow your logic out?

Books often have an explicit tone.  How often did Isaac Asimov write "she replied sardonically"?

And there are also a lot of books(Tom Clancy for instance) that tells you about their personalities and then assumes you understand the tones(Rainbow Six being just one example).

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

And there are also a lot of books(Tom Clancy for instance) that tells you about their personalities and then assumes you understand the tones(Rainbow Six being just one example).

I'm not making decisions on those characters' behalf.  I don't need to be certain of their tone all the time.  I don't need to be able to predict their tone.

When reading a book, a story is being told at me.  It's a passive endeavour on the reader's part.  The reader reacts to what happens in the book.

In a CRPG, the character is supposed to be acting as I direct.  I shouldn't even have to learn how he delivered a line.  I need to know that before he says it.

edit: Plus, Tom Clancy's not a terrible good writer.  I've read most of his books; leaving that tone undescribed only creates ambiguity.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 01 octobre 2010 - 05:08 .

[Meltemph]

You realize we are arguing over perspective, correct? Which means that what Morrian wrote is not technically wrong. From my perspective, the story is being told at me, only like some books I used to read in jr high, I got to make choices and turn to a different pages based on my choices.