735 réponses à ce sujet

[Deckers]

ahuevocabron wrote...

RampantBeaver wrote...

Criticising a game that hasn't been released yet, let alone finished, is soo pointless. Wait till you play it, then give all the feedback

I COULD NOT AGREE MORE!!!

They're criticising the decisions that have been made, not the end product itself. And they have every right to do so, this is not "My opinion overrides yours" country, so don't act as though all these judgements are baseless and not worth consideration.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

In Exile wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
The thing is that I'm (and others) not talking about the defining traits of RPGs here. I'm talking about what defined DA:O as DA:O. What was core to the mechanics and interaction in that specific game? That's what should not be changed.

Right, but what was the core mechanic? Was it the silent VO, and now with the VO this has changed? Presumably not in your opinion, because you granted that this is not a major departure for you. Is it the framed narrative? I would argue it isn't, because plausibly we could add only this feature to DA:O and not neccesarily change anything about the game or story beyond its presentation.

I think an issue that can't be glossed over is that we have this disagreement over whether the direction of DA2 is positive or not because we cannot agree what the core features of the game are.

In my case, for example, if we kept silent VO, addded more origins and less defined background and a create-your-own party (think IWD or NWN2: SoZ) the game would no longer interest me. If we replaced the gameplay with diablo hack & slash, I would be far less excited for the game.

A major issue of design is that, if you want to talk about improving the product versus cloning it, you have to identify what features of the game are core and what features are peripheral. And there is tremendous disagreement on that. To me, it was the pause & play gameplay and the 4-person tactical combat. The peripheral failures of DA:O included the lack of VO. So if I was designing the game, I would be taking it in the same direction Bioware is. If Sylvius was designing it, we'd be well on our way to correct the mistakes BG I made.

The question is do you really need a voiced protagonist to somehow make the game "better" and why? I really don't see how a game that was marketed as a spirital successor to baldur's gate, which also didn't have a voiced protagonist, needs to follow the development path of Mass Effect in that the player now just sits back and watches, occasonally makes an arbitrary canned guess at a response here and there to slightly change a quest or one of the "outcome slides" at the end of the game.

It's really no different than what you have without a voiced protagonist except the player is allowed to fill in the blanks should he/she choose to do so. In effect it's removal sacrafices roleplaying choice for that big buget cinematic feel. If I want to watch a movie, I'll watch a movie. I perfer my rpg's to at least allow a tiny bit of that table top experience that I've grown accustomed to over the years. 

Trust me I do understand there are those that want that sort of thing, what saddens me is those of us who would like to see at least one developer continue to make titles that capture the feel of badur's gate with current technology and without sacraficing the ability to rp without getting force fed a written script, apparently get left out in the long run. Because for as many people that do welcome the whole voice over direction, there's no doubt an equal number who don't understand why its considered such a huge improvement, or even think its any sort of improvement at all. Which puts Bioware in a spot of either pleasing the older fanbase, or trying to please the main stream fans they've aquired from titles like Mass Effect and there's noway they can please both camps.

[FieryDove]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
Yes, but if I called you ProvocativePants that might make people picture you to be a crotchless set of low-riders, and nobody wants that. Would CreepyPants suffice?

Is this where I have to decide between having a nickname assigned to me by a Bioware developer and the integrity of my silly username?  

Where is my convenient third option?  Can I go to the Circle Tower and get out of this one?

Your third option is to create a new name yourself....quick.
I recommend restless, enraged or vexed to be paired with lederhosen, bloomers or knickers.

the_one_54321 wrote...

Would I be out of line if I dragged this discussion toward quantum mechanics and the nature of time, space, and divergent realities...

I wish you would. Seriously.

[Addai]

Lucy_Glitter wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Why do people keep bringing those games up?  Even if they are good, they're not the same playing experience that we got used to in DAO and (some of us) were hoping for more of in DA2. 

Exactly.

I wanted a more upgraded version of Origins with a new, amazing story and new, amazing companions and so on. I didn't want a whole lot of it to be completely changed.

Also, I've been upset over the fact that developers are brushing actual fans concern over it being the same thing they had with Origins. IT IS NOT THE SAME. 

BioWare, you made a fanbase solely from Origins alone. Don't forget that fact.

I would have settled for more of Origins in the Origins DLCs, but we didn't even get that.  Ah well, the devs are following their bliss or something, what can you do.

Damn you for dragging Alistair into your Dragon Effect perversion, BioWare.  <_<

[Addai]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Why do people keep bringing those games up?  Even if they are good, they're not the same playing experience that we got used to in DAO and (some of us) were hoping for more of in DA2. 

Because sometimes we liberals and radicals confuse the conservatives who like DAO with the reactionaries who like the Infinity engine games.  

...yeah I'm gonna keep pushing those labels on people because darnit, they're accurate and descriptive.

It appears this discussion has become an entire thing, but that does help to point out the absurdity of people wagging their fingers over "fear of change."  Honestly, if I see that phrase again, by the Maker...

Anyway, well said, AngryPants.

[Addai]

ahuevocabron wrote...

RampantBeaver wrote...

Criticising a game that hasn't been released yet, let alone finished, is soo pointless. Wait till you play it, then give all the feedback

I COULD NOT AGREE MORE!!!

So, shell out 60 bucks first and then decide whether or not it's worth the purchase price?  Daddy isn't paying for my copy of DA2, so that's not going to happen.  The comments here are on announced changes, not on the finished product.  If you don't have anything to say about those changes, good for you.

[Lintanis]

 

[KillTheLastRomantic]

Lady light doorbell wrote...

You know people say these things but they always come back in the end. So when you come back and tell us that DA2 was great, we will remain here and remind you of your comments.

Yeah, like how absolutely EVERYONE was happy with Mass Effect 2 once it was released. Oh, wait.

[FedericoV]

Progressive_Stupidity1 wrote...

Lady light doorbell wrote...

You know people say these things but they always come back in the end. So when you come back and tell us that DA2 was great, we will remain here and remind you of your comments.

Yeah, like how absolutely EVERYONE was happy with Mass Effect 2 once it was released. Oh, wait.

Still, it's the greatest success of Bioware's history, both critically and commercially. The fact that 20/30 disappointed fan of ME1 gathered in the forum and dissect each element of ME2, just because they simply want another ME1, does not say anything about the quality of the game and the merits of its design. Not to say that critic ain't right in some respect, but still... the reaction in those forum (while important and such) do not say anything about the overhall reaction to the game. Look at metacritics for example.

[tmp7704]

FedericoV wrote...

Still, it's the greatest success of Bioware's history, both critically and commercially.

Actually wonder, is it really? Can't find much hard data regarding that, but what's available -- 1.6 mil units sold vs over 6.5 mil shipped in similar timeframe -- suggests the expectations were much higher than how well the game actually did. The title is also hardly ever mentioned in EA's financial reports available to date, even though older reports positioned it as "first blockbuster title of 2010".

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

FedericoV wrote...

Progressive_Stupidity1 wrote...

Lady light doorbell wrote...

You know people say these things but they always come back in the end. So when you come back and tell us that DA2 was great, we will remain here and remind you of your comments.

Yeah, like how absolutely EVERYONE was happy with Mass Effect 2 once it was released. Oh, wait.

Still, it's the greatest success of Bioware's history, both critically and commercially. The fact that 20/30 disappointed fan of ME1 gathered in the forum and dissect each element of ME2, just because they simply want another ME1, does not say anything about the quality of the game and the merits of its design. Not to say that critic ain't right in some respect, but still... the reaction in those forum (while important and such) do not say anything about the overhall reaction to the game. Look at metacritics for example.

And Origins sold 3 million copies as well, and was critcally and you would think commercially sucessful as well. Unless the 5 years of dev of building a new franchise and engine upgrades of Eclipse cancled the commercial success out a bit. So I find it hard to see what your point is.

At this point I don't even personally want another ME1, I don't want anything to do with the ME series at all.

Modifié par CoS Sarah Jinstar, 09 octobre 2010 - 05:53 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

David Gaider wrote...

I'll pencil you in as "Militant Navel-Gazer", then, and you can share tips with Sylvius.

Knowing that you are part of that group means all your opinions are now codified, so you needn't speak any longer. Just FYI.

Snarky much?

[Fadook]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

In Exile wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
The thing is that I'm (and others) not talking about the defining traits of RPGs here. I'm talking about what defined DA:O as DA:O. What was core to the mechanics and interaction in that specific game? That's what should not be changed.

Right, but what was the core mechanic? Was it the silent VO, and now with the VO this has changed? Presumably not in your opinion, because you granted that this is not a major departure for you. Is it the framed narrative? I would argue it isn't, because plausibly we could add only this feature to DA:O and not neccesarily change anything about the game or story beyond its presentation.

I think an issue that can't be glossed over is that we have this disagreement over whether the direction of DA2 is positive or not because we cannot agree what the core features of the game are.

In my case, for example, if we kept silent VO, addded more origins and less defined background and a create-your-own party (think IWD or NWN2: SoZ) the game would no longer interest me. If we replaced the gameplay with diablo hack & slash, I would be far less excited for the game.

A major issue of design is that, if you want to talk about improving the product versus cloning it, you have to identify what features of the game are core and what features are peripheral. And there is tremendous disagreement on that. To me, it was the pause & play gameplay and the 4-person tactical combat. The peripheral failures of DA:O included the lack of VO. So if I was designing the game, I would be taking it in the same direction Bioware is. If Sylvius was designing it, we'd be well on our way to correct the mistakes BG I made.

The question is do you really need a voiced protagonist to somehow make the game "better" and why? I really don't see how a game that was marketed as a spirital successor to baldur's gate, which also didn't have a voiced protagonist, needs to follow the development path of Mass Effect in that the player now just sits back and watches, occasonally makes an arbitrary canned guess at a response here and there to slightly change a quest or one of the "outcome slides" at the end of the game.

It's really no different than what you have without a voiced protagonist except the player is allowed to fill in the blanks should he/she choose to do so. In effect it's removal sacrafices roleplaying choice for that big buget cinematic feel. If I want to watch a movie, I'll watch a movie. I perfer my rpg's to at least allow a tiny bit of that table top experience that I've grown accustomed to over the years. 

Trust me I do understand there are those that want that sort of thing, what saddens me is those of us who would like to see at least one developer continue to make titles that capture the feel of badur's gate with current technology and without sacraficing the ability to rp without getting force fed a written script, apparently get left out in the long run. Because for as many people that do welcome the whole voice over direction, there's no doubt an equal number who don't understand why its considered such a huge improvement, or even think its any sort of improvement at all. Which puts Bioware in a spot of either pleasing the older fanbase, or trying to please the main stream fans they've aquired from titles like Mass Effect and there's noway they can please both camps.

My 2c: I think having a voiced character is consistent with DA2 being a more personal story focused on Hawke. BW have chosen to go down the route of the main character not being truly your own. From a narrative perspective, it seems like DA2 is going to be more like watching a movie about a guy than being the guy yourself (just like the ME games). Now I prefer the old-school narrative approach taken in DA and would be more strongly against voice-over in that context. But given the structure of DA2's story, a voiced Hawke makes sense.

[FedericoV]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

And Origins sold 3 million copies as well, and was critcally and you would think commercially sucessful as well. Unless the 5 years of dev of building a new franchise and engine upgrades of Eclipse cancled the commercial success out a bit. So I find it hard to see what your point is.

And Origins forum were filled with complaints and critics as well, before, during and after the release. What I was saying is that the reception of Bioware's game/design decision in those forum does not say anything about the reception of those same game in the bigger picture. So saying that ME2 was not received well because there are some posts in bioware boards fueled by 30 angry posters who do not like it, does not say anything about the success or the quality of the game.

At this point I don't even personally want another ME1, I don't want anything to do with the ME series at all.

You will be greatly missed.

[Vicious]

The fact that 20/30 disappointed fan of ME1 gathered in the forum and dissect each element of ME2, just because they simply want another ME1, does not say anything about the quality of the game and the merits of its design.

Pretty much.

[FedericoV]

tmp7704 wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

Still, it's the greatest success of Bioware's history, both critically and commercially.

Actually wonder, is it really? Can't find much hard data regarding that, but what's available -- 1.6 mil units sold vs over 6.5 mil shipped in similar timeframe -- suggests the expectations were much higher than how well the game actually did. The title is also hardly ever mentioned in EA's financial reports available to date, even though older reports positioned it as "first blockbuster title of 2010".

Critically, it is (just look at metacritic). Commercially, I don't know, but considering what ME2 devs have said and the direction of DA's design as well, I would be surprised if it's not so.

[In Exile]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
The question is do you really need a voiced protagonist to somehow make the game "better" and why?

I addressed this at different points in this thread, but essentially for the following reasons:

(1) If we have voiced NPCs, then a silent PC is neccesarily in the background for any cut-scene or dramatically salient interaction (e.g. the introduction to Cailain from the Human Noble origin I mentioned previously).

(2) Written dialogue already neccesarily has an assigned tone. Making it explicit or implicit has no impact on the degree of control I have over the character. With regard to control over my character, this is a push.

(3) Unlike many advocates of silent VO (this is a personal reason, as opposed to a general design argument like the other two) I do not have an active reading voice. I don't know any other way to describe it. When I read, I read wit a single "narrator" tone that is identical when reading a novel or a grocery list. This voice never changes for characters (i.e. when I read, my women sound like men, who all sound like me reading aloud).

I really don't see how a game that was marketed as a spirital successor to baldur's gate, which also didn't have a voiced protagonist, needs to follow the development path of Mass Effect in that the player now just sits back and watches, occasonally makes an arbitrary canned guess at a response here and there to slightly change a quest or one of the "outcome slides" at the end of the game.

Okay, with regard to choice, DA:O absolutely did this same thing. There are like 6 barely meaningful choices in game, plus DR & US. And let's not pretend games prior to ME/DA even had anything an outcome choice beside the engame (and BG didn't even have that).

It's really no different than what you have without a voiced protagonist except the player is allowed to fill in the blanks should he/she choose to do so.

But "spiritual successor" is an empty phrase. We had this debate back with DA:O, when people were criticizing it for not having the following: (i) inventory tetris; (ii) companion death versus injury; (iii) ability to attack/kill ALL NPCs; (iv) explorate interconnected areas instead of the general map, etc.

DA:O did not implement many features from BG. Arguably these are not all bad choices, but they were choices that were made while Bioware also maintaiend they were producing a spiritual successor (and you seem to grant DA:O was a spiritual succesor).

So based on this reasoning alone, why is VO any more integral to BG than companion death, inventory tetris or non-invicible NPCs?

In effect it's removal sacrafices roleplaying choice for that big buget cinematic feel. If I want to watch a movie, I'll watch a movie.

I disagree. I have always disagreed with this, and maintained that depending on the circumstance, VO can allow more roleplaying than non-VO. At the very least, it is always the case (I argue) that VO will at least provide the same opportunity to roleplay as non-VO.

I perfer my rpg's to at least allow a tiny bit of that table top experience that I've grown accustomed to over the years. 

I have never played a PnP game. In fact, I don't think I've ever met a person who is into RPGs, either cRPG or PnP.

Trust me I do understand there are those that want that sort of thing, what saddens me is those of us who would like to see at least one developer continue to make titles that capture the feel of badur's gate with current technology and without sacraficing the ability to rp without getting force fed a written script, apparently get left out in the long run.

But we're right back at the problem I brought up. What are the core features of BG? Your protagonist was much more fixed in BG than in DA:O. There, you were a Bhalspawn. You had a particular divine destiny. You had living relatives. You were brought up in Candlekeep. In the old DA:O forum, we had people arguing that the Origins, which are now loaded as this incredible achievement in roleplay, as something that fundamentally betrayed and restricted the vision of BG and that Bioware could not call DA:O a spiritual successor in good faith.

So what was the feel of BG? To me, it was the epic and engrossing personal story. If anything, DA2 captures this aspect better than DA:O ever did.

Because for as many people that do welcome the whole voice over direction, there's no doubt an equal number who don't understand why its considered such a huge improvement, or even think its any sort of improvement at all. Which puts Bioware in a spot of either pleasing the older fanbase, or trying to please the main stream fans they've aquired from titles like Mass Effect and there's noway they can please both camps.

This is one issue I have. I have been playing Bioware games since NWN. Yet since NWN, I thought it would be really awesome to have VO (and an audible in-game name). There must have been someone at Bioaware who had the same idea, otherwise why would they have produced Mass Effect in the first place?

There are many features Bioware is arguably introducing (and has introduced) to appeal to a mainstream audience. These predate Mass Effect and EA (think, for example, of how JE was exclusively a console action-RPG to capture on the success of KoTOR on the Xbox). I disagree that VO for the sake of roleplaying is a mainstream feature, however. We are just a different kind of niche, since the entire RPG genre (whatever you want to consider an RPG)  pales in popularity to truly mainstream games like you can find on the Wii, or to FPS and sports titles.

Modifié par In Exile, 09 octobre 2010 - 06:57 .

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
Actually wonder, is it really? Can't find much hard data regarding that, but what's available -- 1.6 mil units sold vs over 6.5 mil shipped in similar timeframe -- suggests the expectations were much higher than how well the game actually did. The title is also hardly ever mentioned in EA's financial reports available to date, even though older reports positioned it as "first blockbuster title of 2010".

Where did you get this data from? People have been notoriously inaccurate in reporting sales figures in the ME2 and DA:O commercial success debate. I do not mean to imply that you are reporting anything erroneously, I would just like to find some accurate source out there on the sales figures, and am hoping you have it available.

[PaddyMaxson]

Kajros wrote...

Yeah, the two-handed combat was slowed. This has been confirmed. The video that everyone has seen is like tmp7704 said. It is just an exaggerated point of view from Varric who narrates the story. Later on the game slows down and things change slightly. This too has been confirmed.

That's a really weird yet interesting feature, different gameplay dependant on whether it's the true story or an exaggerated version of it...a really really interesting feature in fact.

[Meltemph]

The sold vs shipped debate is as old and as misleading as any argument in gaming. It has many layers of truth, and can easily be taken as good or bad, depending on your point of view. Shipped numbers are important because it gives an image of success. This is often taken as BS marketing, but its much more. Shipped units mean a store has ordered them, and the company has sent them. If an item is shipping 7 million units in a year and a half, the sold numbers(while important), really dont matter unless you are talking specifics. If the orders are coming in and the shipments are going out, the product is a success, period. 
Now, where we lose our way is when sold units are compared to shipped units DIRECTLY. This is a trap for argument where neither side can prove any point beyond guessing.

Modifié par Meltemph, 09 octobre 2010 - 07:15 .

[Da_Lion_Man]

100 % agree with OP. This game looks bad and probably will be bad. I already hate it quite a bit.

[Meltemph]

 2 minute(s) agoDa_Lion_Man replied to topic 5 minute(s) agoDa_Lion_Man signed up.

[Da_Lion_Man]

Meltemph wrote...

 2 minute(s) agoDa_Lion_Man replied to topic 5 minute(s) agoDa_Lion_Man signed up.

Yes, I just signed up. What's wrong about that? Can a newbie not express his opinion? Is it only for the hardcore forum visiters?

[Bryy_Miller]

Da_Lion_Man wrote...

100 % agree with OP. This game looks bad and probably will be bad. I already hate it quite a bit.

You're agreeing with a troll, just to be clear. This is what they DO. 

[Mehow_pwn]

Lintanis wrote...

 

Changes only work with totally new tittle AND ONLY IN REAL LIFE 

Not in RPGs like this.. one

Mass effect 2 did workout even thought it was more of a gears of war game not an RPG 

So yes I Totally I agree with that guy whos dispointed..

Modifié par Mehow_pwn, 09 octobre 2010 - 07:30 .