131 réponses à ce sujet

[Sir JK]

There's a lot of passion, emotion and ideas flowing around these forums about DA2, a lot of opinion of what the game should be, what it should not be, what should be improved, what should not be fixed and so forth. While I myself haven't decided what to think really, I find myself a bit curious. What is it the lot of us want?

So I thought I'd present a DA2 related little thought/social experiment. Instead of just creating a topic about what we want, no matter how feasible/realistic that is (or for that matter, looking up the one that was) I thought I'd try something a little more cerebral here (and since we're all such great lovers of rpgs a little complexity shouldn't be an issue, should it? ).

You're sitting there with the finished DAO. It sold well and now it's time for a sequel, DA2. What it will be is entirely in your hands.

Now here comes the twist:
1. DA2 must sell better than DAO. Everything you suggest must be with this in mind
2. You must improve it and more importantly, explain exactly how this should be improved. A simple X, but better! isn't going to cut it. Define, explain, discuss. Makes us all understand in detail how you're going to be improve it. At least 4 things you liked must be improved upon.

3. There are some issues that the audience as a whole felt and must be adressed (even if you disagree), not all of them need to be fixed but the majority (EDIT:these are hypotheticals, not necessarily true outside of this topic):

• Outdated visuals. The graphics are a bit on the old side. Okay for DAO, not for it's sequel
• Lack of a distinct art style. People see screenshots but don't know immediatly it's dragon age. SOmething needs to be done.
• Combat is sluggish, slow and crude.
• A lot of people didn't finish the game, due to length or uniformity
• The controls for the console versions are far behind the PC version
• Some people felt it was too easy, some too difficult

4. For the sake of the topic, the following statements are assumed to be true (even if they are not): DAO sold better than Mass effect 1 or 2, DAO sold better on consoles than on PC, The forums are a useless place for advice or feedback, all they do is discuss wether nugs can explode, what is and what is not realistic and wether the pine tree over there is a LI.

5. Marketing and DLc are out of your hand.

There we go. That should make it a bit more complex to discuss. Now keep civil. We are all intelligent beings with equally valued opinions. No insults, belittlement, patronizing, cynical remarks or just "voicing your opinion" (if you know your opinion will upset people, don't post it). Prove that you're all adult enough to behave properly or alternatively that you're adult enough to walk away if you got nothing to add.
Prove to the sceptic inside me that this isn't a bad idea

Thank you and over to you

Modifié par Sir JK, 06 novembre 2010 - 03:57 .

[Ziggeh]

Sir JK wrote...

[*]A lot of people didn't finish the game, due to length or uniformity

that's an issue? really?

Damn you Bioware, providing too much of a good thing. Maybe they could just sum it up in a paragraph next time, save me the hassle of actually buying and playing a game.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 06 novembre 2010 - 01:57 .

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

It's okay, I finished the game multiple times and will again. So...statistically I have made up for those who could not finish it.

[Gavinthelocust]

Most of the issues you are covering there are based on what we've seen on an EARLY BUILD, of course it is going to look like **** and be slow six months before it releases. The controls are being updated for consoles so it isn't as hair-pullingly mad, and I don't see why having a big extremely long game is a problem.

[Ziggeh]

I thought it was short. I thought The archdemon was the end of the second act.

[Bratt1204]

Sir JK wrote...

There's a lot of passion, emotion and ideas flowing around these forums about DA2, a lot of opinion of what the game should be, what it should not be, what should be improved, what should not be fixed and so forth. While I myself haven't decided what to think really, I find myself a bit curious. What is it the lot of us want?

So I thought I'd present a DA2 related little thought/social experiment. Instead of just creating a topic about what we want, no matter how feasible/realistic that is (or for that matter, looking up the one that was) I thought I'd try something a little more cerebral here (and since we're all such great lovers of rpgs a little complexity shouldn't be an issue, should it? ).

You're sitting there with the finished DAO. It sold well and now it's time for a sequel, DA2. What it will be is entirely in your hands.

Now here comes the twist:
1. DA2 must sell better than DAO. Everything you suggest must be with this in mind
2. You must improve it and more importantly, explain exactly how this should be improved. A simple X, but better! isn't going to cut it. Define, explain, discuss. Makes us all understand in detail how you're going to be improve it. At least 4 things you liked must be improved upon.

3. There are some issues that the audience as a whole felt and must be adressed (even if you disagree), not all of them need to be fixed but the majority:
[list][*]Outdated visuals. The graphics are a bit on the old side. Okay for DAO, not for it's sequel
[*]Lack of a distinct art style. People see screenshots but don't know immediatly it's dragon age. SOmething needs to be done.
[*]Combat is sluggish, slow and crude.
[*]A lot of people didn't finish the game, due to length or uniformity
[*]The controls for the console versions are far behind the PC version
[*]Some people felt it was too easy, some too difficult

4. For the sake of the topic, the following statements are assumed to be true (even if they are not): DAO sold better than Mass effect 1 or 2, DAO sold better on consoles than on PC, The forums are a useless place for advice or feedback, all they do is discuss wether nugs can explode, what is and what is not realistic and wether the pine tree over there is a LI.

5. Marketing and DLc are out of your hand.

There we go. That should make it a bit more complex to discuss. Now keep civil. We are all intelligent beings with equally valued opinions. No insults, belittlement, patronizing, cynical remarks or just "voicing your opinion" (if you know your opinion will upset people, don't post it). Prove that you're all adult enough to behave properly or alternatively that you're adult enough to walk away if you got nothing to add.
Prove to the sceptic inside me that this isn't a bad idea

Thank you and over to you

I don't think that is the case at all with DA:O. The game has immense replay-ability potential; most people have played DA:O over again many, many times. The stellar storyline and multiple origin/gender options made for fantastic gameplay that as a result could be replayed from a completely different point of view and still remain very interesting and enjoyable.

[Utoryo]

Here's an interesting anecdote: a friend of mine who doesn't follow DA2 very recently told me he didn't finish DA:O (played 20+ hours so he felt he had his money's worth though), and his main reason was melee combat on his warrior Warden (the shuffling around mostly but also the lack of responsiveness).

Needless to say, when I explained to him the DA2 combat changes, the probability he'd buy the game increased significantly.

Modifié par Utoryo, 06 novembre 2010 - 02:08 .

[Sir JK]

Okay... fair enough. I should have clarified that those were assumptions as well and not necessarily true. My mistake.



Regardless. The intent was not to discuss them but rather put up a hypothetical "this is what I would like to have seen and I dealt with the issues thusly:". There is no denying that DAO was a great game, but sequels should always aim at being better than the originals, no? Anything else is rather pointless.

[KLUME777]

Gavinthelocust wrote...

Most of the issues you are covering there are based on what we've seen on an EARLY BUILD, of course it is going to look like **** and be slow six months before it releases. The controls are being updated for consoles so it isn't as hair-pullingly mad, and I don't see why having a big extremely long game is a problem.

The issues he's saying are from DAO, silly (right?).

He means quote things from DAO that you would like to be improved upon in DA2.

I myself would like:

- Visuals and textures to look a bit better ( although i really liked DAO'sgraphics to be honest) -  and more armours

- Less abilities, so that the remaining ones are better.

- Better combat for console.

The thing is, i have hardly any problems with DAO, it's a great game, one of my top favourites this generation. I most probably wont hold DA2 in the same regard, the way its sounding.

For DA2, i would like it that the companion clothes are treated like Morrigans, and are able to be swapped out. Perhaps treated like the unique companion clothes from KotOR 1 and 2.

[ptibog]

Utoryo wrote...

Here's an interesting anecdote: a friend of mine who doesn't follow DA2 very recently told me he didn't finish DA:O (played 20+ hours so he felt he had his money's worth though), and his main reason was melee combat on his warrior Warden (the shuffling around and lack of responsiveness).

Needless to say, when I explained to him the DA2 combat changes, the probability he'd buy the game increased significantly.

Here's an interesting anecdote: a friend of mine who doesn't follow DA2 very recently told me he loved DA:O.

Needless to say, when i explained to him the DA2 changes he answered "i won't buy this sh*t"

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

That is one thing I could consider an improvement about DA 2 from what I have heard/seen so far, the combat mechanics and animations. But the people who quit because the combat was clunky for warrriors and rogues, did they not care about other aspects such at the story or the character interactions? That speaks for the niche market they fill and what they expect from such games.

[In Exile]

Sir JK wrote..
You're sitting there with the finished DAO. It sold well and now it's time for a sequel, DA2. What it will be is entirely in your hands.

I think this is a fun game. Don't think many people will bite, but I will,because of the aforementioned fun.

Now here comes the twist:
1. DA2 must sell better than DAO. Everything you suggest must be with this in mind
2. You must improve it and more importantly, explain exactly how this should be improved. A simple X, but better! isn't going to cut it. Define, explain, discuss. Makes us all understand in detail how you're going to be improve it. At least 4 things you liked must be improved upon.

Sell more and make better? Sounds deliciously vague. I say we replace everything with nugs...because.... nugs are awesome? Okay, seriously though, let's try.

Outdated visuals. The graphics are a bit on the old side. Okay for DAO, not for it's sequel

The problem is the engine. It's hard to get higher graphical fidelity out of it when it is, realistically, at least four years old and wasn't top of the line as it was being made. The secret has to be in optimization. Hide low res textures where you can in the environment and invest heavily in the character models. Anything that draws attention away from the environment and toward the characters is a good thing.

Lack of a distinct art style. People see screenshots but don't know immediatly it's dragon age. SOmething needs to be done.

The problem is that it is medieval fantasy. Hard to get around that. Cell-shading is a blight (pun intended) and so should never be involved. The issue is that by chaging the art style, you won't have people recognize DA2 as DA:O's successor, but I personally think that's a justified risk. So there needs to be a new art style.

Personally, I would look to redesign all the items in game. The focus should be on colour and style. Jade Empire had a very distinct look. I think that's what Bioware should aim for.

Combat is sluggish, slow and crude.

The issue is animation. You can fix this while working on your art style, The combat can itself be how DA2 sets itself apart visually.

A lot of people didn't finish the game, due to length or uniformity

This was a problem with design. The game is actually very short, story wise. All that happens is Origin => Ostagar => Gather Army => Endgame. The "Gather Army" portion of the game is very long but could have been reduced to 5 hours and we'd end up in the same place. I think Dragon Age simply needs a different kind of story, more linear with a stronger motivation hook. You have the same risk - people don't buy in and finish the game, but I think it needs to be done.

The controls for the console versions are far behind the PC version

The PC shouldn't be altered. The console needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. That can make the game more functional, but always inferior. The PC lends itself to full party control; the console never will.

Some people felt it was too easy, some too difficult

Too subjective to touch, but the feedback at release was too hard, so presumably DA2 ought to be easier than DA:O vanilla.

I'd also add PC VO because I firmly believe all games with PC VO are outright superior to those which lack it, so this is a default feature of any RPG I'd design.

[KLUME777]

ptibog wrote...

Utoryo wrote...

Here's an interesting anecdote: a friend of mine who doesn't follow DA2 very recently told me he didn't finish DA:O (played 20+ hours so he felt he had his money's worth though), and his main reason was melee combat on his warrior Warden (the shuffling around and lack of responsiveness).

Needless to say, when I explained to him the DA2 combat changes, the probability he'd buy the game increased significantly.

Here's an interesting anecdote: a friend of mine who doesn't follow DA2 very recently told me he loved DA:O.

Needless to say, when i explained to him the DA2 changes he answered "i won't buy this sh*t"

My older brother recently finished DAO and loved it (of coarse), and said the exact same thing when i told him of DA2.

[Eudaemonium]

Bratt1204 wrote...
I don't think that is the case at all with DA:O. The game has immense replay-ability potential; most people have played DA:O over again many, many times. The stellar storyline and multiple origin/gender options made for fantastic gameplay that as a result could be replayed from a completely different point of view and still remain very interesting and enjoyable.

From my personal experience this isn't really true. Most people on this forum might have done (and even that is contentious), but this probably doesn't hold for all players. To submit a bit of anecdotal evidence, of the 6 people I know IRL who own DAO (myself included), I am the only one whose played it through more than once, and only two others have even finished it. The others stopped playing due to, for example, the length, the slow pacing, the somewhat clunky combat mechanics. The game takes a significant time investment which nto everbody is able or wants to give.

Back to the OTP, I think this is an interestign idea, and if I didn't have to get a train in half an hour I'd probably post something. I might come back later tonight and engage more closely.

[soteria]

Interesting thread idea. First, I'll look at your points.

Outdated visuals. The graphics are a bit on the old side. Okay for DAO, not for it's sequel

I agree. I wasn't overly impressed by the visuals in DA:O.

Lack of a distinct art style. People see screenshots but don't know immediatly it's dragon age. SOmething needs to be done.

I can't identify with this. I hear it a lot, and it may very well be true, but it's not my experience because I instantly recognize DA:O as DA:O. That could be because of the unusually large amount of time I invested in it, though.

The controls for the console versions are far behind the PC version

Can't argue. I'm always getting comments on my videos to the effect that the PC interface looks 20x better than the console versions.



What I would fix:

1. Poorly balanced stats. Dexterity outscaled strength in terms of defense vs attack gains; other stats like willpower and constitution were weak and easily replaced by gear bonuses. I would reduce the defense gains from dexterity, allow rogues to gain some attack from cunning, attach a stamina regen bonus to willpower and an armor bonus to constitution.

2. Boring ability trees that also heavily favored mages. Mages could cherry-pick the best talents at an early level, while warriors/rogues had to deal with weapon requirements and minimum levels. Outside of specializations, mages don't have a level requirement for any spell. There should be some parity. Also, the "trees" were just boring. To fix that, I'd do pretty much what it sounds like they're doing.

3. Uneven difficulty. Archers became far more dangerous after reaching ~level 12 and getting Scattershot, and mages after they got fireball and crushing prison. Additionally, some abilities were just problematic (like chainable overwhelm). Fixing these problems isn't so simple as the causes are varied. Thing is, most of the problem abilities are fun and fairly balanced when the player uses them--it's when you have 5 archers or wolves using Scattershot and Overwhelm that it becomes a problem. One fix might be to just not give those abilities to mooks. Save them for elite mobs.

4. Three is enough for now.

[KLUME777]

Eudaemonium wrote...

Bratt1204 wrote...
I don't think that is the case at all with DA:O. The game has immense replay-ability potential; most people have played DA:O over again many, many times. The stellar storyline and multiple origin/gender options made for fantastic gameplay that as a result could be replayed from a completely different point of view and still remain very interesting and enjoyable.

From my personal experience this isn't really true. Most people on this forum might have done (and even that is contentious), but this probably doesn't hold for all players. To submit a bit of anecdotal evidence, of the 6 people I know IRL who own DAO (myself included), I am the only one whose played it through more than once, and only two others have even finished it. The others stopped playing due to, for example, the length, the slow pacing, the somewhat clunky combat mechanics. The game takes a significant time investment which nto everbody is able or wants to give.

Back to the OTP, I think this is an interestign idea, and if I didn't have to get a train in half an hour I'd probably post something. I might come back later tonight and engage more closely.

Hearing that 3 out of 6 people didnt even finish the game makes me sad, and wonder why they didnt like it.

I know 1 other person IRL that has Dragon Age, and he didnt finish it, he took it back. I finished DAO multiple times.

Including myself, 1 out of 2 people i know have finished the game (myself).

From your post, 3 out of 6 poeple finished the game.

That means half the people who bought the game didnt finish it?!

@Bioware, when are you going to release statistics of what people did in the game like you have done with ME2?

[FedericoV]

Very interesting and constructive topic. But you're asking us a design document on DA2 and it's pretty hard to elaborate it in detail (especially for me since english is not my native language as you all can probably see...).



But if I were one of the devs of DA2 at the first game design meeting I would have said something like that: "DA:O sold very well despite its combat system and its retro gameplay and not because of it, especially on consolle that were sub-par if compared to the PC version. The selling point of the game was his storytelling and the interactions with the NPCs. So, if we want to expand and improve the next game we have to invest even more on those aspects. Every aspect of the game that hamper fluid storytelling should be reworked".

[Utoryo]

ptibog wrote...

Here's an interesting anecdote: a friend of mine who doesn't follow DA2 very recently told me he loved DA:O.
Needless to say, when i explained to him the DA2 changes he answered "i won't buy this sh*t"

Rather irrelevant given that he's a friend of yours, so he likely values your opinion and therefore your own pessimism about the game and how you present the changes will influence his position tremendously.

The value of my anecdote wasn't that this friend would more likely buy the game; no, the value is that someone who did not follow DA2 explained to me why he didn't finish DA:O, and the main problem was exactly the same one that Bioware said was their top priority to fix in DA2.

All I meant to say is that there are real intelligent people out there who had issues with DA:O despite loving real PC RPGs, and Bioware has listened to them more than many realise. They didn't come up with those changes out of thin air. The problem, of course, is that there are people who had no issues with those same systems in DA:O, and who are now very unhappy about the changes.

So the risk is that Bioware listened too much to the complaints and forgot that while they are valid, they often represent a subjective opinion about a design or resource allocation trade-off. There are many people who liked the trade-offs in Origins (e.g. companion outfits), and so they probably won't like the DA2 trade-offs. Then they'll hear the exact same complaint in the other direction for DA2, and if they followed the exact same feedback procedure they'd logically have to change it back, only to get similar complaints to DA:O again.

This is an extreme case obviously, but the point is you can't make all people happy, and the extremes are rarely good places to be. Personally, for some things it seems to me DA2's balance is better (e.g. closing moves, if not overdone), for others I'm personally of the opinion they went too far in the other direction (e.g. companion outfits) even if an improvement was indeed desirable.

So... conclusion: it's impossible to please everyone, and setting the right balance is incredibly difficult. The reason why it's difficult is that modern AAA games are surprisingly inefficient at getting rapid detailed feedback from their potential audience, and this is not a simple problem to solve. Topics like this cannot be representative and you might not even know your own preferences as well as you think, so even if the discussion quality was excellent it's only a weak guideline.

I'll finish by a nice quote from Raph Koster (who is, in my mind, a true legend of game design innovation - Ultima Online, anyone?) in a recent talk (where he was gently teasing SW:TOR devs for example) following his experience in both AAA MMOs and casual/social games:

Raph Koster, GDCOnline 2010

But by taking advantage of access to metrics, triple-A developers moving into social games no longer have to wait after years of development “to find out if something works,” Koster said. Social game makers can find out almost instantly.

It’s better to “have your dream crushed after 48 hours rather than five years,” said Koster. “…Establish a process that gets you feedback at every stage, including before you even start.

Modifié par Utoryo, 06 novembre 2010 - 02:40 .

[Wulfram]

Outdated visuals. The graphics are a bit on the old side. Okay for DAO, not for it's sequel

Um, make the graphics better? Not sure there's much more I can say about this one

Lack of a distinct art style. People see screenshots but don't know immediatly it's dragon age. SOmething needs to be done.

I don't think this is an issue for most people. But Kirkwall at least can be made fairly distinctive

Combat is sluggish, slow and crude

Be less finicky about character placement. Allow people to attack while moving. Do something about the two handed auto attack being ridiculously slow, and most of the Archery talents too.

A lot of people didn't finish the game, due to length or uniformity

Don't include too many long slogs of pure combat without story and dialogue to break it up

The controls for the console versions are far behind the PC version

Can't comment on this, since I don't have a console.

[Ziggeh]

FedericoV wrote...

But if I were one of the devs of DA2 at the first game design meeting I would have said something like that: "DA:O sold very well despite its combat system and its retro gameplay and not because of it, especially on consolle that were sub-par if compared to the PC version. The selling point of the game was his storytelling and the interactions with the NPCs. So, if we want to expand and improve the next game we have to invest even more on those aspects. Every aspect of the game that hamper fluid storytelling should be reworked".

I see what you did there.

[Lord Gremlin]

About the controls for console versions... The issue here is that console ports were made pretty late by outsider company - Edge of Reality - and some things were simply forgotten and broken or half-made. Cycling through party never selects pets, although they can be selected for healing/sacrifice (never patched this one), they forgot to add a command of moving into position (clicking on a piece of terrain in PC version), the codex interface controls were simply half-made and broken - if you ever played any console RPG/game with a lot of text you know the basics of how text/entries scrolling should be handled. DAO is unique among PS3 games here in a way that codex interface is half-arsed.

[Kilshrek]

I maintain that the art style itself wasn't generic. If it was generic, please indicate as to how it seemed generic to you. Offer examples, preferable images, of several different fantasy games/books/comics etc that you could stick out there and make interchangeable with Dragon Age. That justifies the generic claim.

Darkspawn of DAO didn't really have a comparison so far as I could tell. Now they all look like skeletors. I call that generic. edit : The hurlocks that is. Ogres.... I dunno, an early version ogre doesn't really look too different just yet.

Outdated graphics, how many people know the engine was made years ago? Or that the game had been in development for a fairly long time?

The screenshot argument is... well I don't know what to say really. Context is needed here.

Show someone a CoD:MW screenshot. Or a MW 2 screenshot. Would they immediately say "Oh! That's Modern Warfare!" I'd say no, it'd look like any number of shooters. And these two games put together probably sold way more than 10 million units? Halo, well, if you didn't see Master Chief, would you recognise a Halo screenshot?

I don't like the argument that the art style was generic, I'm pretty damn sure it isn't. DA 2, like Mass Effect, will be identified by the protagonist. It was impossible in DAO because you had any number of options/permutations for a protagonist, so Morrigan was used as the 'face' of DAO.

I just feel compelled to argue for the art style. Nothing else right now.

Modifié par Kilshrek, 06 novembre 2010 - 03:06 .

[soteria]

Halo, well, if you didn't see Master Chief, would you recognise a Halo screenshot?

Probably. You're right, though, Modern Warfare is visually indistinguishable from Battlefield (nearly. dedicated fans will point out small differences in the interface).

[In Exile]

Kilshrek wrote...

I maintain that the art style itself wasn't generic. If it was generic, please indicate as to how it seemed generic to you. Offer examples, preferable images, of several different fantasy games/books/comics etc that you could stick out there and make interchangeable with Dragon Age. That justifies the generic claim.

Lord of the Rings. All three movies, particularly the orcs and uruk-hai for the genlocks and the spanning shots of the battle at Ostagar which channels Helm's Deep quite heavily. If I knew how to link images, I would.

I mean, let's name our locales - Haven channels the overland pass at Moria. The Deep Roads are Moria. The Brecillian forest is Mirkwood.

They used the same armour design, largely, as a game like Medieval Total War II would,because the focus was on realistic armour, which some may like but is largely indistinguishable from any other game that tries for the same.

Darkspawn of DAO didn't really have a comparison so far as I could tell. Now they all look like skeletors. I call that generic. edit : The hurlocks that is. Ogres.... I dunno, an early version ogre doesn't really look too different just yet.

The Darkspawn were zombies in ornate plate armour. Rotting flesh, corpse like apperance? Zombies. That's incredibly generic as a look.

Outdated graphics, how many people know the engine was made years ago? Or that the game had been in development for a fairly long time?

Given that I followed it since the original Aurora engine screen shots... yeah, I knew the engine was old. And how does this even matter? The engine could be brand new and still terrible.

[Wulfram]

DA:O armour wasn't realistic