128 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Malevolence65 wrote...

Bioware isn't worried about offending anyone, they're worried about their sales.

That makes even less sense.  Why would they design a game that they don't expect will sell?  The answer is they wouldn't.

Maria Caliban wrote...

(snipped)

It would have taken me three significant paragraphs to get that idea across.  But, this.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 novembre 2010 - 03:32 .

[Ziggeh]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

That makes even less sense.  Why would they design a game that they don't expect will sell?  The answer is they wouldn't.

Most video game developers are only appreciated after their death.

Or maybe that's painters. Yes, I'm thinking of painters.

[StingingVelvet]

In Exile wrote...

But they did get their message across. Their main thrust (the one they desperately need) is that the DA:O console version is nothing like DA2 console. DA2 console is awesome, fun, magical, exciting, great combat, etc. etc.

That's the only message they need, because if that one fails to catch, the game will flop.

It's a tightrope though because if you dismiss your core audience and lose sales there, then fail to capture the larger audience you were aiming for, you end up with a flop as well.

Look at Gothic 4.  It has to be the most brain-dead RPG I have ever played, I'm not even sure you could call it an RPG with a straight face.  It took all the depth, freedom and complexity from Gothics 1-3 and threw it out the window in an attempt to court more sales by reaching out to a broader audience.  What happened?  Well the core audience for Gothic left and said "no thanks" and then the game wasn't slick and "cool" enough to appeal to mainstream gamers, so now it's a failure all around.

The opposite example would be Risen, a game made to appeal to a certain section of gamers, budgeted accordingly, and then well received.  It sold 2 million copies with little marketing or mainstream appeal and was a resounding success for the publisher and development team.

Video games don't have to sell 10,000,000 copies and appeal to every gamer out there to be a success.  I know Bioware thinks they do, they're ambitous that way, but eventually it might catch up to them.  Not trying to be doom and gloom about it, I am sure DA2 will be a success on the important levels.  I'm just saying if you write-off the people who loved DA:O for what it was, then fail to capture the people who disliked DA:O, then you might end up with less sales, not more.

[upsettingshorts]

StingingVelvet wrote...
I'm just saying if you write-off the people who loved DA:O for what it was, then fail to capture the people who disliked DA:O, then you might end up with less sales, not more.

That's true.  But I don't think Bioware believes that's going to happen - doesn't mean it won't - but it does mean that they aren't hiding stuff because they're worried about it.  They believe their decisions will be successful or they wouldn't have made them. 

All that being said, I don't think there's a single person on this board who wouldn't like to see a proper PC gameplay video.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 07 novembre 2010 - 03:39 .

[StingingVelvet]

Maria Caliban wrote...

In almost every interview I've seen of Mike, he's said that they're taking DA:O combat and gameplay, and trying to make it more responsive and immersive. It's not crypic, it's just brief because he's also attempting to explain the narrative techniques, what the story is about, what they want to do with the game, how they want the player to feel, etc.

This interview is a classic example. He does say that they wanted to retain the tactical combat while improving responsiveness. He says it 2:33 in and it takes all of two seconds.

'The gameplay is basically the same' is something that takes only a moment to say. You don't have to *explain* 'it's the same' so you don't have to devote long periods of time to talking about the sameness.

I guess I want more clear info because, frankly, I don't really take what they say at face value.  That's not an insult really, just a fact... statements made about retaining tactical combat mean nothing unless I head how that is being done, what is not being changed, etc..  These are the people who still consider Mass Effect 2 an RPG, so I know their opinions differ wildly from mine in these areas.

That is not a slight against ME2 by the way, I freaking LOVED that game, but it was not at all what I would consider an RPG.

Modifié par StingingVelvet, 07 novembre 2010 - 03:38 .

[Malevolence65]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Malevolence65 wrote...

Bioware isn't worried about offending anyone, they're worried about their sales.

That makes even less sense.  Why would they design a game that they don't expect will sell?  The answer is they wouldn't.

Maria Caliban wrote...

(snipped)

It would have taken me three significant paragraphs to get that idea across.  But, this.

They don't think that it's going to sell badly, but they do think it's going to sell less on PCs.

[Seagloom]

Honestly, the whole marketing approach is reminiscent of what Wizards of the Coast did when introducing 4e years ago. EA, BioWare, or whichever of the two handles marketing must be learning from the same instructional manual. Criticizing in interviews what in a significant number of players' minds were not flaws, as flaws, and then going on about how the new product changes those things for the better, introducing a new art style, streamlining gameplay and presentation to appeal to a new target audience, throwing around polarizing buzzwords in interviews, and more...

I can almost draw a straight line between 4e and DA2 marketing down to arguments siding for or against changes by either side of the fan community. BioWare will get their message across when it benefits them to. Come the day, no amount of marketing will keep reality from coming to light anyway. Most people will make their final judgment calls then, even if they believe they already have now. As much hate and love is swirling around lately, it is all based on guesswork. Educated, reasonably arrived at guesswork, but guesswork nonetheless. Pre-release marketing is meant to create excitement for a product and hopefully, lead to a purchase. It is not intended to thoroughly inform the populace. That there are DA2 topics springing up across the web with folk heatedly debating some aspect of it another, means their marketing is succeeding.

Modifié par Seagloom, 07 novembre 2010 - 04:00 .

[Lord Gremlin]

StingingVelvet wrote...

In Exile wrote...

But they did get their message across. Their main thrust (the one they desperately need) is that the DA:O console version is nothing like DA2 console. DA2 console is awesome, fun, magical, exciting, great combat, etc. etc.

That's the only message they need, because if that one fails to catch, the game will flop.

It's a tightrope though because if you dismiss your core audience and lose sales there, then fail to capture the larger audience you were aiming for, you end up with a flop as well.

Look at Gothic 4.  It has to be the most brain-dead RPG I have ever played, I'm not even sure you could call it an RPG with a straight face.  It took all the depth, freedom and complexity from Gothics 1-3 and threw it out the window in an attempt to court more sales by reaching out to a broader audience.  What happened?  Well the core audience for Gothic left and said "no thanks" and then the game wasn't slick and "cool" enough to appeal to mainstream gamers, so now it's a failure all around.

The opposite example would be Risen, a game made to appeal to a certain section of gamers, budgeted accordingly, and then well received.  It sold 2 million copies with little marketing or mainstream appeal and was a resounding success for the publisher and development team.

Video games don't have to sell 10,000,000 copies and appeal to every gamer out there to be a success.  I know Bioware thinks they do, they're ambitous that way, but eventually it might catch up to them.  Not trying to be doom and gloom about it, I am sure DA2 will be a success on the important levels.  I'm just saying if you write-off the people who loved DA:O for what it was, then fail to capture the people who disliked DA:O, then you might end up with less sales, not more.

Gothic 4 is garbage. Truth be told, Risen is also garbage, yet some "special" people still like it. You miss the point here: on consoles DAO UI and controls were broken and half-finished. So this time Bioware says: controls on console are no longer broken, and it's not the second console game after DAO to have absolutely broken and retarded inventory and codex scrolling system.
Generally, most people played DAO on console. Impression: wow, a very good game, too bad controls suck and kinda broken. If Bioware would tell "gameplay and UI stays the same" most people would ask: "WTF? It's broken again? GTFO, gonna buy your game used." So they've promised that this time consoles get proper UI and controls which is acceptable and no longer outright broken (like "we forgot to make pets selectable").

[StingingVelvet]

Lord Gremlin wrote...

Gothic 4 is garbage. Truth be told, Risen is also garbage, yet some "special" people still like it. You miss the point here: on consoles DAO UI and controls were broken and half-finished. So this time Bioware says: controls on console are no longer broken, and it's not the second console game after DAO to have absolutely broken and retarded inventory and codex scrolling system.
Generally, most people played DAO on console. Impression: wow, a very good game, too bad controls suck and kinda broken. If Bioware would tell "gameplay and UI stays the same" most people would ask: "WTF? It's broken again? GTFO, gonna buy your game used." So they've promised that this time consoles get proper UI and controls which is acceptable and no longer outright broken (like "we forgot to make pets selectable").

I'm assuming your negative comment on Risen is based on the fact you played it on console, which I heard got a terrible version.  Pretty much every PC RPG player I know loved Risen.

[In Exile]

StingingVelvet wrote...
It's a tightrope though because if you dismiss your core audience and lose sales there, then fail to capture the larger audience you were aiming for, you end up with a flop as well.

This comes right back to it, though. What is the ''core'' audience for DA? Certainly losing most of the dedicated fanbase to your product is bad, but who is this fanbase made up of?

If I like VO and hate silent-PCs, am I the core? If I like cinematic presentation and custom meshes for NPCs and a reduced loot table, am I the core?

Look at Gothic 4.  It has to be the most brain-dead RPG I have ever played, I'm not even sure you could call it an RPG with a straight face.  It took all the depth, freedom and complexity from Gothics 1-3 and threw it out the window in an attempt to court more sales by reaching out to a broader audience.  What happened?  Well the core audience for Gothic left and said "no thanks" and then the game wasn't slick and "cool" enough to appeal to mainstream gamers, so now it's a failure all around.

Gothic 4 was a mediocre game. The production value was low, there was no real dialogue or RP involved, and the game forced you into hack & slash because of how underpowered magic was.

Still, I thought Gothic 1-3 was such unplayable garbage that it was incomprehensible to me that the company could even produce these games and stay afloat. So I am a terrible judge of quality when it comes to this series. I suppose some find a sense of superlative magic in being murdered by a wolf, but not I.

But based on the little of Gothic 1-3 I played, the core features seemed similar. VO, action-RPG mechanics, etc. I'm not sure what was simplified for Gothic 4 because I never stuck with Gothic III long enough but that was my impression.

The opposite example would be Risen, a game made to appeal to a certain section of gamers, budgeted accordingly, and then well received.  It sold 2 million copies with little marketing or mainstream appeal and was a resounding success for the publisher and development team.

I can't comment on Risen, since I haven't played it. I also can't comment on what the consumer base for DA:O was and what the base for DA2 is.

What I do know is that it didn't have a party, it had hack & slash gameplay, and the apparent strength was the customizability of the factions.

Video games don't have to sell 10,000,000 copies and appeal to every gamer out there to be a success.  I know Bioware thinks they do, they're ambitous that way, but eventually it might catch up to them.  Not trying to be doom and gloom about it, I am sure DA2 will be a success on the important levels.  I'm just saying if you write-off the people who loved DA:O for what it was, then fail to capture the people who disliked DA:O, then you might end up with less sales, not more.

This is predicated on the assumption that DA:O sold well because it sold to people that wanted BGII, so the secret to success is to remake BGII. But we don't know that. What I'm asking is why do you think this is the case? What if people bought DA:O thinking it would be Mass Effect with swords?

[MerinTB]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I think a huge source of the confusion is the confluence of the following factors, combined with the general lack of confirmed, publicly available information:

* The console version of DA:O was rather universally understood to be below par, certainly behind the PC version
* To deal with the failings of the console version, Bioware has introduced a push-to-attack button for consoles and redesigned the GUI to take advantage of the pros and cons of both platforms, but especially consoles
* To highlight their efforts in improving this below par version, they have made a point of emphasizing to previewers in the press, and in general, that the gameplay on consoles has been drastically improved.  This naturally leads PC gamers, twitchy at any possible reference to a multiplatform game being changed in any way to work better on consoles, to react negatively
* There is a concerted movement among the development team to encourage warriors and rogues to have visually-impressive moves on par with mages.
* The only gameplay videos that the public has seen so far are leaked fan videos of console gameplay. Ergo, even PC gamers starved for information are forced to rely on information those videos reveal that may either be misleading or completely irrelevant when it comes to the experience they will have on their platform of choice
* So far, all PC gamers have to go on in terms of how the game will play for them is developer comments that it is extremely similar if visually flashier.

Taken all together, I'd say that explains the problem.

Edit: Oh, and Bioware's marketing tends to highlight differences and downplay similarities, it seems.

That's....

remarkably clear-headed.



I think you are probably 98.5% accurate there.

Add in a very small minority of pro and con people constantly going at it, a small number of violenty anti-DLC people and anti-EA people causing problems, and a couple BioWare devs who come on the board and occassionally sarcastically belittle those who are (perhaps a bit hysterically over-)concerned about DA2, and you'd have 100% IMO.

[MerinTB]

In Exile wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
* To highlight their efforts in improving this below par version, they have made a point of emphasizing to previewers in the press, and in general, that the gameplay on consoles has been drastically improved.  This naturally leads PC gamers, twitchy at any possible reference to a multiplatform game being changed in any way to work better on consoles, to react negatively

I try to explain this whenever I get the chance, so here goes:

DA:O sucked on consoles. It wasn't just subar. If you played it by itself,  it was a bad game. If you played it after playing DA:O on the PC, it was an unplayable mess and a physical beating would be more enjoyable. It lacked the tactical camera entirely, you could only move companions using the stick (so no point & click to space out your party), several features of information were outright inaccesible (like which new items you got, what new codex entries you got, how much XP you had to level up or even what the approval rating of NPCs was).

The only hope Bioware has of not having this game flop is to tell everyone in earshot that they recognize DA:O was a steaming pile on the console and DA2 is nothing like it.

Honestly, I think PC users would be more comfortable with DA2 if they appreciated just how central the console version was to sales and how close Bioware is to losing that marketshare after DA:O.

The PC version will receive features designed with the console in mind. The new tactical camera is designed to work well on the console while retaining functionality on the PC. This will be true of many features. The console will be the focus, but that's just the reality of it being (i) the higher selling platform and (ii) the fact that DA:O was just a bad game for it, so Bioware has to desparately sell DA2 as different.

That is also remarkably clear-headed, and it sounds very likely to be right.

If only the devs would (?were allowed?) to say it this way.

Hmmm...

that is food for thought.

[DPB]

Risen is very good, but it's basically Gothic 1 and 2 put into a blender. Not that it's necessarily a bad thing, but there's a strong sense of deja vu from playing it, everything is so similar to before that it feels like you're replaying a game rather than something new.

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...
That is also remarkably clear-headed, and it sounds very likely to be right.

If only the devs would (?were allowed?) to say it this way.

Hmmm...

that is food for thought.

Practically, a developer can't come out and say we released a garbage game a year ago, whoops, but bear with us because this version totally won't suck.

The reality is that EA probably wanted a multiplatform release because that means more money, and Bioware produced a PC only game from scratch. Releasing it to consoles meant that Bioware had to port a game that was not built ground up with the intention to port in maybe a year or two. That's not an easy task.

A multiplatform release is just better business, even if you're releasing a terrible port because at worst, all it does is pad your bottom line. This is why as consumers, what we have to be careful of this generation is knowing the core platform of development.

In a lot of ways DA2 is still a wool-over-your-eyes game because the mechanism doesn't seem to have changed so much that it isn't all dice rolls under the hood. Bioware is just covering this up by making everything flashier and faster paced, so it feels like an action RPG when it isn't. It's like how BGII was real-time with rounds to simulate turn-based.

[StingingVelvet]

In Exile wrote...

This is predicated on the assumption that DA:O sold well because it sold to people that wanted BGII, so the secret to success is to remake BGII. But we don't know that. What I'm asking is why do you think this is the case? What if people bought DA:O thinking it would be Mass Effect with swords?

I doubt PC gamers with BG2 memories dancing fondly in their heads made up even a tenth of DA:O's sales, but that doesn't mean that BG2-style gameplay wasn't a factor in the game's success.  I'm sure a lot of console gamers bought the game because it said Bioware on the box, but that doesn't mean they didn't appreciate the tactical combat and customization of a blank slate for the main character.

It's easy to assume console players bought the game despite those things, or unknowingly, but that's just what I said: an assumption.  I made a comment in one of the "OMG IT'S SIMPLIFIED" threads a while back about PC gamers and someone quoted me saying he plays on the PS3 and loved tactical combat just as much as I do.

It seems like ever since the Xbox came out and PC genres moved to consoles gaming publishers have been acting under the assumption that console gamers are less understanding of complex gaming mechanics and just crave simple button mashing and explosions.  It's actually kind of insulting in a way to console gamers, but is it accurate?

Maybe.  I don't know.  Probably.  It's been a success so far and it's worked for the movie industry for 30-50 years now.

So nevermind.

In any case, my only point is that some simple basic information about the combat system would be appreciated and it seems weird we have none with 4 months left to go.

Edit: And I'm ignoring the Gothic comments, to save me from going insane.

Modifié par StingingVelvet, 07 novembre 2010 - 04:20 .

[slimgrin]

Their marketing campaign leaves much to be desired, and it did for Origins too. The new sh*t trailer ran me off the game the first time I saw it. I don't consider the rise to power trailer anything more than eye candy for people new to the franchise.

This is why I feel they've been on the forums so diligently, supplying us with quite a bit of relevant info.

Laidlaw has said they are making a game with big visual and reactivity changes, but with the core aspects of DA still there: story, characters, and tactical combat. He made the first game so I'm taking his word for it.

Modifié par slimgrin, 07 novembre 2010 - 04:23 .

[In Exile]

StingingVelvet wrote...
I doubt PC gamers with BG2 memories dancing fondly in their heads made up even a tenth of DA:O's sales, but that doesn't mean that BG2-style gameplay wasn't a factor in the game's success.  I'm sure a lot of console gamers bought the game because it said Bioware on the box, but that doesn't mean they didn't appreciate the tactical combat and customization of a blank slate for the main character.

Here is the thing: tactial party-control, customization, and blank slate are all independent features.

For example, I think tactical party is better than single character + NPCs (regardless of whether this is DA:O with tactics, ME, KoTOR, or whatever) and that VO is superior to non VO.

So if I was making DA2, I'd have hex-based Heroes of Might and Magic combat with the ME2 dialogue wheel, because I think that set-up is awesome.

It's easy to assume console players bought the game despite those things, or unknowingly, but that's just what I said: an assumption.  I made a comment in one of the "OMG IT'S SIMPLIFIED" threads a while back about PC gamers and someone quoted me saying he plays on the PS3 and loved tactical combat just as much as I do.

I like the PC as a platform, because I like point&click games. But I hate a lot of features of RPGs, especially silent VOs and puppet PCs. It's just not easy to cluster people the way you're looking to.

It seems like ever since the Xbox came out and PC genres moved to consoles gaming publishers have been acting under the assumption that console gamers are less understanding of complex gaming mechanics and just crave simple button mashing and explosions.  It's actually kind of insulting in a way to console gamers, but is it accurate?

People like to push this angle, but this isn't what it is. Tactical (in the sense of top down order giving) is very hard on a console. The controller is just not an interface designed to let you do this well. It's why an RTS is unplayable crap on a console. 

Console games are on this standard simplified because they don't play well.You can have a crazy complex combo system (i.e. any fighting game) because the console lends itself to this. You can't have a complicated top down order giving system,because you just lack the scrolling fidelity.

So the games need to adapt to their medium.

In any case, my only point is that some simple basic information about the combat system would be appreciated and it seems weird we have none with 4 months left to go.

We have lots. Just none for the PC. But Bioware's focus right now is the console.

[StingingVelvet]

In Exile wrote...

I like the PC as a platform, because I like point&click games. But I hate a lot of features of RPGs, especially silent VOs and puppet PCs. It's just not easy to cluster people the way you're looking to.

My whole point was DON'T cluster people.  Don't assume the combat of DA:O was generally hated on consoles, maybe a bunch of them liked the more tactical combat DA:O brought to their Xbox or PS3.

In Exile wrote...

Console games are on this standard simplified because they don't play well.You can have a crazy complex combo system (i.e. any fighting game) because the console lends itself to this. You can't have a complicated top down order giving system,because you just lack the scrolling fidelity.

So the games need to adapt to their medium.

Yes, I know, which is why I want more information on exactly what has been changed to the core game experience.  Saying "still tactical" means nothing when I know you have made significant changes to make it more of a console game.  That is why I am saying they need to be more forthcoming about the core gameplay.

For me and a bunch of others it's the difference between wanting the game and not wanting it.

Modifié par StingingVelvet, 07 novembre 2010 - 04:31 .

[ErichHartmann]

Marketing campaigns are nothing more than hype and all developers are guilty as charged. Epler, Gaider, Laidlaw, and crew have taken plenty of time out of their busy schedules to answer specific questions on the forum. Which is NOT hype but good interaction with the community. I have seen enough posts to know the core gameplay for the PC is essentially the same as DAO with flashier moves and faster animations. Of course I'm taking their word for it, but I've been playing BioWare games for 13 years now.

Modifié par ErichHartmann, 07 novembre 2010 - 04:34 .

[In Exile]

StingingVelvet wrote...
My whole point was DON'T cluster people.  Don't assume the combat of DA:O was generally hated on consoles, maybe a bunch of them liked the more tactical combat DA:O brought to their Xbox or PS3.

You don't seem to get it. Tactical combat was broken on the console.

Seriously, it might not be so noticeable if you didn't play the PC version, but the game was just bad. Changing the combat has nothing to do with removing tactics; right now it's just about making it remotely playable.

I
Yes, I know, which is why I want more information on exactly what has been changed to the core game experience.  Saying "still tactical" means nothing when I know you have made significant changes to make it more of a console game.  That is why I am saying they need to be more forthcoming about the core gameplay.

For me and a bunch of others it's the difference between wanting the game and not wanting it.

Okay, you're just refusing to read what I'm writing, or are refusing to look at the issue of design. Whether or not the combat is faster, flashier, more absurd, whatever, has 0 implication on how the game plays on PC.

The features they've added on console (like hit a button to start a basic attack) are just automated on PC so they function exactly like the old features. It's not even hard to see how this can be done.

What makes the game tactical is: (1) point & click; (2) full party control; (3) dice rolls. If these three don't change, whether the interfacei is 2D like BGII or the over-the-top bonanza that is DA2 is irrelevant; that's the entire point of statistic driven combat.

[abat223]

There have been several bioware employees that have said the majority of the changes are visual, smoothing(de-lagging) the time betwee button click and action happening, and cutting unneeded stuff from the game, such as useless walking in circles to talk to quest givers, get one thing, come back, get another, or going to your party camp and painfully enterrogating all of your companions to see what they need(in DA2 they will come to you/ notify you they need to talk)

[abat223]

Oh, also, there are BIoware employees who have said the combat will be very similar in length to DA:O. So if you think every enemy in DA2 will be a "grunt" one hit enemy, that is not the case.