5 réponses à ce sujet

[jbell2825]

The reason I ask, is if you believe the doom and gloom on most of this site Dragon age 2 is being drastically redone.  If DA2 is being redone, is it because the first failed to make the sales goal?  Is it believed that a change in design will bring in more sales?  Or did the original simply not live up to the expectations that the creators wanted?

I'm asking because it appears to me DA:O was a huge success.  I can understand making some changes in hopes of improving on the original, but based on the little info we have Bioware is going beyond enhancing the game and instead is drastically changing the game format.

This is fine of course, its Biowares game, and I am not going to pass judgement on it until I get to see more info.  But if the first game was a success, and had the feel you wanted to achieve, and you have a rabid fan base that wants more of the same, why change?

Do you feel the more traditional RPG is a dying game and not worth your time?  Is a simple numbers game and your research has shown that you can sell X more units with a more action feel?  Or did the original not come close to what you wanted?  Or, are we all just over reacting?

[Mike Laidlaw]

Maria Caliban wrote...
Because somewhere in their tiny and black hearts, BioWare developers dare to hope they're artists instead of over-payed fry cooks whose only job is to serve up McDragonBurgers. Because while they want to make money, they'd also like to achieve more as developers than regurgitating their last game* and spewing it into the mouths of consumers who sit below them like baby birds tweeting "Give us more! Give us the same!"

Hey now! We are not overpaid!

[Mike Laidlaw]

jbell2825 wrote...

The reason I ask, is if you believe the doom and gloom on most of this site Dragon age 2 is being drastically redone.  If DA2 is being redone, is it because the first failed to make the sales goal?  Is it believed that a change in design will bring in more sales?  Or did the original simply not live up to the expectations that the creators wanted?

None of those, really. It's more that we believe there were things that would make the game better, so we made some changes.

I'm asking because it appears to me DA:O was a huge success.  I can understand making some changes in hopes of improving on the original, but based on the little info we have Bioware is going beyond enhancing the game and instead is drastically changing the game format.

Heavy emphasis on "little info" there, as there's not a lot out there. If you could go into more detail on how you perceive the game has changed drastically from Origins, I could probably go into more detail.

This is fine of course, its Biowares game, and I am not going to pass judgement on it until I get to see more info.  But if the first game was a success, and had the feel you wanted to achieve, and you have a rabid fan base that wants more of the same, why change?

See Maria's post, further down. She pretty much nails it. We don't think that Origins was a perfect game. There were mechanics that were overly complicated, visuals that were dated and so on. So we took long hard looks at just about every part of the game and while some are almost identical, others are different, but the whole experience is not such a delta from Origins as to be a different beast entirely.

Do you feel the more traditional RPG is a dying game and not worth your time?  Is a simple numbers game and your research has shown that you can sell X more units with a more action feel?  Or did the original not come close to what you wanted?  Or, are we all just over reacting?

No, you're not overreacting. You're reacting. You see combat that looks fast paced and assume that it's like other fast-paced combat. Until more information is presented, that's what you have to go on. More is coming, but it's not out yet, so reactions are totally fair.

But I will put forward a core series of thoughts that have been in my head since we started DA II: "Combat in an RPG does not have to be slow. Special moves do not have to be small. Rogues and warriors do not have to be less visually satisfying than mages."

How do I know? Because years of seeing mages in fantasy settings has made sure we're all pretty damn comfortable with thinking about the weedly little guy in the pointy hat being an absolute bad-ass. And if HE can be awesome, I don't see any reason that my plate-mail wearing warrior shouldn't make me a little giddy, visually.

[David Gaider]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Well, it's almost like the folks posing that argument are worried that Bioware is hiding the game from them (specifically) because they changed all the things they are worried have been changed. It strikes me as something of an arrogant presumption, because it implies that Bioware is worried about them more than it is proud of their own game.

So such fretting over the marketing (or lack thereof) doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

Debating over the relative merits of confirmed features is entirely different, of course.

We can expect many things from the folks who come to and spend a lot of time on these forums. Just about everyone who comes here, from the haters to the lovers, are self-professed fanatics who are willing to hang out on a game forums months and months before it's released and talk endlessly about their own opinions, all of which are of ENORMOUS IMPORTANCE.

I don't think we really expect rationality here, do we? There is lots of interesting feedback to be had here, and the discussions generally have merit of some kind, but I don't think it's too startling a revelation to say that it would be a mistake for anyone to assume that what is expressed here is also the feeling elsewhere. Let's take it for what it is and be satisfied with that, and if occasionally people get a bit unhinged when it comes to their own role in the scheme of things-- well, okay then! No need to get too concerned about that, either.

Modifié par David Gaider, 05 novembre 2010 - 03:54 .

[David Gaider]

ejoslin wrote...
I think a lot of the changes may have to do more with having a different lead designer.  It seems the direction was changed quite a bit before significant sales figures would show.

That's at least partially true. New leadership comes on board and that means they want to try different things. That's their perogative-- they'll take input from everyone (and, indeed, from the fans as well) but ultimately it's up to those in charge to decide what creative direction the game needs to go in.

[David Gaider]

Addai67 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

ejoslin wrote...
I think a lot of the changes may have to do more with having a different lead designer.  It seems the direction was changed quite a bit before significant sales figures would show.

That's at least partially true. New leadership comes on board and that means they want to try different things. That's their perogative-- they'll take input from everyone (and, indeed, from the fans as well) but ultimately it's up to those in charge to decide what creative direction the game needs to go in.

Different meaning like Mass Effect?

If that's as far as your perception goes, then I imagine there's no need to discuss it further, is there? Like the multitude of assumptions that were made about DAO before it came out, I imagine many of these things about DA2 will only distinguish themselves from all the simplistic comparisons that keep getting made once the game is released.