173 réponses à ce sujet

[Vena_86]

I just hope that it wont be too much like God of War with action focussed fast gameplay. I`m not slow, I like fast action. But there is enough of that already. DA:O was challenging and rewarding on a tactical and strategical level. This is something that is very rare today. Variety makes life interesting. But just looking at how well the CoD franchise is doing, it is just really sad how low the standards of the majority are when it comes to variety and how unpopular mindwork is.



If DA2 does not lose its tactical/strategical side, then I welcome faster and direct action. but that appears not possible.

[Nighteye2]

They're fixing things that didn't need to be fixed.

[Nighteye2]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
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."

They don't have to be, but they should be. It makes the game feel more real, if the combat is not too fast and special moves are small enough to be somewhat realistic. And part of the charm of rogues and warriors *is* having less visual effects. Where mages give themselves away by flashy effects when they're casting a spell, rogues and warriors can attack completely by suprise.

That is another thing that bothers me about the visuals I've seen - they're inconsistent with the lore. Warriors and rogues are not supposed to have magic, to the visuals should not make it look as if they did.

[upsettingshorts]

Nighteye2 wrote...
They don't have to be, but they should be. It makes the game feel more real, if the combat is not too fast and special moves are small enough to be somewhat realistic. And part of the charm of rogues and warriors *is* having less visual effects. Where mages give themselves away by flashy effects when they're casting a spell, rogues and warriors can attack completely by suprise.

I disagree.  With all of that.

[Nozybidaj]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...



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.

A level headed response to criticism from a dev/mod around here. Bravo good sir, bravo.

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.

Fundamentally I agree. If I'm refering to my 2H Warrior I'd prefer to see the combat drifting more toward "Conan" than "Final Fantasy" but whatever...

[Ortaya Alevli]

I guess we'll have to wait until the game is actually released to answer the question.

It's like criticizing a dish before it gets out of the stove. You can have an educated guess by poking it with a fork every now and then, but you cannot reach a final decision it's ready to serve. This kind of work is best left to psychics.

Let's reserve our judgment until the baby is delivered.

[In Exile]

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?

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.

My answer would be that DA:O was a dramatic investment. It took around 5 years to produce, so in terms of man-hours, opportunity cost etc. it required a significant amount of money. Sales were excellent, but how much that offset the investement we don't know.

DA:O has allegedly sold more units than ME2 though it's hard to pinpoint the exact difference because there are issues with dates for sources and so on.

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?

Well, it's not entirely clear this is the case. There is certainly a segment of the fanbase that wants a retread of DA:O in the same way there is a segment of the fanbase that wants a retread of BG II.

We don't know the relative size.

Most likely what Bioware did is focus group DA:O, and then improved the areas they received the most negative feedback, which was likely (in order): VO, combat & art style.

This is the most reasonable assumption. That the game is getting overhauled for two reasons: shorter development cycle and the perceived demand of the fan base.

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?

Bioware does not generally produce so-called traditional RPGs. Look at their entries:

BG/BGII was initallly seen as a  multiplayer client centered game (from what I hear) that went single-player. NWN was a multiplayer client game that was not dramatically succesful as a multiplayer game.

Then we have (in sequence): KoTOR, JE and ME as releases. Over this period DA:O is developed. In the last 7 years, Bioware has produced very few "traditional" RPGs and introduced several changes to the genre, including cinematic presentation and PC VO.

[In Exile]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

If you're CoS Sarah Jinstar, it's because they haven't figured out how best to hide how they've totally corrupted the game into Dragon Effect.

YMMV.

I will be honest that this, combined with the DA:O outsold ME2 argument just confuses me.

If it is the case that DA:O outsold ME2, and if it is the case that Bioware is hiding DA2 because it is too much like ME2 and not enough like DA:O.... then it just boils down to a WTF? Bioware moment.

All of that would suggest that not only does Bioware have hard evidence that DA:O was a more succesful game, but they believe precisely those features in DA:O that were different than ME2 made it succesful. But then they're implementing them?

It's like arguing Bioware wants to lose money on this game.

I thought the argument on no gameplay video was that the game is broken and terrible and so Bioware is trying to trick us all into pre-ordering. Or was that the criticism for the SE? I forget.

[upsettingshorts]

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.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 novembre 2010 - 01:03 .

[FedericoV]

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?

My opinion on the matter: DAO's sales were very good, but unexpectedly the game performed better on the consolle than the PC. DA:O was designed to be a PC exclusive in the beginning. Then it became a PC game with a consolle port. If we talk about combat the consolle port (as many players and critics alike have stated), it was really sub-par when compared to the PC version.

The PC version was done very well (I don't like the combat and the rule system a lot, but it's more a question of tastes: in general it was ok). But unfortunately the sales on PC were not great: DA:O has sold just slightly better than The Witcher or Torchlight on the PC. The success on the consolle (surprise or not) push Bioware in the position to rethink combat and adjust it to play better on the consolle platform if they want to continue the franchise, because there would not be a DA3 without good consolle sales.

Than, here's the changes to combat that will probably affect even the PC version to some extent (maybe the PC version will retain some kind of tactical camera, the controll setup will be reworked to perform well in the PC, graphics will look better on the PC, even encounter design will be probably adjusted...  but in terms of rules, pace and general feel of the game, it will be mostly the same).

For voice over, instead, I think that Bioware has come to the (right) conclusion that it works better in a storydriven RPG were everyone is voiced. I suppose that Bioware's games in the future will all have some kind of voice over for the main charachter (dialogue wheel or not).

Modifié par FedericoV, 05 novembre 2010 - 01:08 .

[Luigitornado]

I was little let down by DA:O. It has its charm, but I thought it overall could have been a better expereince.

DA2 seems more invoative, which is what gaming comapnies should be doing with their sequels.

Modifié par Luigitornado, 05 novembre 2010 - 04:49 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

I think we have no gameplay footage yet because the gameplay isn't sufficiently developed. We'll probably get one as soon as stuff is finalized or at least reasonably resembles the final product.

[In Exile]

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.

This is the same Bioware who tends to rely on the mantra "If you don't like it, don't buy it, but at least give it a chance?" Yes, that does sound like a company that wants to pull the wool over the eyes of their customers.

I suppose this all comes back to ME2, and how there is just a dramatic disagreement over what an RPG element is. I feel for the ME2 design team, honestly. I think they did a good job taking the function of inventory in ME and translating it over to research and keeping the same progress/power curve, but everyone became fixated on the lack of items. The major loss was party armour, and that was outright nonsensical. It's not that I don't like unique looks, or unique party looks, but Shepard walking around in Fallout style powerarmour and Jack half-naked and is just silly. Everyone should have had their own custom armour, like Garrus.

Modifié par In Exile, 05 novembre 2010 - 01:16 .

[Taritu]

DAO was, apparently, the highest selling Bioware game of all time (given how long it was in production, this fact probably occasioned great internal relief and joy). That doesn't, as Mike says, mean it can't be made even more awesome, however. Had me'doubts about DA2, but the more I learn about it the more I think I'm going to really like it. In particular, it looks to me like the storytelling has been improved. As long as the mechanics are at least as good as DAO, it should be excellent, after all, storytelling is a large part of what sets Bioware games apart.

Voiceover: this mainly depends on the protagonist.  With a fairly defined protagonist, you should have it.  With an undefined protagonist (like in the Fallout games) you shouldn't, so that the player can imagine the character's voice themselves.  I would hope voiceover is not forever in games going forward, because that would likely mean fairly vanilla characters (ie. don't expect to have a dwarf as the protagonist.)

The main issue with ME2, from my point of view, was just that the overall story was much weaker than in ME1.  I trust the DA writing team not to make that mistake in DA2.

Modifié par Taritu, 05 novembre 2010 - 02:16 .

[maxernst]

Taritu wrote...

Voiceover: this mainly depends on the protagonist.  With a fairly defined protagonist, you should have it.  With an undefined protagonist (like in the Fallout games) you shouldn't, so that the player can imagine the character's voice themselves.  I would hope voiceover is not forever in games going forward, because that would likely mean fairly vanilla characters (ie. don't expect to have a dwarf as the protagonist.)

I'm still hoping that Hawke will not be that defined.  All we really know about him is he/she is human, has the last name Hawke, and a particular family background.  It's interesting that you bring up Fallout, because Fallout also requires you to be human, to have a particular father and no mother or siblings, to grow up in the vault--it's not so different.  You do get to shape the Fallout protagonist literally from birth, which we won't with Hawke, but I think we will start with him when he's still fairly young.  He should be less defined than Shepard, who is already a celebrated veteran soldier at the beginning of ME1. 

[Ortaya Alevli]

maxernst wrote...

Taritu wrote...

Voiceover: this mainly depends on the protagonist.  With a fairly defined protagonist, you should have it.  With an undefined protagonist (like in the Fallout games) you shouldn't, so that the player can imagine the character's voice themselves.  I would hope voiceover is not forever in games going forward, because that would likely mean fairly vanilla characters (ie. don't expect to have a dwarf as the protagonist.)

I'm still hoping that Hawke will not be that defined.  All we really know about him is he/she is human, has the last name Hawke, and a particular family background.  It's interesting that you bring up Fallout, because Fallout also requires you to be human, to have a particular father and no mother or siblings, to grow up in the vault--it's not so different.  You do get to shape the Fallout protagonist literally from birth, which we won't with Hawke, but I think we will start with him when he's still fairly young.  He should be less defined than Shepard, who is already a celebrated veteran soldier at the beginning of ME1.

It's also possible to use the term "defined" in a different context. For instance, my opinion is Hale's Shepard was way, way more defined than Meer's.

[upsettingshorts]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...
It's also possible to use the term "defined" in a different context. For instance, my opinion is Hale's Shepard was way, way more defined than Meer's.

Because Paragon Hale and Renegade Hale are almost distinct characters.  Meer's performance is sufficiently understated to make his character more consistent, if also more ambiguous. 

...if anything I think Hale is guilty of overacting in Mass Effect 2.  She was better in 1, and almost every other game I've heard her in.  The worst example being the Jacob romance, but that is another thread.

That's just my interpretation.  I'm sure someone will come along and say Meer is "boring."  

In terms of DA:2, that's not really something we can evaluate until we play the game.  It's easy to jump to conclusions when the actors are announced, or we hear a clip or two, but until we've heard them through the course of the whole game, and indeed delivering the lines in a variety of different ways - judging the success of the VO (as opposed to the concept of the VO) isn't possible.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 novembre 2010 - 02:35 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...
It's also possible to use the term "defined" in a different context. For instance, my opinion is Hale's Shepard was way, way more defined than Meer's.

Because Paragon Hale and Renegade Hale are almost distinct characters.  Meer's performance is sufficiently understated to make his character more consistent, if also more ambiguous. 

...if anything I think Hale is guilty of overacting in Mass Effect 2.  She was better in 1, and almost every other game I've heard her in.  The worst example being the Jacob romance, but that is another thread.

That's just my interpretation.  I'm sure someone will come along and say Meer is "boring."  

In terms of DA:2, that's not really something we can evaluate until we play the game.  It's easy to jump to conclusions when the actors are announced, or we hear a clip or two, but until we've heard them through the course of the whole game, and indeed delivering the lines in a variety of different ways - judging the success of the VO (as opposed to the concept of the VO) isn't possible.

Not the same as "boring", but somehow Meer sounds to me like it's the reading class. Like, he's reading, not speaking.

Hale in ME2, well, I agree it was her worst performance ever. Especially her 'tired' tone. Kind of like "blah, let's get this over with." I don't know, maybe it's just me.

[In Exile]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
That's just my interpretation.  I'm sure someone will come along and say Meer is "boring."  

In terms of DA:2, that's not really something we can evaluate until we play the game.  It's easy to jump to conclusions when the actors are announced, or we hear a clip or two, but until we've heard them through the course of the whole game, and indeed delivering the lines in a variety of different ways - judging the success of the VO (as opposed to the concept of the VO) isn't possible.

See, I think Meer did a great job with what an RPG is actually like, because the whole premise is that everything had to be so vague and lifeless so that anything could be read into it. That's how a lot of people approach non-VO, and so I think that's what Meer took with his VO in ME/ME2. His default style is to be as incredibly neutral as possible - he gets angry when it seems the line wants him to be angry, but that is about as far as he takes it.

[spacehamsterZH]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Hale in ME2, well, I agree it was her worst performance ever. Especially her 'tired' tone. Kind of like "blah, let's get this over with." I don't know, maybe it's just me.

No, it's not just you. It's like there's a whole batch of lines in the game that were all recorded on a day when she had a hangover or something. It's not all like that, but when she falls into tired mode, it's horrible. And it often comes out of nowhere.

[jbell2825]

Thank you Mr Laidlaw for taking the time out of your busy schedule to address some of my concerns, you were under no obligation to do so and it goes to show just how much you care about your fanbase.  Kudos to you awesome guys and gals at Bioware.

As to my concerns, I fear the unknown.  While I think that DA:A has a lot of room for improvement, fluidity of combat, voiced avatar, and improved graphics.  I am worried that focus on game play will move to far from a rpg feel to a hack/slash God of war type combat.  It doesnt help that Bioware has been rather tight on new info, and when some one does try and classify DA2 they use terms like action RPG, which means what exactly?

I know we have little to go on, but based on the current video of DA2 coupled with the change in ME1 to ME2, its hard for me not to see a possibility where DA2 while for go its RPG roots for a more twitch based, xbox/ps3 type game.  If thats the case, I wont complain, it is your game and you can go with the direction you want to go.

My OP was simply wanting to know why, if its true, you are changing directions from an RPG to a hack/slash type game.  Money, demand, creative design?

All this being said, I think Bioware is a great developer.  I havent bought all of you titles but I have yet to be disappointed by any of them.  In fact I still fire up KOTOR every now and then .  After reading your post I feel more confident that, while the RPG element has not been focused in the videos, it will remain a key part in what DA2 is all about.

One last question though.  Why have you guys been so tight lipped about the RPG vs action elements of the game?  A little reassurance could go along way in calming some of the fear out there.  Maybe

[Imryll]

Anarya wrote...

Ah but that's just reinforcing my point. If you thought Origins was flawed you don't see the changes as "wrecking" anything. It'd be like someone coming into the room and changing that ugly wallpaper you never liked.

Not necessarily. We can both consider Origins to be a flawed gem and disagree about whether specific changes planned for DA2 will make things better or worse.

I'm unsure whether the changes are artistically or financially driven--or, most likely, a blend of the two. Depending on when certain decisions had to be made they could well be rooted in expectations concerning the relative sales of ME2 AND DA which later proved untrue.

[TMZuk]

Still the same discussions going on, I see.

My negative reactions are mostly based on the facts that:

1. I have not been shown anything yet to show me how awesome DA2 will be.

2. A lot of things have been shown that makes me certain that DA2 will be, IMO, inferiour to DA:O.

The combat looks like Golden Axe or some other silly game like that, with excessive physics, people flying all over the place, silly jumps and flips and what have we, two handers hitting five opponents in one swing and shimmering forcefields in front of  the shield... I could go on.

The artwork looks cartoonish and very dissapointing. Horned quanaris and darkspawn that looks like a cross between undead and gorillas. I just played a bit of DA:O's original campaign again, and it really struck me how scary the darkspawn looks in the cutscene at Ostagar, emerging from the trees, and how utterly silly they look now.

The lack of choises compared to the already very restricted first game is perhaps the biggest dissapointment of all. The race restriction is bad already. The utterly pointless weapon-restrictions are close to unbearable. A fighter who cannot equip two weapons or shoot a bow. Fighters are fighters. Weapon-experts, who should be able to use all weapons. If I prefer to pound the opposition with vollyes of missile fire, rather than charge in, it should be my choise. The same with rogues who -has- to dualwield. If i want to use my rogue sword and buckler, why can't I?

It is silly and pointless, as innane as the weapon restrictions in ME2, where certain classes cannot use the basic infantry weapon, the assault-rifle.

The good news is that high-quality mods has started emerging for DA:O, so when I'm done with New Vegas, I'll have something to do.

[soteria]

My opinion on the matter: DAO's sales were very good, but unexpectedly the game performed better on the consolle than the PC. DA:O was designed to be a PC exclusive in the beginning. Then it became a PC game with a consolle port. If we talk about combat the consolle port (as many players and critics alike have stated), it was really sub-par when compared to the PC version.

According to this article video game piracy is at least partially to blame for that. The argument is that despite the fact that gaming PCs are (probably) at least as common as consoles, many games sell better on the console. The author argues that the difference comes from PC games being by nature much easier to pirate.

See, I think Meer did a great job with what an RPG is actually like, because the whole premise is that everything had to be so vague and lifeless so that anything could be read into it. That's how a lot of people approach non-VO, and so I think that's what Meer took with his VO in ME/ME2. His default style is to be as incredibly neutral as possible - he gets angry when it seems the line wants him to be angry, but that is about as far as he takes it.

Eh. I haven't played ME2 with a male character yet, but in ME I thought Hale did a far superior job. Meer's delivery was just too bland. I don't have a strong preference for or against VO, but IMO if you're going to do it, put some life into it.

[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 .