608 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mordaedil wrote...

NWN's SP campaign was underrated.

I strongly agree.  I have never even played multiplayer NWN and yet I count the game among my favourites.

[Cutlasskiwi]

StingingVelvet wrote...
I wouldn't say AC2 added depth really, it just added more things to do.  Both Assassin's Creed games are insanely easy and simple to play.  I actually hear that the new 3rd one adds some interesting new mechanics which are deeper, and I look forward to playing with it, though PC gamers must wait until February for some reason.

I don't mean to speak in too broad of terms though, you are right that there are other examples of depth being added in recent times I'm sure.  All in all though the industry is very much in love with streamlining games recently, boiling them down to core concepts and presenting those in an easy to play manner.  Mass Effect 2, Civilization 5, GTA4, Splinter Cell 5, Rainbow Six Vegas, Call of Duty, Elder Scrolls 4, Fable 3, Divinity 2: DKS, Gothic 4, Supreme Commander 2, Thief 3, Deus Ex 2, Prince of Persia '08, ... all of those took away depth and complexity from their prequels.  That's not even mentioning all the new series that have launched in the last 5 years and how streamlined they are compared to older games.

I don't HATE it mind you, and some of those games listed above are even favorites of mine, but in general I prefer depth and complexity to easy gameplay that gets boring after a while.  You're right that Bioware have a lot of depth to their stories, but that is only one aspect of a game.  It's a cliche saying but true: if story was the only important thing then one could just watcha  movie.  I like depth in my gameplay as well, and when you remove any challenge and all the more complex mechanics, well, I feel like I am just clicking on dudes, which is not much fun.  I found Mass Effect 2, even on "insanity," to be a very simple and easy game.  At some point that ends up a lot less interesting.

I think AC2 added a lot more depth and complexity than AC1. Sure, the game might not be fort knox but I don't see the need for a game to be hard in order to be complex. They added a lot of great stuff like the ability to swim, blend into more crowds, improved eagle vision new ways to assassin targets and so on. And the glyphs, don't forget the glyphs! 

I've played NV until I got tired of the game freezing every 5-10 minutes. Now I'm waiting for patch to fix that but even now I feel no real desire to go back and finish the game. Sure the new features are great but I have a hard time caring about my character at all. Heck, I like Boone more than my character. But that's ok for me. I didn't expect to get as emotionally attached to a Fallout game as BioWare games.

Yes, story is their (BioWare) strength, it's something they have always done well. Mix that good story with some of the best NPCs in the industry and you'll have a winner in my books. For me when it comes to characters and story, no one can beat them. I was a bit hesitant when some of the changes were announced but one should also look at what they're adding to the game. Not just things that they take away.
I know they said that they want people who are new to Dragon Age to be able to get right into the game without having to much trouble. But I still don't think they are taking away depth and complexity from the game. The impression I've gotten so far is that it will still be there.

Edit: Spelling. 

Modifié par Yellow Words, 17 novembre 2010 - 11:09 .

[Vylan Antagonist]

In Exile wrote...

The thing is, Fallout 3 sold too. As of right now, we don't know whether or not New Vegas is more succesful than Fo3. With no empirical difference in sales, how can we attribute the success of New Vegas to the changes as opposed to the consistencies?

The fact that FO3 sold well only makes NV more relevant; DA:O sold quite nicely as well, better than ME2 as we all know.

In spite of those very decent sales figures, however, it's been said several times that DA2 needed to sell considerably better. Was it just a factor of the lengthy development cycle? Was it pressure from EA to put up big numbers from a smaller number of releases to maximize returns (the Kotick method, TM)? We may never really know. We only know that there was pressure and that, to at least some extent, that pressure influenced the decision to redefine the DA franchise as an action RPG. The argument was made that too much of the dev time that had gone into DA was wasted on unseen content, that the audience for those BG throwback games just wasn't there in today's market, that there was just too much of a delay in gratification ("Within 15 seconds of starting the game, you'll be killing something").

So they started from what they wanted to sell- 10 million units. Then they asked themselves what they had to do to turn DA into a 10-million unit game. They looked at other massive sellers and they tried to position their sequel accordingly. They decided to try to hit the moving target of mass market desires. This imperative shaped everything that followed, and it seemed as though we were being told that it was the only way DA2 would be allowed to move forward.

Well, NV clearly wasn't designed that way. 'Hardcore mode' was not on any marketing team's list of bullet points for matching the mega-sellers. 100 hours of content is absolutely antithetical to the investment vs return scenarios that were being bandied around here. NV was not conceptualized around moving the most units possible. Instead, the team just tried to make a really good Fallout game, one truer to the franchise that spawned it.

And it sold anyways. It sold well and it's still selling.

What that seems to suggest to me is that DA2 did not need to 'hot rod' the art, to mock the gameplay that propelled the game to 3.2 million sales. NV didn't do those things. It just added massive amounts of content and a few slight tweaks, and yet it managed to at least match FO3's 3 million units moved. And counting.

Whether or not Bioware was right to take the road more travelled remains to be seen. But the point is that they did indeed have a choice, or at least whoever was responsible for greenlighting the project did. They were not required to design their game around what they thought would sell the most units. They could have done what Obsidian did and succeeded. Whatever ends up happening with DA2, good or bad, it was not inevitable. It was a choice. And to me, that makes all the difference. By all means, tell me that you truly think the hot-rodded art looks better and that it was a decision made to make the game qualitatively better. Tell me that you truly think DA2 is, in every way, a game made with the best game in mind. Tell me those things. But don't tell me that those decisions were foregone conclusions. Don't tell me that games that appeal to DA:O's core market just don't cut it any more. Don't tell me that you HAD to make hurlocks into putties, that you had to build from the mantra of 'Think like a Master Chief, Fight like a Power Ranger". These were choices. There were other options. There were other places resources could have been invested. Whether the result is a success or a failure, it was NOT a market inevitability.

Right, or it  could work out so well it doubles sales. How can we know? Even if it works out one way or another in one case, how can we know precisely what caused it?

It doesn't matter. What matters is that Obsidian built with the game foremost and the market secondary; They had tight timetables and limited resources just like everyone but Blizzard does and they invested their time and energies not in pursuit of what they thought would sell the most units, but in making the best game they felt they could realistically using the tools they had, even though some of those tools were doddering and wheezing pensioners (Gamebryo!). And their decisions were rewarded. We don't know why, but it doesn't matter. The point is, it was possible.

[Vylan Antagonist]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mordaedil wrote...
NWN's SP campaign was underrated.

I strongly agree.  I have never even played multiplayer NWN and yet I count the game among my favourites.

Well, I definitely disagree. I think the original campaign was clearly a secondary consideration relative to the engine and tools. I think it was probably among Bioware's weakest efforts as a story, almost relegating the players to being Mary Sue's in Aribeth's story, but again, I don't see the OC as being what NWN was about, so I think that's completely forgivable.

[Maconbar]

Vylan Antagonist wrote...

It doesn't matter. What matters is that Obsidian built with the game foremost and the market secondary; They had tight timetables and limited resources just like everyone but Blizzard does and they invested their time and energies not in pursuit of what they thought would sell the most units, but in making the best game they felt they could realistically using the tools they had, even though some of those tools were doddering and wheezing pensioners (Gamebryo!). And their decisions were rewarded. We don't know why, but it doesn't matter. The point is, it was possible.

This is a nice myth about the creation of a video game.

[In Exile]

StingingVelvet wrote...

None of that makes the game more complex.  Hence: they added things, but not depth and complexity.  I suppose one could argue the meaning of "depth" in a game, but I have paired that word with complexity every single time I used it.  What I mean is deeper and more complext mechanics which make the game more challenging and require more thought and strategy.  Assassin's Creed 2 was so simple a 10 year old could play it.

No, there is no need to argue the meaning of depth. The meaning of depth is blatantly clear. ACII is more challenging than ACI. It requires more thought and more strategy. There are more features. By your standard, the game world is more interactive becasue there are far more triggers and options to interact with crowds and the physical environment of games.

Missions are more varied and can be completed in more creative ways. Seriously, that you want to deny this to say only New Vegas added complexity because ACII is just some action game, that's pointless. It's actually ironic, because if your argument was what you say it is, by using action games that have increased their complexity to critical acclaim you could make a stronger case that the market demands complex games.

But I don't think that's what you're interested in.

Assume whatever agenda you want, my pre-order is in.  The simple fact of the matter is that Bioware will tell you, and have said numerous times on this very forum and in preview articles, that they are streamlining the game.

Bioware is added tone indicators to the dialogue wheel, and a persistent personality that allows Hawke to participate in banter. They're adding the rivalry system, which allows us to shape our NPCs via friendly or quasi-antagonistic relationships with them. These all seem like features which build on features from Origins.

They are removing customizable companion meshes while retaining all other parts of the DA:O inventory, and keeping the same DA:O inventory for Hawke.

The combat is over-the-top, but we have yet to see any PC gameplay vids, so as of right now we can't comment. Unless the ''blow things up with a grenade launcher'' marketing push of New Vegas was the height of complexity and depth?

They want a larger audience and believe that removing some things and streamlining some things will lead to that.  This is common knowledge.  I'm not throwing a hissy-fit about it, I am asking if this is still a viable strategy and what reviews/consumers want after the positive response to adding complexity to Fallout 3's formula for New Vegas, and the negatice response to removing complexity from Gothic and Fable.

As of right now, Fable III is selling about as much as Fable II. I can't speak about Gothic 4, because as I said, I thought the game series was so terrible that it ought to have been exterminated long ago.

New Vegas is roughly on pace to match or slightly exceed Fallout 3's sales. The question I have repeatedly asked you is how we can know the success of Fallout 3 is from this increased complexity? Why isn't from all the features they kept the same, with the audience indifferent to any sort of complexity?

Yes, I understand that the old-school RPG crowd, whatever this demographic is, thinks New Vegas is a brilliant step in the right direction. Great, I'm happy for you guys, really. I don't like the game, but it's not like I'm against people enjoying games. But what I am against are baseless empirical claims.

Right now, you're making a baseless empirical claim all so you can ask the leaidng question: '' Guys! Bioware will totally fail because they're not designing my most favourite game and changing things I like from DA:O, right? Tell me (and them!) how totally wrong they are.''

[In Exile]

MerinTB,

The thread ate my response to you, so I will be brief. I have been called a troll in this tread, it has been implied I am obtuse, malevolent, an idiot (by you, as it turns out) all because I will not buy into the leading argument in this thread.

Yes, if New Vegas was praised and commercially succesful because of its complexity, and yes, if this means that games that are complex are comercially succesful, and if Gothic IV and Fable II, by whatever standard, failed because they were not complex, and if in general, games that are not complex fail, and if Dragon Age 2 is a game that is not complex and Bioware wants to succeed, then Dragon Age 2 will fail and Bioware should make games that are complex.

You will notice that all of the ifs, that lead to this conclusion, are pressupositions of the OP. Merely being able to follow a thread of reasoning and saying "I agree" is not a discussion - it's an echo chamber.

I think there are very interesting questions to ask about New Vegas: to what extent was the game succesful because of complexity? To what extent was that influenced by the old Fallout 3 crowd? To what extend did Fable III, which right now is matching Fable II in sales, fail? To what extent can a niche brand like Gothic have a commercial breakout? To what degree was the game less complex versus less good?

There are lots of things we can ask about what the OP claimed happen, to refine our understand and then discuss what the implications for DA2 are. If you want an echo-chamber were everyone will say any game that lacks whatever idiosyncratic features you'd like to define as belonging in an RPG, go for it. But don't expect me to go along.

Modifié par In Exile, 17 novembre 2010 - 03:35 .

[Vylan Antagonist]

Maconbar wrote...

Vylan Antagonist wrote...

It doesn't matter. What matters is that Obsidian built with the game foremost and the market secondary; They had tight timetables and limited resources just like everyone but Blizzard does and they invested their time and energies not in pursuit of what they thought would sell the most units, but in making the best game they felt they could realistically using the tools they had, even though some of those tools were doddering and wheezing pensioners (Gamebryo!). And their decisions were rewarded. We don't know why, but it doesn't matter. The point is, it was possible.

This is a nice myth about the creation of a video game.

And what makes it mythical? Do you think the decision to add a mode where players need to manage food consumption, hydration, and sleep was an attempt to appeal to a broader market? How about the decision to develop a game on a dated game engine like gamebryo that was already criticized for its graphics 2 years ago? What about the decision to have voice actors record Caesar's name differently based on those characters' exposure to proper latin pronunciation? The decision to have Nipton's inhabitants slaughtered in a lottery when the town itself (in the real world) was known for numerous lottery wins? Ever seen the pictures of the real Primm's roller coaster, of 'Novac's' dinosaur? Of Goodsprings Pioneer Saloon and schoolhouse? The attention to detail was ludicrous and clearly was not the result of analyzing play metrics and saying, "Welp, 70% of our players never saw this, so let's not bother with it next time". In fact, it's downright antithetical to those notions.

So was there any factual or logical basis for your drive-by dismissal of my description as a myth? Are you Ropekid/JE Sawyer or Chris Avellone, that you would know otherwise?

[In Exile]

Vylan Antagonist wrote...

The fact that FO3 sold well only makes NV more relevant; DA:O sold quite nicely as well, better than ME2 as we all know.

Okay, let's see where you are going with this.

In spite of those very decent sales figures, however, it's been said several times that DA2 needed to sell considerably better. Was it just a factor of the lengthy development cycle? Was it pressure from EA to put up big numbers from a smaller number of releases to maximize returns (the Kotick method, TM)? We may never really know.

We do know, from David Gaidner, that the develop cycle was a major influence in the shorter development cycle of DA2. Whatever we can say about EA, I think we have very good evidence that they will not tolerate a cycle of 5 years. To what extent was Dragon Age more financially succesful than Mass Effect, because of the length of the cycle? That isn't data we have access to, but I would bet that is what is driving EA's decision.

I would also argue that Bioware doesn't make games like BG II anymore. They had a 7 year period where they released largely console-first, cinematic action-RPGs. Jade Empire, that completely removed RPG elements (almost) and Mass Effect (with the dreaded PC VO) were all Bioware original developments, done prior to EA.

So I think it's hard for us to know to what extent DA2 was influenced by financial pressures (whether from EA or not) and creative pressures, because there was a five year gap between when DA:O started and what Bioware did in the mean-time.

We only know that there was pressure and that, to at least some extent, that pressure influenced the decision to redefine the DA franchise as an action RPG. The argument was made that too much of the dev time that had gone into DA was wasted on unseen content, that the audience for those BG throwback games just wasn't there in today's market, that there was just too much of a delay in gratification ("Within 15 seconds of starting the game, you'll be killing something").

DA:O was marketed as an acton RPG, if you look at the old previews. So I'm not sure to what extent Bioware believes in an RPG being a succesful product. I think that's an interesting question to ask: to what degree is Bioware moving away from the so-called traditional RPG because they lack faith in the genre?

I don't agree with the intuition that the changes to DA2 are motivated financially or are, for the large part, a business decision, because I feel the preponderance of evidence suggests a creative source.

Not to say that I don't clearly think there are business decisions that influence DA2. If you read developer posts carefully, you can see outright that the development cycle is something that has been not well received so to speak, though at best we just have cryptic comments of the sort (''well, this is what the cycle is, so trade-offs are imperative''). I think Bioware would want much more time, in an ideal world, to make DA2.

But if they had that time, would it mean they'd remake DA:O? I don't think so, and that's I why I would argue a lot of the changes, at their core, are creative.

So they started from what they wanted to sell- 10 million units. Then they asked themselves what they had to do to turn DA into a 10-million unit game. They looked at other massive sellers and they tried to position their sequel accordingly. They decided to try to hit the moving target of mass market desires. This imperative shaped everything that followed, and it seemed as though we were being told that it was the only way DA2 would be allowed to move forward.

Somehow they seem to have learned nothing, because the only non-MMOs that have reached that target are multiplayer first-person shooters. Fable II sold 3.5 million on the 360, and that's the closest a hack & slash fantasy RPG has gotten to the 10-million unit goal.

That being said, I think that article was taken out of context. As I recall, they were speaking about TOR and MMO sales, and the general desire to reach a greater and greater audience.

Well, NV clearly wasn't designed that way. 'Hardcore mode' was not on any marketing team's list of bullet points for matching the mega-sellers. 100 hours of content is absolutely antithetical to the investment vs return scenarios that were being bandied around here. NV was not conceptualized around moving the most units possible. Instead, the team just tried to make a really good Fallout game, one truer to the franchise that spawned it.

What makes you say this? I'm sorry, but this just sounds like some subjective heroic starving artist versus evil corporate conglomerate narrative. What makes you think Obsidian didn't think their features would sell?

100 hour content is exactly what Bethesda did with both Oblivion and Fallout 3, both of which were far more succesful games than Dragon Age, both of which were succesful games without Obsidian.

As an aside, New Vegas was most certainly conceptualized as moving the most units possible, and Bestheda, as the publisher, spoke on exactly this. Unless you think they are also kind-hearted developers unlike the heartless sell-out Bioware?

What that seems to suggest to me is that DA2 did not need to 'hot rod' the art, to mock the gameplay that propelled the game to 3.2 million sales. NV didn't do those things. It just added massive amounts of content and a few slight tweaks, and yet it managed to at least match FO3's 3 million units moved. And counting.

Fallout 3 moved 4.7 million units. New Vegas moved 5.0 million units. The numbers are close to indentical.

So here is the question: how do you know this complexity mattered? You've certainly proved that consumers won't refuse to buy a game that is complex, but how does this prove will buy a game because it is complex? This is the question I asked you, and your quasi-political speech on developer conscience aside, you haven't answered.

But don't tell me that those decisions were foregone conclusions. Don't tell me that games that appeal to DA:O's core market just don't cut it any more. Don't tell me that you HAD to make hurlocks into putties, that you had to build from the mantra of 'Think like a Master Chief, Fight like a Power Ranger". These were choices. There were other options. There were other places resources could have been invested. Whether the result is a success or a failure, it was NOT a market inevitability.

I'm going to step back now, because I have no idea what you're going on about with this rant. Who told you these things? What makes you think these things are true? Why is Bioware the developer that sold out to the Mass Market, and Obsidian, who just after their absolute commercial failure in Alpha Protocol, put all their eggs in the basket of an already massive franchise and managed to have it sell... about just as well with their tweaks to the formula?

It doesn't matter. What matters is that Obsidian built with the game foremost and the market secondary;

How can you possibly know this? Did you read their minds? Were you in the room with them when they signed their ''We swear to never design a game with profit in mind! Even if we are all unemployed, our families evicted and our futures ruined, we will never design a game for money!'' manifesto?

They had tight timetables and limited resources just like everyone but Blizzard does and they invested their time and energies not in pursuit of what they thought would sell the most units, but in making the best game they felt they could realistically using the tools they had, even though some of those tools were doddering and wheezing pensioners (Gamebryo!). And their decisions were rewarded. We don't know why, but it doesn't matter. The point is, it was possible.

They picked up a franchise that moved 4.7 million units on release. The only decision that was rewarded was that they were smart enough to pick a good brand and not screw it up. See? I can play the invent motivations and reasons for the success of a company game too!

[Maconbar]

Vylan Antagonist wrote...

Maconbar wrote...

Vylan Antagonist wrote...

It doesn't matter. What matters is that Obsidian built with the game foremost and the market secondary; They had tight timetables and limited resources just like everyone but Blizzard does and they invested their time and energies not in pursuit of what they thought would sell the most units, but in making the best game they felt they could realistically using the tools they had, even though some of those tools were doddering and wheezing pensioners (Gamebryo!). And their decisions were rewarded. We don't know why, but it doesn't matter. The point is, it was possible.

This is a nice myth about the creation of a video game.

And what makes it mythical? Do you think the decision to add a mode where players need to manage food consumption, hydration, and sleep was an attempt to appeal to a broader market? How about the decision to develop a game on a dated game engine like gamebryo that was already criticized for its graphics 2 years ago? What about the decision to have voice actors record Caesar's name differently based on those characters' exposure to proper latin pronunciation? The decision to have Nipton's inhabitants slaughtered in a lottery when the town itself (in the real world) was known for numerous lottery wins? Ever seen the pictures of the real Primm's roller coaster, of 'Novac's' dinosaur? Of Goodsprings Pioneer Saloon and schoolhouse? The attention to detail was ludicrous and clearly was not the result of analyzing play metrics and saying, "Welp, 70% of our players never saw this, so let's not bother with it next time". In fact, it's downright antithetical to those notions.

So was there any factual or logical basis for your drive-by dismissal of my description as a myth? Are you Ropekid/JE Sawyer or Chris Avellone, that you would know otherwise?

I am calling it a myth because you have zero facts to back up your assertion.

[Skellimancer]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mordaedil wrote...

NWN's SP campaign was underrated.

I strongly agree.  I have never even played multiplayer NWN and yet I count the game among my favourites.

OC was easily beaten by this, imo :happy:
http://nwvault.ign.c....detail&id=4028

[Vylan Antagonist]

Maconbar wrote...

Vylan Antagonist wrote...

Maconbar wrote...

Vylan Antagonist wrote...

It doesn't matter. What matters is that Obsidian built with the game foremost and the market secondary; They had tight timetables and limited resources just like everyone but Blizzard does and they invested their time and energies not in pursuit of what they thought would sell the most units, but in making the best game they felt they could realistically using the tools they had, even though some of those tools were doddering and wheezing pensioners (Gamebryo!). And their decisions were rewarded. We don't know why, but it doesn't matter. The point is, it was possible.

This is a nice myth about the creation of a video game.

And what makes it mythical? Do you think the decision to add a mode where players need to manage food consumption, hydration, and sleep was an attempt to appeal to a broader market? How about the decision to develop a game on a dated game engine like gamebryo that was already criticized for its graphics 2 years ago? What about the decision to have voice actors record Caesar's name differently based on those characters' exposure to proper latin pronunciation? The decision to have Nipton's inhabitants slaughtered in a lottery when the town itself (in the real world) was known for numerous lottery wins? Ever seen the pictures of the real Primm's roller coaster, of 'Novac's' dinosaur? Of Goodsprings Pioneer Saloon and schoolhouse? The attention to detail was ludicrous and clearly was not the result of analyzing play metrics and saying, "Welp, 70% of our players never saw this, so let's not bother with it next time". In fact, it's downright antithetical to those notions.

So was there any factual or logical basis for your drive-by dismissal of my description as a myth? Are you Ropekid/JE Sawyer or Chris Avellone, that you would know otherwise?

I am calling it a myth because you have zero facts to back up your assertion.

What kind of facts are you expecting? Developer blogs? As I indicated above, it's patently evident that the game was not made in an attempt to hit the LCD. Those decisions are completely at odds with tapping into the mass market. Nothing was 'hot rodded'. Inventory remains complex and cantankerous. Recipes and different ammo types are only MORE complex, not less. Weapons can be modded, affecting abstruse statistics like 'spread' and 'projectile travel time'. Does this sound like a conscious decision to hit Modern Warfare numbers?

 Do you want a signed affidavit? What I'm saying is a pretty logical and obvious deduction, particularly when compared to statements like the ones being made about the development of DA2, where developers are clearly saying they needed to move more units (ten million!!), that players need to be able to kill something within 15 seconds, and that every time a button is pressed, something awesome needs to happen.

[Noir201]

While it's too late for anything to be learned from FNV that could be used to better DA 2, a good question would be, what could the next Elder Scrolls rpg learn from DA:O/DA 2, Fallout New Vegas i think learned abit from DA:O when you think about the companions, they had alot more depth and options, mods on FO3 pc version dev took note also.

In a day when a company which makes a flop that doesn't sell well, gets closed down, how do keep on top the hill? Look at others work, and put the best parts in your ip, like DA 2 i bet will have used parts of The Witcher, and The Witcher 2 parts from DA:O.

[ErichHartmann]

that players need to be able to kill something within 15 seconds, and that every time a button is pressed, something awesome needs to happen.

New Vegas is full of button pressing awesomeness. Initiating self destruct sequences or sniping some poor saps head off never gets old.

[ErichHartmann]

Noir201 wrote...

While it's too late for anything to be learned from FNV that could be used to better DA 2, a good question would be, what could the next Elder Scrolls rpg learn from DA:O/DA 2, Fallout New Vegas i think learned abit from DA:O when you think about the companions, they had alot more depth and options, mods on FO3 pc version dev took note also.
In a day when a company which makes a flop that doesn't sell well, gets closed down, how do keep on top the hill? Look at others work, and put the best parts in your ip, like DA 2 i bet will have used parts of The Witcher, and The Witcher 2 parts from DA:O.

/Thread

Every RPG developer needs to learn from each other.  Especially Bethesda!  The next Elder Scrolls game has so much potential if they follow Obsidian's lead with New Vegas.

[maxernst]

Actually, FO:NV is a pretty good comparison in its development history to DA2. Fallout 3 basically appealed to two groups of people: those who liked Bethesda's sandbox RPG;s and fans of the original Fallout games. Although I haven't played FO:NV yet, from how it's described it sounds as though Obsidian's strategy was to try and make the game more appealing to fans of the original Fallout games. This is probably a good idea because FO3 was probably more satisfying to Oblivion fans than Fallout 2 fans, so a FO4 along a similar line might have lost part of their audience.



DA2 is a little bit like that in that its fanbase is a combination of fans of the old Baldur's Gate games and fans of more recent Bioware titles like Mass Effect. Superficially, at least, it appears that Bioware has chosen to go the opposite route to Bethesda, by making a game that will appeal more to their new fans than the fans of DA:O's "spiritual predecessor". Personally, I'm a little skeptical that the strategy will work because while many ME fans liked DA:O, I suspect that those who didn't mostly prefer a twitch-based gameplay rather than a tactical squad-based game, which it appears that DA2 will still be. I'm not saying that DA2 will fail. Most sequels do about as well as their predecessors, barring horrendous reviews/word-of-mouth. But I'm doubtful that they're really going to add to their audience that much, and I think they do run a risk of losing the BG audience for DA3, if the new game is less appealing to those fans.

[Noir201]

maxernst wrote...

Actually, FO:NV is a pretty good comparison in its development history to DA2. Fallout 3 basically appealed to two groups of people: those who liked Bethesda's sandbox RPG;s and fans of the original Fallout games. Although I haven't played FO:NV yet, from how it's described it sounds as though Obsidian's strategy was to try and make the game more appealing to fans of the original Fallout games. This is probably a good idea because FO3 was probably more satisfying to Oblivion fans than Fallout 2 fans, so a FO4 along a similar line might have lost part of their audience.

DA2 is a little bit like that in that its fanbase is a combination of fans of the old Baldur's Gate games and fans of more recent Bioware titles like Mass Effect. Superficially, at least, it appears that Bioware has chosen to go the opposite route to Bethesda, by making a game that will appeal more to their new fans than the fans of DA:O's "spiritual predecessor". Personally, I'm a little skeptical that the strategy will work because while many ME fans liked DA:O, I suspect that those who didn't mostly prefer a twitch-based gameplay rather than a tactical squad-based game, which it appears that DA2 will still be. I'm not saying that DA2 will fail. Most sequels do about as well as their predecessors, barring horrendous reviews/word-of-mouth. But I'm doubtful that they're really going to add to their audience that much, and I think they do run a risk of losing the BG audience for DA3, if the new game is less appealing to those fans.

Indeed, which is why i think Bethesda waiting and looking at what happens with DA 2 and fans reaction, i will not be at all surpised if say the BG and DA:O fans wasn't happy with DA 2, Bethesda notice this, and then think about puting elements of DA:O in to the next Elder Scrolls game, to get them fans to switch sides, prob won't happen like that but the way the video game industry is these days, you can't afford to lose alot of loyal fans, take Street Figher and Mortal Kombat, they tryed the 3D way and lost alot of fans, Street Fighter 4 Went back to 2D fighting but 3D backgrounds, and won back alot of old fans and got new ones.

Should always try to make something new and fresh in a industry of clones, but sometimes something works keeping the old ideas, but using new ideas to make it better.

[MerinTB]

In Exile wrote...
MerinTB,

The thread ate my response to you, so I will be brief. I have been called a troll in this tread, it has been implied I am obtuse, malevolent, an idiot (by you, as it turns out) all because I will not buy into the leading argument in this thread.

I'm curious as to where I called you an idiot?

Give me a quote, and I'll either clarify what I meant (as I don't remember calling anyone an idiot)
or apologize.

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...
I'm curious as to where I called you an idiot?

Give me a quote, and I'll either clarify what I meant (as I don't remember calling anyone an idiot)
or apologize.

Let's roll with this:

The off-topic agenda here fully seems to be yours, In Exile, with
how frequently you are responding to everything with circular logic and
nit-picking examples meant only to confuse or derail and not to discuss
fairly.

That's a pretty dramatic personal attack, counched in non-abrasive language. I do like you this is the second time you've ignored the substance of what I said, though, just as with the illusion of choice discussion.

[Vylan Antagonist]

[quote]In Exile wrote...

We do know, from David Gaidner, that the develop cycle was a major influence in the shorter development cycle of DA2. Whatever we can say about EA, I think we have very good evidence that they will not tolerate a cycle of 5 years. To what extent was Dragon Age more financially succesful than Mass Effect, because of the length of the cycle? That isn't data we have access to, but I would bet that is what is driving EA's decision. [/quote]

A 5 year dev cycle wasn't necessary for an iterative sequel. There were almost certainly issues with DA:O's development that led to it dragging on that long. I also seem to remember it was intended originally as a PC exlusive, so there was also some significant scope creep that crept in.

[quote]
I would also argue that Bioware doesn't make games like BG II anymore. They had a 7 year period where they released largely console-first, cinematic action-RPGs. Jade Empire, that completely removed RPG elements (almost) and Mass Effect (with the dreaded PC VO) were all Bioware original developments, done prior to EA.
[/quote]

I don't dread PC voiceovers. I don't need a game like BG. I just wanted a game like DA:O, which, given it's success, doesn't seem like an unreasonable expectation from the sequel. From a gameplay perspective, as a PC player, this seems like a pretty substantial departure, even though it has been getting softballed for some time now. We're also getting awfully close to release to have not seen any PC gameplay yet.

[quote]
DA:O was marketed as an acton RPG, if you look at the old previews. [/quote]

Not the ones I recall. I remember it being described as a throwback to BG. That's what I found it to be. Admittedly, the Chris Priestly trailers almost scared me off of it, but the gameplay in the Giantbomb preview drew me right back. It was like coming home.

[quote]
I don't agree with the intuition that the changes to DA2 are motivated financially or are, for the large part, a business decision, because I feel the preponderance of evidence suggests a creative source.[/quote]

I guess I'm not seeing the evidence breaking that way, not for the gameplay changes. Why make such an effort to distance themselves from the gameplay of a successful title, mocking the 'slowness' and delays in seeing action's resolved? No, they definitely strongly implied that they needed to pitch a DA2 that would get better returns.
[quote]
Not to say that I don't clearly think there are business decisions that influence DA2. If you read developer posts carefully, you can see outright that the development cycle is something that has been not well received so to speak, though at best we just have cryptic comments of the sort (''well, this is what the cycle is, so trade-offs are imperative''). I think Bioware would want much more time, in an ideal world, to make DA2. [/quote]

Only Blizzard gets the luxury of the dev cycle they'd like. Well, them and Broussard's former home, but we know how that turned out. These aren't two sides of a polar spectrum. It's a sliding scale with plenty of room for positions in between. Everyone needs to consider saleability to some extent. It just seems like Bioware is second-guessing what they think makes a good game and instead pursuing what they think will generate the best returns. And in my experience, that rarely works out as well as intended, because dev cycles are long and markets are fickle. I'd rather trust a designer with good development chops (like Bioware!) to make games they think are good than try to pressure them to make the game they think will move 10 million units. It may seem like a subtle difference, but I think it's a pretty profound one.

[quote]
But if they had that time, would it mean they'd remake DA:O? I don't think so, and that's I why I would argue a lot of the changes, at their core, are creative.
[/quote]

Was Fallout:NV a remake of Fallout 3? I don't think so. I think it was an incremental change, really. It was like an incredibly large expansion pack. They clearly devoted their development time to content, content, content. Models are very similar. The engine has only marginal tweaks. They worked with Gamebryo as best as they could to flesh out companions a bit, but not even remotely to the extent that Bioware does (nobody does companions like Bioware).

I'm just saying that it's clear it was POSSIBLE to make a DA2 that was similar in focus- Tweak some of the weaker elements, rebalance a bit, maybe spend more time on making the combat encounters individually interesting and tactically significant, but most of all, focus on their strength- the incredible story and companion interactions that draw players into their engrossing worlds. I'm just saying that having your artists remake the wheel with hot-rodded art maybe wasn't necessary, that rethinking the combat strategy completely wasn't required.

I'm not even saying it was a guaranteed success. I'm just saying that it's clear, based on New Vegas, that it *could* have worked. Will this do better? Sure, maybe. But hot-rodding and '15-seconds-before-killing' aren't ineluctable modalities of 2010 gameplay.

[quote]
What makes you say this? I'm sorry, but this just sounds like some subjective heroic starving artist versus evil corporate conglomerate narrative. What makes you think Obsidian didn't think their features would sell?[/quote]

You are extending my argument ad absurdum. I didn't cast things in that binary of a format. It's an issue of degree and focus. Sure, they clearly needed to be reasonable about their decisions. It's a business, and they in particular needed a hit. But they clearly made decisions reflecting their confidence in being able to hit their numbers without needing to 'hot rod' anything. They weren't doubting the existence of their core demographic, the same demographic that DA:O was lauded for satisfying.

[quote]
100 hour content is exactly what Bethesda did with both Oblivion and Fallout 3, both of which were far more succesful games than Dragon Age, both of which were succesful games without Obsidian.
[/quote]

I personally vastly prefer Obsidian's take on content to Bethesda's (post Morrwind, anyways), but that's neither here nor there. The fact that these games were successful by being exactly what they are is precisely the point. Obsidian didn't need to reinvent the wheel. Fallout 3 was successful and Obsidian made a follow-up that didn't denigrate it or mock its adherents for liking it. DA:O was successful and Bioware is making a folow-up that, well, does and has mocked its predecessor. It's a different approach and maybe it'll pay off. I'm just saying there were other options. They didn't have to take this route in order to move units.

[quote]
As an aside, New Vegas was most certainly conceptualized as moving the most units possible, and Bestheda, as the publisher, spoke on exactly this. Unless you think they are also kind-hearted developers unlike the heartless sell-out Bioware?[/quote]

I don't think so. Bioware has definitely substantiated their claims along these lines pretty well. I have no doubt that they are absolutely right about what percentage of players see X amount of content. From there, it's easy to see that a sincere attempt at maximizing sales by content allocation would not support many of Obsidian's decisions in making FO:NV. Managing food, water, and sleep is not something that the majority of consumers are likely to be clamoring for. It's a niche decision for a niche audience.

[quote]
So here is the question: how do you know this complexity mattered? You've certainly proved that consumers won't refuse to buy a game that is complex, but how does this prove will buy a game because it is complex? This is the question I asked you, and your quasi-political speech on developer conscience aside, you haven't answered. [/quote]

That question has nothing to do with my argument. I proved exactly what I set out to prove- That consumers won't refuse to buy a complex game. That it isn't market poison. That it isn't inevitable and inescapable that a successful game be structured around the lowest common denominator. I'm sure there are tremendous numbers of additional variables. Weeding through them is futile. I think you are conflating my points with some other ones being made in this thread.

[quote]
I'm going to step back now, because I have no idea what you're going on about with this rant. Who told you these things? What makes you think these things are true? Why is Bioware the developer that sold out to the Mass Market, and Obsidian, who just after their absolute commercial failure in Alpha Protocol, put all their eggs in the basket of an already massive franchise and managed to have it sell... about just as well with their tweaks to the formula?[/quote]

First of all, I enjoyed Alpha Protocol quite a bit. In many respects, I think it hews closer to Mass Effect than it does to FO:NV. But it had a number of problems, most of which I'd attribute to a tight publisher time table and a mid-development identity crisis (resulting in the dev being changed mid race). Whenever that happens, it's just a matter of mitigation. I'd say Troika had a lot of the same issues with focus, QA, and project planning.

But again, they didn't try to 'hot rod' the Fallout Universe by making the art look like Samurai Jack. They more or less went more of the same. And it worked. So, Mission Accomplished, it's time to land on a carrier and unfurl the banners.

[quote]
How can you possibly know this? Did you read their minds? Were you in the room with them when they signed their ''We swear to never design a game with profit in mind! Even if we are all unemployed, our families evicted and our futures ruined, we will never design a game for money!'' manifesto?[/quote]

Again, this is far beyond what I said, so it's only as ridiculous as you are making it. I emphasized that it was just a difference of focus, and that should be evident from their design decisions. Let the product speak for itself, forget what the authors might or might not have said about it. "An artist is usually a damned liar, but his art, if it be art, will tell you the truth of his day. And that is all that matters." I can easily tick off the various design decisions made in NV that were clearly NOT made in the interest of appealing to the largest possible audience. While DA2 isn't here yet, the devs had excruciatingly laid out the various ways in which they are in fact doing just that. In fact, it's kinda surprising that some of them haven't been muzzled yet, knock on wood.

[Vylan Antagonist]

ErichHartmann wrote...

that players need to be able to kill something within 15 seconds, and that every time a button is pressed, something awesome needs to happen.

New Vegas is full of button pressing awesomeness. Initiating self destruct sequences or sniping some poor saps head off never gets old.

There are plenty of button presses not immediately resulting in awesomeness as well. The pitch wasn't 'Some button presses occasionally lead to something awesome happening', it was 'every time a button is pressed, something awesome happens immediately.' That's a pretty big difference. I have a ridiculous hundred hours into New Vegas. For maybe 4 hours of that time, if even that, I was getting instant button-pressing gratification. But I still enjoyed almost all of it (when I wasn't stuck inside a rock I'd clipped into or replaying the half hour I'd lost post-CTD).

[Vylan Antagonist]

Noir201 wrote...

While it's too late for anything to be learned from FNV that could be used to better DA 2, a good question would be, what could the next Elder Scrolls rpg learn from DA:O/DA 2, Fallout New Vegas i think learned abit from DA:O when you think about the companions, they had alot more depth and options, mods on FO3 pc version dev took note also..

NV also harkened back to FOs 1&2 with the companions. Generally Bethesda doesn't do companions. It just isn't how they roll and I've been playing their games since the day Daggerfall was released (and posting about its bugginess on usenet along with everyone else at the time).

But yeah, Bethesda definitely could learn something, if they care to. What it is they choose to take away, I'll never know. Like many of the vocal minority, I was very disappointed with how painfully generic Oblivion was in comparison to Morrowind. It wasn't procedurally generated at least (like Daggerfall), but what we got was a far cry from the way the capitol had been described in lore, and ultimately (I think) much less interesting for the departure.

[Vylan Antagonist]

Noir201 wrote...

maxernst wrote...

Actually, FO:NV is a pretty good comparison in its development history to DA2. Fallout 3 basically appealed to two groups of people: those who liked Bethesda's sandbox RPG;s and fans of the original Fallout games. Although I haven't played FO:NV yet, from how it's described it sounds as though Obsidian's strategy was to try and make the game more appealing to fans of the original Fallout games. This is probably a good idea because FO3 was probably more satisfying to Oblivion fans than Fallout 2 fans, so a FO4 along a similar line might have lost part of their audience.

DA2 is a little bit like that in that its fanbase is a combination of fans of the old Baldur's Gate games and fans of more recent Bioware titles like Mass Effect. Superficially, at least, it appears that Bioware has chosen to go the opposite route to Bethesda, by making a game that will appeal more to their new fans than the fans of DA:O's "spiritual predecessor". Personally, I'm a little skeptical that the strategy will work because while many ME fans liked DA:O, I suspect that those who didn't mostly prefer a twitch-based gameplay rather than a tactical squad-based game, which it appears that DA2 will still be. I'm not saying that DA2 will fail. Most sequels do about as well as their predecessors, barring horrendous reviews/word-of-mouth. But I'm doubtful that they're really going to add to their audience that much, and I think they do run a risk of losing the BG audience for DA3, if the new game is less appealing to those fans.

Indeed, which is why i think Bethesda waiting and looking at what happens with DA 2 and fans reaction, i will not be at all surpised if say the BG and DA:O fans wasn't happy with DA 2, Bethesda notice this, and then think about puting elements of DA:O in to the next Elder Scrolls game, to get them fans to switch sides, prob won't happen like that but the way the video game industry is these days, you can't afford to lose alot of loyal fans, take Street Figher and Mortal Kombat, they tryed the 3D way and lost alot of fans, Street Fighter 4 Went back to 2D fighting but 3D backgrounds, and won back alot of old fans and got new ones.

I absolutely agree with both posters here. I do ackowledge the possibility that the new form DA2 takes might draw in a different audience altogether, but I'm just not sure it's as good at being a GoW/Musou as the real articles themselves. Time will tell.

The thread has caused me to give a good bit of thought to what I see as the 'best qualities' of Bioware games, distilled into a nutshell. I wouldn't say the 'story', as other previous posters have, because often it seems to be pretty much the same story, just in a different setting. Bioware just tells it really really well. As the Chosen One, in whatever form he or she takes (Bhaalspawn, Coilsuit wearer, Student, Sith Lord, Warden, 1st Human Spectre, whatever), I always enjoy rising up from tragedy to save the universe when Bioware creates the narrative. They have a flair for presentation and drama and their NPCs are exceptional, best-in-show. I just wish they'd stop reflexively throwing out the baby with the bathwater when something doesn't work.

So a DA2 that plays more like Dynasty Warriors or Jade Empire could absolutely be terrific on its own merits. I just wish that instead of throwing out the Pausable RT strategic play in favor of a new paradigm, they'd just refined it to address what was broken. Because now I fear that they've just replaced it with an equally (if not more) broken prototype of something else. I have no doubts that the storytelling and companions will deliver as usual. I'm just a little more trepidatious about the gameplay propelling it.

[In Exile]

[quote]Vylan Antagonist wrote..
A 5 year dev cycle wasn't necessary for an iterative sequel. There were almost certainly issues with DA:O's development that led to it dragging on that long. I also seem to remember it was intended originally as a PC exlusive, so there was also some significant scope creep that crept in. [/quote]

Given that I followed the development of DA:O, it turns out I can comment on this. There weren't dramatic issues with the development cycle re: programming issues. The game was delayed to release simulatenously for consoles, but that was only a delay of several months where the game was, in principle, in lockdown. 

The time it took to develop DA:O on the PC, with the tremendous amount of content in it was several years, and the apparent profit margin on this is not high. Bioware will not allow themselves a development schedule so long. So we have DA2, a game with a much shorter development schedule.

More to the point, though, the I only raised the development issue to address what financial motivations Bioware has.

[quote]I don't dread PC voiceovers. I don't need a game like BG. I just wanted a game like DA:O, which, given it's success, doesn't seem like an unreasonable expectation from the sequel. From a gameplay perspective, as a PC player, this seems like a pretty substantial departure, even though it has been getting softballed for some time now. We're also getting awfully close to release to have not seen any PC gameplay yet.[/quote]

Have you played the console version of DA:O? I'm going to let you in on a secret: it was an unplayable nightmare. Obsidian had to weak the gameplay to improve on perceived faults from New Vegas. The console version was just broken. You couldn't scroll the codex properly. You couldn't see your XP total or your actual companion approval rating. With no proper free moving camera, FF target was very hard. You couldn't point & click like the PC - you had to move your NPCs one-by-one in real-time.

The console version was broken, from a gameplay standpoint. I rented it becuse I believed all the complaints against it were BS, but playing it was like a punishment. Bioware has to push that DA2 is not DA:O if they have any hope of retaining their original audience.

You say many people wanted a remake of DA:O. That's certainly true, gameplay wise (especially on the PC). But the console needs to be addressed, and people need to know it is addressed.

As for whether or not it departs on the PC - how can we know? We have, like you said, no gameplay. The console version seems tweaked, but from what I saw, it plays  a lot like DA:O on the console. DA:O on the console never played like it did on the PC.

[quote]
Not the ones I recall. I remember it being described as a throwback to BG. That's what I found it to be. Admittedly, the Chris Priestly trailers almost scared me off of it, but the gameplay in the Giantbomb preview drew me right back. It was like coming home. [/quote]

Look up the violence trailer. It looks like hack & slash. Seriously.

[quote]I guess I'm not seeing the evidence breaking that way, not for the gameplay changes. Why make such an effort to distance themselves from the gameplay of a successful title, mocking the 'slowness' and delays in seeing action's resolved? No, they definitely strongly implied that they needed to pitch a DA2 that would get better returns[/quote]

The game was slow and unresponsive. Here's just one scenario. Let's say a Hurlock Alpha has locked onto my mage and is coming in for a physical attack. There is no way to avoid this, unless you can use cone of cold or fireball as an AoE. Melee intercept is impossible - the NPC will shuffle with the Hurlock Alpha until the Hurlock strikes you, and only then will initiate an action.

This is something that needs to be addressed.

And as you said before: we saw no gameplay on the PC. So how can we judge the PC gameplay, as you are doing?
.
[quote]
Only Blizzard gets the luxury of the dev cycle they'd like. Well, them and Broussard's former home, but we know how that turned out. These aren't two sides of a polar spectrum. It's a sliding scale with plenty of room for positions in between. Everyone needs to consider saleability to some extent. It just seems like Bioware is second-guessing what they think makes a good game and instead pursuing what they think will generate the best returns. [/quote]

See, this is where I think you're just projecting some unjustifiable subjective bias. I agree with you that Bioware does not believe that the features of DA:O are features that would make an excellent game - they wouldn't change them otherwise. But what makes you think they aren't doing this out of some artistic or creative motivation?

Do you think the developers of, say, ACII do not see themselves creative? Do you think they only look at gaming and game design as a way of cashing in on a big market?

My issue with what you are saying, re: reaching out to the mainstream, is this implication that making a mainstream game (if this is what Bioware is doing, and in a second I'm going to argue how they are really not, because ME2 is still a niche game; just not your niche) then they must have lost their atristic integrity. And that's just prima facie objectionable to me.


[quote]And in my experience, that rarely works out as well as intended, because dev cycles are long and markets are fickle. I'd rather trust a designer with good development chops (like Bioware!) to make games they think are good than try to pressure them to make the game they think will move 10 million units. It may seem like a subtle difference, but I think it's a pretty profound one.
[/quote]

What makes you think they aren't designing a good game? I had to run a recruitment campaign for a student club once. Our goal was to get quality members. At the same time, our goal was to get 50 new members. We debated the whole quality versus quantity issue, and what it means to reach out to more people. And you know what? If you believe in what you're doing and how you're reaching out to people, then you can absolutely believe that you are doing something in the best possible way to secure quality and get quantity.

Creating a great game that you can take artistic pride in, and creating a game that 10 million people will enjoy is not exlusive. And this is my problem with your post. You are saying it is.


[quote]Was Fallout:NV a remake of Fallout 3? I don't think so. I think it was an incremental change, really. It was like an incredibly large expansion pack. They clearly devoted their development time to content, content, content. Models are very similar. The engine has only marginal tweaks. They worked with Gamebryo as best as they could to flesh out companions a bit, but not even remotely to the extent that Bioware does (nobody does companions like Bioware). [/quote]

I'm glad you're willing to make this admission (in bold), because we'll get to it in a second.

That said, what makes you think that this was a creative choice, and what Bioware is doing isn't a creative choice?

A lot of the Obsidian team worked on the old Fallout games, the isometric RPGs. Why did they stick with the Gamebryo engine? Why did they stick with a FPS game? Why did they choose to tweak Fallout 3, and not re-create Fallout 1/2?

Was it because they compromised their aristic vision to take advantage of the mass market appeal of Fallout 3? Or was it because they simply balanced the pragmatic demands of their industry with their drive to be creative?

My issue, once again, is that you want to praise them in this creative and sacrificial narrative, when we could as easily construct a case that they sold out to the Mass Market to keep their company alive and just added in a few tweaks, to throw a bone to the RPG crowd, all out of a fear not to lose their market.

I don't believe this is what Obsidian did. But I have just as much evidence as you do for your case.

[quote]I'm just saying that it's clear it was POSSIBLE to make a DA2 that was similar in focus- Tweak some of the weaker elements, rebalance a bit, maybe spend more time on making the combat encounters individually interesting and tactically significant, but most of all, focus on their strength- the incredible story and companion interactions that draw players into their engrossing worlds. I'm just saying that having your artists remake the wheel with hot-rodded art maybe wasn't necessary, that rethinking the combat strategy completely wasn't required.[/quote]

Why do you think Bioare isn't focusing on their strength? This is why I brought out the misconception about Bioware as producing BG-style RPGs. Aside from DA:O, they haven't done that in a decade. Acting like that is their artistic core and criticizing them for a departure is misleading.

Your entire argument is just subjective. You think New Vegas retains the artistic spirit; you think Dragon Age 2 abandons it. But the only evidence you have is your belief about the motives of the designers. And that isn't evidence at all.

[quote]I'm not even saying it was a guaranteed success. I'm just saying that it's clear, based on New Vegas, that it *could* have worked. Will this do better? Sure, maybe. But hot-rodding and '15-seconds-before-killing' aren't ineluctable modalities of 2010 gameplay.[/quote]

But New Vegas isn't a good analogy. The reason it isn't is because Dragon Age wasn't Fallout 3. What New Vegas shows is that most of the features in Fallout 3 were well received, and minor tweaks were tolerated since the expeirence was retained.

But why do you think the features of Dragon Age Origins were well received? We had no evidence regarding Fallout 3 until New Vegas came out.

What if New Vegas flopped? Would that mean the market hated complexity? Absolutely not - they might have hated the status quo from Fallout 3, and Obsidian might just have been stuck with a dead brand.

Here is the issue: you and I, we don't know which of these is the case. There is most certainly evidence out there that proves which way it was. But we need that evidence, not your subjective view on the motives of the designers.

[quote]You are extending my argument ad absurdum. I didn't cast things in that binary of a format. It's an issue of degree and focus. Sure, they clearly needed to be reasonable about their decisions. It's a business, and they in particular needed a hit. But they clearly made decisions reflecting their confidence in being able to hit their numbers without needing to 'hot rod' anything. They weren't doubting the existence of their core demographic, the same demographic that DA:O was lauded for satisfying.[/quote]

Well, we don't know what the demographic for DA:O lauded. We know only 15% of all DA:O players (that had data tracked) played an elf origin. We know the vast majority of players played human only. We know (I believe) 30% of gamers played DA:O. We know there are reviews that praise silent VO and others that lament the lack of ME style VO. On the old DA:O forum, there were strong advocates (like me) for the exact game, but with VO.

So we have no evidence that DA:O could succeed again. That is the problem with your argumet, and to be perfectly honest, with this thread.

It makes dramatic assumptions about DA:O, its audience, and their desire.

[quote]I personally vastly prefer Obsidian's take on content to Bethesda's (post Morrwind, anyways), but that's neither here nor there. The fact that these games were successful by being exactly what they are is precisely the point. Obsidian didn't need to reinvent the wheel. Fallout 3 was successful and Obsidian made a follow-up that didn't denigrate it or mock its adherents for liking it. DA:O was successful and Bioware is making a folow-up that, well, does and has mocked its predecessor. It's a different approach and maybe it'll pay off. I'm just saying there were other options. They didn't have to take this route in order to move units.[/quote]

It mocked its predecessor? This is the claim you're making, and the going out and saying that you're not casting developers against each other in a black and white fashion? You're talking about the route to go to move units (i.e. the financial motive) and you're saying you're not accusing Bioware of betraying anything for the sake of money?

I'm having a hard time relating your protests to your claims.

[quote]I don't think so. Bioware has definitely substantiated their claims along these lines pretty well. I have no doubt that they are absolutely right about what percentage of players see X amount of content. From there, it's easy to see that a sincere attempt at maximizing sales by content allocation would not support many of Obsidian's decisions in making FO:NV. Managing food, water, and sleep is not something that the majority of consumers are likely to be clamoring for. It's a niche decision for a niche audience.[/quote]

When I booted up New Vegas, you know what option I got to pick from? Whether or not I wanted to enable hardcore mode. You know what not enabling hardcore mode was described as? Getting your original Fallout 3 experience.

Hardcore mode was for a niche audience, and you know what? It was optional.

You want to talk about missing content - every Bioware game had quests that are solved two ways. Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 both do this. Players miss out on content. Dragon Age did this. Choice makes players miss out on content.

You know what Bioware has never designed? Mutually exclusive content. They even commented on how they wouldn't do this becuase of the dangers of players missing content when talking about DA:O.

Do you think they designed DA:O to maximize sales and appeal to the mass market? Becuase their decision not to make excludable content was evident there, and defend by the developers.

[quote]That question has nothing to do with my argument. I proved exactly what I set out to prove- That consumers won't refuse to buy a complex game. [/quote]

Yes, you're right. But note the bold portion - you're making a single claim about a single game. This is apparent, becuase you're going to make an unwarranted claim shortly.

[quote]That it isn't market poison. That it isn't inevitable and inescapable that a successful game be structured around the lowest common denominator. I'm sure there are tremendous numbers of additional variables. Weeding through them is futile. I think you are conflating my points with some other ones being made in this thread.[/quote]

This we don't know. What we know, from what you admited in this thread, is that a game that did not initially appeal to the ''hardcore'' i.e. Fallout 3, was tweaked and slightly modified to include some features the hardcore might appreciate, that are largely optional. These design decisions have not hurt the financial success of the game.

All that this shows is that if you take a game that was succesful in the past, and if you reproduce 90% of the features of that game, adding some new features that are controversional will not lead to the failure of that game.

Putting aside your veiled insults (I sense a PC master gaming race moment drawing close), we cannot draw any conclusion from this to DA2 unless we know that the consumer base wants a repeat of 90% of the features of DA:O.

[quote]First of all, I enjoyed Alpha Protocol quite a bit. In many respects, I think it hews closer to Mass Effect than it does to FO:NV. But it had a number of problems, most of which I'd attribute to a tight publisher time table and a mid-development identity crisis (resulting in the dev being changed mid race). Whenever that happens, it's just a matter of mitigation. I'd say Troika had a lot of the same issues with focus, QA, and project planning. [/quote]

That doesn't have much to do with anything. I certainly

[quote]But again, they didn't try to 'hot rod' the Fallout Universe by making the art look like Samurai Jack. They more or less went more of the same. And it worked. So, Mission Accomplished, it's time to land on a carrier and unfurl the banners.[/quote]

No. Instead, they took a game already hot-rodded, a game that already had mass market appeal, and did nothing but slightly tweak it. Yes, they are showing their creative daring.

Look, I don't believe Obsidian developed New Vegas as some cash grab. I believe all video-game developers have artistic integrity and unless someone shows me concrete evidence, I believe they legitimately produce games they enjoy.

What I want to point out, however, is that your entire argument is predicated on some flattering assumptions about Obsidian and some unflattering ones about Bioware, and from these you go on to interpret decisions which are public.

Well, I can do the same. I can present the most unflattering picture of a game company teetering on the brink of bankrupcy that has run from two commercial failures in a row (SoZ and AP) into the arts of a dumbed down mass marketed game, changed very little about the core game, added some minor bones for their hardcore audience, and ran all the way to the bank.

Again, I don't believe any of this. But it is as justified as your argument.

[quote]Again, this is far beyond what I said, so it's only as ridiculous as you are making it. I emphasized that it was just a difference of focus, and that should be evident from their design decisions. Let the product speak for itself, forget what the authors might or might not have said about it. "An artist is usually a damned liar, but his art, if it be art, will tell you the truth of his day. And that is all that matters." I can easily tick off the various design decisions made in NV that were clearly NOT made in the interest of appealing to the largest possible audience. While DA2 isn't here yet, the devs had excruciatingly laid out the various ways in which they are in fact doing just that. In fact, it's kinda surprising that some of them haven't been muzzled yet, knock on wood.[/quote]

You say this, then go right into the same view: Obsidian, the heroes of creative integrity, and Bioware, the mass market sellouts.

Yet at the same time, you gloss over the fact that Obsidian took over a franchise that outsold other Bioware franchises twice over and changed almost nothing (by your admission).

Modifié par In Exile, 17 novembre 2010 - 05:47 .

[stormhit]

This really isn't related to the discussion; and since I haven't kept up on every single post it's probably already been said-- but hardcore mode in NV wasn't THAT much of a change. It essentially just becomes a more restrictive weight limit. In fact, it's my experience it basically makes the game play the same as FO3, because in general everything weighs a little less than in 3. Without hardcore on you can carry basically whatever you want all of the time. The food and water aspects are just throwaways, because similar to FO3, radiation is just not any kind of threat. That's the big key, really, and they didn't change it at all. You never have to think twice about when or what to eat or drink because you're never in any kind of danger of ODing on radiation. So while I guess it's true that from a marketing perspective it appeals to a more niche audience, in practice it really didn't mess with how one plays the game very much.



Anyway, I think my point is that it's pretty clear NV is selling well primarily because of Matthew Perry.