442 réponses à ce sujet

[Lyssistr]

soteria wrote...

I know they dodged the direct question "is it an aRPG" quite a few times and the only gamesample they've released (exaggerated or not) is just that, an aRPG.

You do know they marketed DA:O as an action RPG, don't you? By that standard, I'm sure DA2 will be one as well. I'm looking forward to it.

 DA:O was not marketed as an aRPG, there was plenty of "return to the roots" in their marketing campaign. DA2's Dev statements so far suggest otherwise.

 It may be a good console aRPG but it's not the sort of game I'm looking forward to playing, especially on my PC.

Modifié par Lyssistr, 02 novembre 2010 - 03:08 .

[crimzontearz]

Which assumes they are not witholding it to just cover up the fact that indeed the answer to that question would ****** off a lot of people.....whichis totally possible and has been done by Bio before. What other company does not reveal basic gameplay features at 4 months from release? I think you are seeing the glass way fuller than it is....I might be seeing it a lor emptier than it is but I'm just jaded that way

[Sir JK]

crimzontearz wrote...

Which assumes they are not witholding it to just cover up the fact that indeed the answer to that question would ****** off a lot of people.....whichis totally possible and has been done by Bio before. What other company does not reveal basic gameplay features at 4 months from release? I think you are seeing the glass way fuller than it is....I might be seeing it a lor emptier than it is but I'm just jaded that way

Ah, but see... Withholding information that would anger people is perhaps a viable strategy short term. It's not exactly a good idea if you expect to make more products that sell to the same market (and thus the same customers). Consumer loyalty and faith is something very valuable.
That is the primary reason I'm sure it'll be revealed eventually (I can't recall when they withheld something important for that reason before. Care to remind me?).

Also... as I pointed out much earlier in this thread: This is a sequel. Sequel's generally have one primary problem in their marketing: That they are sequels. That is why all marketing of sequels initially focuses on how it is different and plays that up a lot. To the point where you start to doubt it's the same game.
Why? To make those who were sceptical about the previous game interested. They're the ones Bioware is after right now.
We are the interested and "loyal" part of the market. They don't need to win us over with changes. They don't need to convince us that what made the game uninteresting has changed (because we didn't think it was uninteresting).

Phase two of the marketing will be to present what game they have now. Once they've hammered in what has changed properly so we'll actually see it. So we and the sceptical won't miss the changes because so much look similar or the same. To show us that it is in fact a sequel.
We're not there yet. But it will come.

That's part of why I'm so optimistic (it's in my nature to be an optimist as well...). I know this is just marketing that blows everything up. I expect it even.
That's why I reserve my judgement until I see something (not hear of, not get it described to me... see it) of value and remain optimistic until then (because it's more fun that way).

Let marketing have it's spin to attract new customers. In the mean time, to quote that Bob Marley song:
"Don't you worry, 'bout a thing. Cause every little thing, gonna be allright"
Let's just enjoy what we get for information, discuss what we like and have a grand time.

[Dave of Canada]

Lyssistr wrote...

DA:O was not marketed as an aRPG

Oh?

"Engage in Bone-Crushing, Visceral Combat: Battle against massive and terrifying creatures" for Origins.
"Even more Bone-Crushing, Visceral Combat: Battle against a new range of horrific and terrifying creatures" for Awakening.
"THIS IS THE NEW SH*T" trailer led many to believe it was an ARPG.
... and more.

A few things pre-release made a dozen of my friends buy it, thinking it was an ARPG. They weren't the only ones either, a lot of forums had threads of people going "wtf is this ****".

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 02 novembre 2010 - 03:22 .

[the_one_54321]

And they also touted it as BioWare's spiritual successor to Balder's Gate. Totally ARPG, that was.

[Sir JK]

the_one_54321 wrote...

And they also touted it as BioWare's spiritual successor to Balder's Gate. Totally ARPG, that was.

You don't remember the forum uproar about "that hack and slash game that DAO was going to be was marketed as BG's spiritual succesor" and the "Bioware is going away form it's core market and classical rpg's to appease the new generations" then?

[Dave of Canada]

the_one_54321 wrote...

And they also touted it as BioWare's spiritual successor to Balder's Gate. Totally ARPG, that was.

... and you think the average consumer knows what Baldur's Gate is? They were trying to appeal to the masses, they made the game feel a lot more actiony and "THIS IS THE NEW SH*T" trailer was considered the best trailer in my circle of "friends". They don't know what Baldur's Gate is, they hear that name and immediately think of Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance and go "AWESOME!".


+ What Sir JK said.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 02 novembre 2010 - 03:29 .

[the_one_54321]

Certainly, but this is about marketing, not the reactions.

[Lyssistr]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

DA:O was not marketed as an aRPG

Oh?

"Engage in Bone-Crushing, Visceral Combat: Battle against massive and terrifying creatures" for Origins.
"Even more Bone-Crushing, Visceral Combat: Battle against a new range of horrific and terrifying creatures" for Awakening.
"THIS IS THE NEW SH*T" trailer led many to believe it was an ARPG.
... and more.

A few things pre-release made a dozen of my friends buy it, thinking it was an ARPG. They weren't the only ones either, a lot of forums had threads of people going "wtf is this ****".

The new **** trailer was misleading indeed but they made explicit references to "back to the roots", reviving cRPGs, "BG's spiritual successor".

 Now things stand in reverse, every reference to BG's spiritual legacy is gone, devs stated in press that they catered to consoles, again, when asked if it is h&s devs reply with a philosophical essay on what is aRPG.

 It's more honest to do this than DA:O's marketing(*) where both cRPG and aRPG fans thought it was their type of game, but still, this doesn't mean it's the type of game many of us were looking for, especially considering this franchise was about rejuvenating cRPGs.

(*) At least now there is no misleading material in terms of trailers, only vague responses.

[Sir JK]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Certainly, but this is about marketing, not the reactions.

Yes. But people percieved DAO as an aRPG because that's how they felt it was marketed. Just like people percieve DA2 to be a mindless hack and slash because that's how they feel it is marketed. The reactions are the same... actually the marketing is largely the same too.
History repeats itself

I promise to eat my words if DA2 does turn out to be a mindless hack and slah

[Dave of Canada]

Lyssistr wrote...

 Now things stand in reverse, every reference to BG's spiritual legacy is gone, devs stated in press that they catered to consoles, again, when asked if it is h&s devs reply with a philosophical essay on what is aRPG.

Still holding on to dear life to that french article?
---
If the game has you control party members, use abilities allows pause & play, lets you manipulate the camera to look around and let's you play around with stat / item management. How is that ARPG? That sounds like Origins to me.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 02 novembre 2010 - 03:35 .

[the_one_54321]

Sir JK wrote...
I promise to eat my words if DA2 does turn out to be a mindless hack and slah

But I don't think that it will be a hack 'n' slash game. As I've said before, unless Mike Laidlaw is a liar, it will have tactical combat with an overhead camera and pauses and he's also just insisted in this thread that stats, character building and equipment will be important to the play. That's plenty good enough for me.

[Lyssistr]

Sir JK wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Certainly, but this is about marketing, not the reactions.

Yes. But people percieved DAO as an aRPG because that's how they felt it was marketed. Just like people percieve DA2 to be a mindless hack and slash because that's how they feel it is marketed. The reactions are the same... actually the marketing is largely the same too.
History repeats itself

I promise to eat my words if DA2 does turn out to be a mindless hack and slah

 The thing is they've been asked repeatedly if this is just their marketing direction and all replies were essays on what h&s really means, the best I've read is that was in the lines of "since it has a story, it won't be h&s".

 Again, it's not like Bioware can't make a decent to good console hack&slash, it's that this particular franchise was supposedly going to focus elsewhere, I couldn't care less if Mass Effect was announced to be a pure shooter.

[Lyssistr]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

 Now things stand in reverse, every reference to BG's spiritual legacy is gone, devs stated in press that they catered to consoles, again, when asked if it is h&s devs reply with a philosophical essay on what is aRPG.

Still holding on to dear life to that french article?
---
If the game has you control party members, use abilities allows pause & play, lets you manipulate the camera to look around and let's you play around with stat / item management. How is that ARPG? That sounds like Origins to me.

 Retracting statements doesn't invalidate those statements. French or not, he was pretty clear.

[Dave of Canada]

Lyssistr wrote...

Retracting statements doesn't invalidate those statements. French or not, he was pretty clear.

I'd rather believe Laidlaw himself over the word of some article on the internet that was translated from a french interview 1-2 months ago.

[the_one_54321]

I remember Mike explaining his statement rather clearly after that french article was released. He didn't retract them, he specified that the game would have an overhead camera and pause. It was Ray that specifically called the game an ARPG.

[Lyssistr]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

Retracting statements doesn't invalidate those statements. French or not, he was pretty clear.

I'd rather believe Laidlaw himself over the word of some article on the internet that was translated from a french interview 1-2 months ago.

It was "himself" in the article as well, not just a "word of some artice".

Modifié par Lyssistr, 02 novembre 2010 - 03:50 .

[the_one_54321]

Lyssistr wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...
Retracting statements doesn't invalidate those statements. French or not, he was pretty clear.

I'd rather believe Laidlaw himself over the word of some article on the internet that was translated from a french interview 1-2 months ago.

It was himself in the article as well.

Am I being ignored? 

[Lyssistr]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...
Retracting statements doesn't invalidate those statements. French or not, he was pretty clear.

I'd rather believe Laidlaw himself over the word of some article on the internet that was translated from a french interview 1-2 months ago.

It was himself in the article as well.

Am I being ignored? 

nope, you're right that Ray called it an aRPG, I was referring to that interview purely in the context of focusing on consoles and inevitably, console-like gameplay.

[the_one_54321]

Well I also remember him saying that comments about focusing on consoles were meant in that instead of focusing on PC development then porting to consoles, they were instead developing with a focus making things work for the console at the same time as developing for the PC. Perhaps that was reactionary and a way to try and wash the original words away. Perhaps not.

[Dave of Canada]

I'll just be leaving. You've made up your mind, no sense in saying anything if it's just lies or redacted statements or marketing.

[Lyssistr]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Well I also remember him saying that comments about focusing on consoles were meant in that instead of focusing on PC development then porting to consoles, they were instead developing with a focus making things work for the console at the same time as developing for the PC. Perhaps that was reactionary and a way to try and wash the original words away. Perhaps not.

there are several points I consider to be catering to consoles

* removed top down view and later saying they will try to add it but it won't be as functional
* console gameplay demonstrations only
* no toolset to begin with, possibly later

There are several ways to express what you are doing, many of these are politically correct, like the later statements and some aren't, like the interview at Joystick. Personally, I don't gauge how politically correct is the phrasing, I only gauge what I get for each GBP I pay (as a PC gamer) and I get *allot less* this time. Their focus has shifted elsewhere.

[Lyssistr]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I'll just be leaving. You've made up your mind, no sense in saying anything if it's just lies or redacted statements or marketing.

outstanding argument!

[Dave of Canada]

Lyssistr wrote...

outstanding argument!

Thanks, glad to see something went through.

[the_one_54321]

Lyssistr wrote...
* removed top down view and later saying they will try to add it but it won't be as functional

Not entirely accurate. The demos didn't have it at first. Maybe they did remove it then add it back in. However none of the devs said that it was removed. They only said it wasn't included in the demos because it wasn't finished.

Lyssistr wrote...
* console gameplay demonstrations only

I think that there have been PC demonstrations now. However, starting with console demos makes sense. They don't have to market to us. We're already here in the trenches digging up whatever information we can find. They don't have to hook us. We've already hooked ourselves.

Lyssistr wrote...
* no toolset to begin with, possibly later

This is the one part that you have totally correct.