5 réponses à ce sujet

[StingingVelvet]

Simple version:

Fallout New Vegas was praised for adding depth and complexity. Fable 3 and Gothic 4 were bashed for removing depth and complexity. Does this mean anything to Dragon Age 2 and Bioware? More specifically, will this
impact review scores? Sales? Public opinion? Will the game be effected in some minor way?
__________________________________________________________________

Long version:

New Vegas added a lot of complexity and roleplaying back into the Fallout 3 paradigm.  The factions make decisions matter, as pleasing often means losing gameplay oppotunities with the other.  You can actually fail quests, for instance.  The damage threshhold system (DT) actually makes killing a Deathclaw with a pistol almost impossible, as you need a weapon that can bust through its armor.  The hardcore mode adds roleplaying elements like eating, drinking and sleeping, plus companion permanent death.  The stat and perk systems were redesigned to keep a player from being a master of everything.

Rather than be bashed for this Obdisian seems to have earned much praise for it.  Pretty much every review only points out bugs as a negative, but praises the new elements and increased weight of choices and dialogue.  In contrast games like Fable 3 and Arcania: Gothic 4 were bashed by reviewers for being too simplified and without any complexity.  I was happy to see this, as I think most "old school" RPG gamers like myself were worried we were headed toward even simpler games, but this is a light in the tunnel so to speak.

So... my question is, what does this mean for Dragon Age 2?  Things are kind of foggy right now with not a lot of information out there, but the general consensus is that things are being streamlined compared to DA:O.  Is this the opposite of what the market is actually looking for now?  Does the added complexity in New Vegas and how well it was received point more toward keeping the complexity of DA:O or even expanding on it?  Perhaps Western RPGs are familiar enough to mainstream gamers now that they crave the depth and complexity the old school crowd wants back as well?

And what does it mean for Bioware as a whole?  Does the sucess of New Vegas and the comments against Fable and Arcania mean anything to Bioware for the future?  Will they look more at adding complexity and roleplaying mechanics back into their games?  Mass Effect 2 ditched a lot of RPG elements, will Bioware maybe feel confident about putting those elements back in the game to some extent?

These are actual questions, I am not looking to make a subversive point.  I was really surprised by New Vegas and how RPG it was, and then surprised again at how much praise that got from both fans and reviewers.  I want to know if it effects the future of multiplatform RPGs, and Dragon Age 2 in particular.

Modifié par StingingVelvet, 14 novembre 2010 - 07:15 .

[David Gaider]

StingingVelvet wrote...
Fallout New Vegas was praised for adding depth and complexity. Fable 3 and Gothic 4 were bashed for removing depth and complexity. Does this mean anything to Dragon Age 2 and Bioware? More specifically, will this impact review scores? Sales? Public opinion? Will the game be effected in some minor way?

I don't think you can look at these things in isolation, really. Open world games are capable of doing things in a very different way from story-driven games-- and each approach comes with its trade-offs. The reviewers are going to comment based on the specific improvements or problems that they're seeing, especially in comparison to whatever came before... they're not really commenting on "this is what RPG's should do in general" and I don't think it should be taken that way.

Our games focus more on story and interaction. Does this make them more linear? Sure, that's probably a fair statement, but linearity doesn't make it bad-- and reviewers (or good ones, anyhow) are going to judge it based on the quality of the experience presented, not on how they think it should have been something else.

As for how it'll effect sales, that's an argument in and of itself. Will FO:NV succeed because it's part of a successful franchise? Because it's got such great reactivity? I don't know-- people like to make claims about why games succeed or fail commercially, but that tends to say more about their own biases than anything else. And I'm not saying this is something only the fans do. The industry does it as well: seeing features of unsuccessful games as indicative of that feature's unpopularity is no more valid than doing the opposite and assuming a successful game's features can be replicated with the same financial success. I see a game like Troika's Temple of Elemental Evil which I thought did turn-based combat quite well and I cringe when it is used as an example of why turn-based combat "just isn't popular" because of the game's perceived sales. It's too bad, really.

I guess what I'm saying is that, at least with respect to getting good review scores (which does have importance to us, obviously, even if that doesn't always translate into good sales) we're going to do the type of game we do as well as we can do it... and we can't really look at other games in the genre that do things differently without understanding the trade-offs they accepted to do them. Despite both being RPG's, there are huge differences between how DA2 and FO:NV will play, just as there are huge differences between DA2 and ME2 (despite the insistence of some). We'll no doubt look at how FO does these things, sure, and see if there's anything to learn from them... just as we do with other games we play. That doesn't mean we can transplant those features wholesale into what we do. One cannot cherry-pick the best features of games and assemble them like a salad, minus the trade-offs. That's wishful thinking.

As far as affecting DA2 itself? It's a little late for that. Even on the off chance that we did go "OMG choice is in again? We need to change everything!" there'd be little we could do to change course without delaying the game and starting over on huge parts of it. And, to be frank, that'd be bad. If there's anything worse than being second-guessed by a bunch of fans, it's second-guessing yourself. If we weren't confident that what we were doing was good, then we probably shouldn't be doing it at all.

[David Gaider]

StingingVelvet wrote...
It's not about comparing the two games at all really, it is about adding depth versus removing it and the general feelings among fans and reviewers at the moment about it.

I just find it heartening that so many people say a game where you don't play the same character as the previous game, and also play a human only with a single origin is still capable of depth. Who'd have thunk it?

Modifié par David Gaider, 14 novembre 2010 - 08:32 .

[David Gaider]

naledgeborn wrote...
I mean no disrespect when I say this Mr. Gaider but patting yourself on the back for spear-heading the creation of a phenomenal game over the course of 5 years will not make it's sequel any better.

And where did I say this?  Where did I even imply this?

All I meant was that some people seem to be focusing only on what they see as lost or removed, rather than what might still be there, as if the loss of features they liked was the only thing that mattered and couldn't also have some good trade-offs. Not that I expect everyone to like them, but then not everyone likes FO:NV either I'm sure.

But whatever. Clearly this is not a conversation to be having with you people. I'll leave you to your speculation.

[David Gaider]

outlaworacle wrote...
YOU PEOPLE?!?! Operation Righteous Indignation is... GO!

I'm neither righteous or indignant. I'm tired, and it's Sunday... and having a conversation where multiple people are going to twist my words to suit their own agenda is... well, that's a Monday conversation. Maybe a Tuesday.

Either way, my being here is not productive, and it's a good conversation. I suggest you continue it.

[David Gaider]

Vylan Antagonist wrote...
2) In developing a 'follow-up', Obsidian did not choose to redesign art assets or make radical departures in gameplay

Not to pick out one point or anything, but I'll just interject and suggest that Obsidian might also not have been at liberty to do so. It's not their IP, after all. Beyond that, continue with your conjecture.