26 réponses à ce sujet

[Burrs]

Dragon Age 2 disappoints me. I thoroughly enjoyed Dragon Age: Origins because it was a resurrection of the great rpgs of old. The races, the origins, the isometric view, the incredibly in-depth story. They made that game incredible in a stagnant RPG market. Naturally I assumed dragon age 2 would simply build off the original, perhaps polish the combat a bit. This however, did not happen. Instead I see a game which appears to have had almost all of it's RPG elements trimmed off. After watching this gameplay video: I am even furthered disillusioned. This is not the IP that burst out of nowhere to become a fan favorite. This seems to be a hack and slash game with a good story. I mean, there are fpses with more classes than this game. Bioware, EA, I am disappointed. I will not be buying this game, and I hope you take into account that the features you removed are disgruntling customers. Hopefully you will return to the roots of this great IP some day. Until then my wallet will go elsewere.

Modifié par Burrs, 08 octobre 2010 - 03:17 .

[Mike Laidlaw]

Brockololly wrote...

I just think the whole exaggerated narrative is a bit stupid to be showing off as the first thing for DA2. On one hand you have people that may look at it and like the over the top blood, only to be disappointed when its more mundane in the real version. And then you have people who realize thats the exaggerated version but are expecting the "real" version to be drastically different- its still going to pretty much look like what you saw. It just seems silly to show off the exaggerated part of the game as the first gameplay anyone sees of DA2.

Well, we have to show something, and the simple truth is that the combat does look very different, and is thus worth showing to people. So you go to, say, PAX, and you stand in line for four hours or whatever, and then you are presented a chance to kick gratuitous amounts of ass. And then the scary lady in black armor bursts into the scene you're watching, says "Bull****!" and promptly starts dismantling how over the top that part of the game was. And then, you get to play the real, and far more humble start to Hawke's life.

So, in ten minutes, you get to see:

• How people percieve your character
• How the framed narrative works
• How things work when they're not exaggerated
• Darkspawn dying in spectacular ways
• New combat and conversation

In short, you get a microcosm of DA2, which is, generally speaking, a very good thing to leave the show floor with, and not, in fact, "silly." If anything, it's honest, because yes, that is how the game plays, and yes, we think it's a lot of fun, and yes, the opening is over the top, which is a nice way to start, for a change instead of some sort of floor scrubbing minigame. It's not like we're going to open a show demo with a detailed examination of the journal screen.

And as for why Bioware would show only the exaggerated part, I most people know that we did not, in fact, show the exaggerated part. Someone captured the opening moments of a larger demo and posted it against our wishes. That's a shame, I think the demo works better with the larger context, and at some point, I hope to share that larger context with you folks who didn't get to attend any shows where DA2 was. But good things come in time.

[Mike Laidlaw]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
[*]
Start nagging the PR department to let you show it then, sure fire way to end the debate. Plenty of games get trailers months and sometimes years before release. We're 5 months out, I would think you guys would have something you're ready to show by now.

It would have been out by now, but we push it back a day everytime Brock says that we should show gameplay, so, at this rate you will see it in ..... *does some quick math*....2014.

[Stanley Woo]

When arguing the particulars of what role-playing is, and whether a given game or set of rules constitutes role-playing, some folks tend to forget that they are doing this role-playing within the confines of a videogame, one that has a set of rules and limitations that the player implicitly follows as he plays.



If the game is a sandbox game, the player quickly learns that he can travel anywhere and do most anything he wants, and plays accordingly.



If the game does not allow the random killing of any and every NPC on the screen, the player will stop trying to kill everyone on the screen (except, perhaps, as a laugh).



Ignoring the rules and limitations of the world given to you as a player is to resist playing the game, regardless of the scope of those rules or limitations. Even if the game allows you to play any character except Arvid the Tap-Dancing Squirrel, you would be actively resisting the game if you insisted that that is precisely the character you wanted to play. Arguing that that limitation removes/reduces immersion is silly when you as a player are the one disallowing yourself from suspending your disbelief.



Sure, you can say that having X number of choices for character customization is fewer than having 2X number of choices, but there is no quantifiable number of choices which automatically removes immersion or magically turns a game from RPG to not-an-RPG. You as a player either buy into the scope and limitations of the rules, or you don't. This applies to, among other things, the number of options available at character customization, method of presenting dialogue, and amount of sandboxiness in the game.

[David Gaider]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Reactionaries:  Want DA2 to be like traditional CRPGs.
Conservatives:  Want DA2 to be like DAO.
Liberals: Want DA2 to be like ME2.
Radicals: Want DA2 to go beyond ME2 in terms of changing the CRPG genre.

Well that's an interesting breakdown. I don't know that I'd say Liberals want DA2 to be like ME2, necessarily... perhaps it would be better to say that they don't see anything wrong with DA2 changing the formula. Or maybe you need a new label "Pragmatists" for people who are simply willing to keep an open mind, and who suggest they'll judge DA2 on its own merits. I don't know.

Certainly better than people trotting out the "fanboy" and "troll" accusations at every turn, anyhow. How dreary.

Not quite as dreary as pedantic, wall-of-text arguments over the minutiae of what qualifies as an acceptable RPG... but close.

Modifié par David Gaider, 09 octobre 2010 - 04:24 .

[Mike Laidlaw]

Lucy_Glitter wrote...

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. 

Correct. It is not the same. It is similar in a lot of ways, and different in others. I personally feel that DA2 feels and plays a lot like DA:O at its core, but a lot faster and punchier on the surface. Which is pretty much exactly what I was hoping for.

It's not what everyone was hoping for. I'm well aware that some of the changes are hot-button items with folks. Combat that seems too actiony? Anger ensues. Dialog where the PC has a voice? Anger ensues.

But not from everyone. It's a preference thing. Some love the changes, some hate them. I'm keenly aware that both camps exist, and while I wish I could please everyone, I cannot, especially not before the game is released when conjecture rules the day, so I do not try.

All we can do is present the game as it is, changes and similarities out there for people to make informed judgements. The unforutnate side effect is that, since most of our changes are very visible (combat, player VO, etc) and most of our similarities are subtle (journal, inventory, tactics screen, etc), there tends to be a lot more talk about the changes than what's similar. Focus on change only, and it's easy to draw the conclusion that everything has changed, forever, and thus the conversations become...interesting! Heated, even!

So, there you go. Your concerns have been acknowledged. I can't completely assuage them for you, but I can nod and say, "Yep. I hear ya." And when more information about the game comes out, I expect your concern will abate. Perhaps never entirely, but some.

[David Gaider]

the_one_54321 wrote...
When something works you don't completely change the formula. I wonder if you were a fan of Starcraft and if so what you thought of Starcraft2. Other than a new campaign and some new units the sequal is almost identical to the first. And it sold like crazy and everyone is loving it.

We don't know yet just how drastic the changes are from DA:O to DA][, but if it's a far enough departure it's a mistake. And while they'll grab a number of new buyers, they'll lose a lot of us that liked  DA:O. It's not a matter of status quo. Your whole application of that theory is out of whack. It's inaccurate because it only characterizes desires and completely misses the correct motivations.

Not to butt in here, but I don't think AngryPants was saying that there was a status quo. I think he's saying that "conservatives" favor the status quo-- they want the status quo to be maintained between DAO and DA2. We're not, obviously, and some people clearly don't like DA2 changing the formula. Whether it's ultimately a good idea or not remains to be seen, but naturally since the biggest fans of DAO liked it how it was and want more of the same and also happen to hang out on these forums a lot and be very interested in how Dragon Age develops as a series we'll hear a lot from them.

That doesn't change the fact that DA2 is changing the formula. We could have left it all the same, yes, and indeed Starcraft is an excellent game-- but we're not going that route. Like Mike said, whether we think the changes are that fundamental or not is irrelevant to some folks-- though their view is still largely conjecture and based primarily on their thoughts regarding specific features or RPG's in general, and thus we'll have to take it with a grain of salt. One can predict doom and gloom and a massive departure of dissatisfied fans with nobody to replace them... but I guess that's BioWare's risk to take, isn't it? :)

Modifié par David Gaider, 09 octobre 2010 - 06:47 .

[David Gaider]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
No you rather play the poltically correct card, rather than just call things how they are. Me, I don't do that, I rather just call things as I see them.

"I'm just telling it like it is" is sort of the classic defense by rude people of their behavior, isn't it?

I'd sooner say that if you can't make your observations in a polite manner, you shouldn't make them. So let's all stop this back-and-forth and keep things on topic please... or excuse yourself from the table. This is our house, remember, and you're all guests, so please act like it.

[David Gaider]

Lucy_Glitter wrote...
Um nummies! Gaider writing! *chomp chomp chomp*

I was using that. <_<

[David Gaider]

Lucy_Glitter wrote...
So you are saying you want me to throw it up?

No. No, you can keep it. Just don't eat the tablecloth, please. We'll want that for later.

[David Gaider]

leonia42 wrote...
It's a bit early to speculate on how drastically different/similar DA 2 will be to DA:O, don't ya think?

It no doubt is, and until we show more all the speculation is a bit fruitless. And we will show more, obviously, but that's not soon enough for some people-- and thus they'll render Final Judgement based on the information they have at the time, based on the assumption that what they see or think they see is all there is to the game. Anything else is like Shroedinger's Cat and doesn't actually exist.

Origins went through this period, too, and while people will claw their eyes out thinking that it can't possibly happen soon enough ("why isn't it happening RIGHT NOW?? OMG") eventually there will be so much information available you will be absolutely sick of hearing about it.

Not that the opinions will change, necessarily. But it'd be nice to see them backed up by more than ideology.

[David Gaider]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Every time I see "Origins" without Dragon Age before it, I am sadly reminded of an actual example of a developer that changed, lost its way, and was eventually vaporized.

They created worlds [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/crying.png[/smilie]

True. That may happen to BioWare someday, and I imagine there's more than a few folks on these forums who would experience major schadenfreude if that happened-- barring the fact that this still won't make us create the exact game they want, or send a message to the industry that doing so is a path to success, but I imagine they'll think we deserved it for betraying the True Oath of the Roleplayer.

And those who don't will probably give us a salute and invoke our name fondly when they move on to annoying other developers. Life is cyclical.

[David Gaider]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Not really, thats pretty much just my take on things. Obama fooled a ton of people with his hopey changy message, really didn't have much of a plan, still doesn't, and at this point is just trying to pass as many liberal policies through as he can before his 1 term presidency is over.

Okay, last warning before I give you a ticket out of here: keep your real-world political opinions to yourself.

Same goes for everyone: this is not the place to be discussing politics, no matter how unique a snowflake you think your political opinons are.

Modifié par David Gaider, 09 octobre 2010 - 07:52 .

[David Gaider]

MerinTB wrote...
It not only oversimplifies the situation, it drawns unintended political context to the issue at hand, and it generalizes feelings into nice, neat little packages that I doubt many people would actually fit in.

You mean sort of like how everyone who is at all supportive of DA2's direction, or who objects to bashing, is a deliberately obtuse "fanboy" and how everyone who is at all critical of DA2's direction, or who objects to blank cheques being offered to developers, is an entitled "troll"?

Drives me absolutely crazy how people continue to treat this like an either / or situation (almost as much as the ones who state their opinions as if they are the defacto reality - "nobody likes silent protagonists, that's a thing of the past!" or "if you like faster paced action you must be a little kid playing on a console" or whatever)

Relax. Nobody's trying to suggest people need to be divvied up into their categories and forced to wear them like name badges. All AngryPants was offering was a way of identifying some of the different forces at work on the forums and why they tend to argue so much. It's like people speaking different languages and yet who all think they're speaking the same one.

Is it useful? Not really-- nobody's going to stop calling people fanboys or trolls or "telling it like it is"-- but it's also nothing to get up in arms about. Nobody was telling you to buy ranks in Militant Conservatism when you leveled up or anything. You're free to spec however you wish, I'm sure.

[David Gaider]

the_one_54321 wrote...
I didn't take the skateboard proficiency in the fifth grade....

(+100 approval with the_one for anyone who gets this refernece)

Sounds like Scott Pilgrim vs. the World to me.

[David Gaider]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
The pants aren't angry!  The pants make you angry!

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?

MerinTB wrote...
I can't believe I'm logicking myself into believing that the internet IS actually helping to break down our ability to communicate with each other...

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.

Modifié par David Gaider, 09 octobre 2010 - 08:41 .

[David Gaider]

leonia42 wrote...
Generalisations are fun and all for a time but at the end of the day we're not going to sit around the campfire and sing together, are we?

Probably not, but we might slowly come to the awkward realization that in our non-conformity we've all managed to listen to the same emo bands, wear the same dark eyeshadow and write the same overwrought anguished poetry. Which will make us bitter and resentful and we'll stalk away from the campfire and get ourselves eaten by a grue.

And whooo it's late. Time for bed, I think.

Modifié par David Gaider, 09 octobre 2010 - 08:46 .

[David Gaider]

That's a lot of curiosity about the sales for DAO. I'm not sure what the interest is, beyond wanting to see enough sales so that the series continues.

Did it sell enough to be successful? The bar for "success" can vary, depending on the expectations for the title, but I think we're quite pleased with how well the game sold. If we weren't, you likely wouldn't be seeing another.

Did it sell better than Mass Effect? Does that matter? Mass Effect went out on two platforms, only one of which is console-- which is a pretty big deal, considering that console sales were the majority even for DAO, a game which went out with the message "it plays best on the PC" (in the media, I mean, not from us). It's not a simple matter to compare, and even then one does not necessarily inform the other. We have different expectations depending on the normal market for that genre as well as the intended release window (a game released before Christmas, say, would be expected to sell more than one released afterwards).

Was it profitable? That depends. The game took five years to make... that's a huge investment that needs to be recouped, no matter how you look at it.

But wasn't it profitable enough that you'd want to do another game just like it? Again, that depends. It depends on how much the company wants to sell, and how much of a potential market there is for the type of game we're making-- and thus how well the game reached that potential. Could the audience for a game like DAO get bigger? Could we sell to exactly the same audience and be satisfied? I don't have answers for those things, to be honest. Any evidence I have is mostly conjecture, though perhaps my perspective is a little better.

I'm certain any mention of video games and profit in the same breath elicits the same response from some corners-- "oh, you guys just want to milk this for all it's worth". That sort of thing. The idea is to make money, however, and that's what companies will do. We'll still strive creatively at the same time as we're trying to be profitable-- on a company-wide basis-- in what is a very tough market right now.

You guys don't need us to be profitable, however, and we get that. I'm sure you'd be perfectly happy if we made just enough money to keep going. And maybe we are-- I certainly don't have insight into EA's bookkeeping. I'm just not sure what you're trying to discern by analyzing the sales (muddy as the numbers are) as if this should be a gauge of what we want from DA2-- which is a completely different project, with a shorter timeframe for development (meaning much lower costs) and very different expectations. Plus we want to do something different.

I guess it must be a little baffling to be on the outside looking in, trying to figure out how the gears work, but you're looking at a pretty small part of the picture.

Modifié par David Gaider, 10 octobre 2010 - 05:06 .

[David Gaider]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
When I hear that a company BioWare's size can't survive on BG2's sales (though it could back in the day because it was smaller), I do wonder why the solution isn't to produce more titles rather than bigger-selling titles. Presumably more titles with fewer sales each would be a safer investment, and there might even be economies of scale in things like engine development.

That's not an easy answer to give. Ultimately the problem is that your solution is simplistic. it doesn't take into account the fact that development budgets are increasing exponentially, and that a game which sells 1 million copies can cost just as much to make as a game which sells 5 million copies. I guess the answer would be to not grow? To keep the company the same size, and hope that you can make successive games at a quality that matches the top-tier games that get put out there, year after year?

Personally, I'd agree that the "blockbuster-chasing" effect can be problematic-- everyone's after the biggest piece of the pie. I imagine it's hard not to look at numbers like World of Warcraft or the biggest action titles and see the potential. And in an industry as hard-hit as the gaming industry, it's hard to justify investment for something less. I wish there was more room for smaller titles inbetween the bigger ones-- I've talked about this before. Sadly, the game industry and the gaming media as it stands doesn't really support that right now. Maybe this will change. Hopefully not catastrophically. I like having a job.

[David Gaider]

Meltemph wrote...
I would think "Just enough to get survive", would only be ok for a very select few and would not be enough, which the evidence for this is, that almost every company that stays at "just enough" for too long, dies.

That is sadly true. One would hope there's a balance to be hit between creative freedom and hitting that "jackpot" that the money-possessing folks need... but how one comes upon that formula is still a mystery. We can guess at it, but in the games industry (as with the movie industry) it's often a case of follow-the-leader.

Is this good? Is this bad? I don't know. We are talking about DA2, however, so it's probably best not to get distracted with the unanswerables. All I was trying to address was the fascination with ME2's and DAO's sales numbers, and the implication that we are trying to emulate Mass Effect because of how it sold-- when the truth is that we're taking on a couple of features that you're familiar with in Mass Effect because we believe they work better. And we're doing them our way. And otherwise we (and by "we" I mean Mike) are improving the game's features based on how our vision for them says they should be.

Is that really an improvement? I guess time will tell-- there is no objectivity here, so you'll have to decide for yourselves. In the case of such features, however, sales numbers don't determine everything. You can't say "game X sold this much because it had Y feature". It's not that simple, and I doubt anyone outside of a forum like this actually thinks about it in that way.

Modifié par David Gaider, 10 octobre 2010 - 05:21 .

[David Gaider]

Brockololly wrote...
It "matters" in the perception that if higher ups at EA or BioWare see ME doing much better than DA, they may think "Oh! ME is selling waaaay better than Origins! For DA2, lets inject some ME stuff like the voiced PC and cinematic story telling and surely then DA2 will sell as well as ME! Silent PC be damned, muaaaahahahaha! *EA suit dives into sea of golden coins a la Scrooge McDuck.*

I doubt its entirely like that, but thats certainly the perception when you see the ME style changes being grafted into DA2.

But ME didn't sell fantastically better than DAO. A game could sell nothing at all, and yet still have features that are worth learning from. The idea that someone said "make it more like ME" kind of ignores the fact that it does some things really well regardless of what you think of the game as a whole... and also ignores the fact that we're not making "Dragon Effect" and copying ME's style. We still retain a lot of what DAO had, and the features that are taking their cue from ME are being done in a way that we believe suits DA.

I get that perceptions are what they are-- but the whole ME vs. DA thing, as if it's a competition between the two projects, is a little strange to us. We don't think of it that way, and I don't think it's helpful. I suppose it will take DA2 coming out for people to assign any individuality to it. Prior to DAO coming out, there were a lot of things that people could only relate to by way of other games with marginally similar features-- things that they didn't really get until the pudding became manifest.

(I'm big on pudding references, I know.)

Maybe you don't know as you're not a business video games guy, but if a game like Origins is going out on 2 consoles vs. 1 (PC) isn't it expected that you'd have more sales on the consoles anyway?

More, certainly. But we're not talking about an even split, here. It sold remarkably well on consoles, and this from a game that was often cited as a PC-centric game. There are probably lots of reasons for that, so I'm not going to conjecture on why. Regardless, you can't make a straight comparison of the numbers between the games-- as some people are wont to do.

But on the flip side, isn't EA/BioWare raking in more money per copy with a PC digital download sale vs. a retail console copy with all of the middle men there (retailers, console makers)? Or with DLC sold on the PC vs. the consoles- likely having to split the money with Sony or MS in that case versus pure revenue with the PC?

I don't know. I guess that depends on whether you imagine there to be a vast, unknown digital download market. I imagine it sold well enough, though I have no idea what the profitibility is comparatively.

And I think the perception at least in some quarters is that stuff like Awakening, the DLC and now DA2 may be being rushed out in part to recoup the overall cost of the long time it took to get Origins out.

I guess. Certainly we can't spend 5 years to make a game anymore, that's for sure. Considering that we have an existing engine, we really don't have to. Hopefully we can strike a balance somewhere that will make people happy (and us less exhausted).

And conversely when you say its a tough market, its that way for the gamers though too- so its not just bringing in new gamers to DA2, but I'd imagine also retaining those that bought Origins and all the DLC and Awakening too. The barrier to exit is certainly quite low, especially with the tons of other games coming out early next year. Certainly, I only buy maybe 2-3 games a year but like with Origins I ended up spending more on Awakening plus DLC than I did for Origins at release. So even if I buy DA2, if it doesn't provide good replay value or strike a chord like Origins did with the toolset and mods, the liklihood I'd stick around for DLC and such is quite low.

I guess we'll see. I don't imagine everyone who liked DAO will be on board with the changes, and maybe we'll hit that weird spot between genres where neither the hardcore nor the casual are really satisfied. That's a possibility, though I don't think anyone out there has seen enough of the game to judge where we stand. There's probably an argument to be made about the comparitive potentials in the size of the RPG vs. the Action market, but that's a path that leads to cynicism and is best avoided. I don't really care for it much, personally. I take the "Field of Dreams" approach: If You Build It (Well), They Will Come.

And for anyone who takes that to a dirty place, shame on you.

Well, I sure hope you guys stay profitable long enough such that you can continue on with Morrigan, the Warden and Old God Baby's return from Mirror World to save the day after Hawke ends up starting World War Thedas with Flemeth knocking down sandcastles and all.

Well I'd like to think we're building towards something. Let's hope we can keep it awesome in the meantime, while we're still getting there.

Modifié par David Gaider, 10 octobre 2010 - 05:57 .

[David Gaider]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
So we come to these forums for reasons we can't even fathom? And pass over the money without even thinking about it, for it's money we have, and gaming we like?

I'm sure there are worse analogies. I know gaming satisfies some need inside me I can't quite identify, and I don't think it's simple tittilation or a way to pass the time.

[David Gaider]

Meltemph wrote...
Which means that it is Bioware's job is to fulfill the desires of the most amount of people. Obviously there is always that "niche" market that some companies live in, but the room for niche is ridiculously small. Whatever market they decide to go with is irrelevant to the consumer though. It is the consumers job to find the product they are looking for, it is the producers job to find the consumer that wants their product.

It is not the job for the consumer to find the producer to to fill the desire of a certain product, that would be an investor.

Careful. You make complete sense, and I agree, but this line of thinking will inevitably lead to those accusations of us abandoning the DAO faithful for a prettier girlfriendbigger market. And then the long, tearful messages on the answering machine will start again. And who needs to go through that a second time?

I kid, I kid. She's not that pretty.

Okay, I still kid, I don't really think we're doing that. But, man, you guys are possessive. I half expect BioWare to wake up and find you watching us with those crazy eyes, fondling the pillow.

BioWare: "Umm... what are you doing?"

Fans: "Nothing. Go back to sleep."

[David Gaider]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

AngryPants wrote...

I hate you.

Don't go turning into ResentfulPants. It's unbecoming.

[David Gaider]

Meltemph wrote...
Yes, but that customer does not propose to the Chef, how to literally make the meal.

I think some people fail to discern the difference between feedback and instruction. We relish feedback, but we must take it in aggregate-- and even then it's only ever going to be part of the equation. The difference, after all, between a chef and a gaming company is that restaurant meals are individually prepared.