1216 réponses à ce sujet

[Queen Eliza_]

why are pre orders from oct. on backorder already ? what the hell going on here? i ordered months ago they cant do this to us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! : (

[In Exile]

Graunt wrote...
There is real-time dodging in the demo at least, although it would get pretty tiresome to play the entire game like that.

There's walking out of the way and rogue abilities. That isn't dodging like in any respectable action game.

[Pink Leaf]

It seems all the great games developers are exchanging their love for the game for a love for money.  Joining forces with greedy publishers to sell what ever nice looking rubbish they can push out the fastest.

As for big game releases, I think DAO was one, if not, the last, that's why I have turned to playing indie games.  In the Indie market you can still find games with game-play and heart..

Modifié par Pink Leaf, 05 mars 2011 - 02:30 .

[Yamsandjams]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Yamsandjams wrote...

Heh, that's a good point to make. It further lends credence to the idea that Bioware wants DA2 to be memorable in it's own right and not simply be rememberd as "the other DA:O". In fact, it's actually probably riskier to go with the new format since you might not have as predictable a reception. I guess they do just have forays into the world of fun on their agenda after all.

Or maybe they're trying to pull a Coca-Cola classic... get this guy out the door, and quickly unload the secretly developed DA:O clone known as DA3, making billions. Conspiracy, oOoOoOooo...

But yeah, I think the former is probably the case.

We have many interviews from Bioware employees about why DA2 is the way it is. It's got nothing to do with being memorable in it's own right and everything to do with trying to increase the user base.

Silverman,Laidlaw, Melo they all say the same thing.

I think what spooked them are the stats "X number of players never completed DA" that being the case, if only say 20% completed it would that mean only 20% would buy DA2 without radical "streamlining"..

If the EA spybot is going to be the new guide on how games should be made, we should all be very concerned.
What happens if EA spybot says 50% of new players skipped conversations ? Does that mean next time the conversations get trimmed to keep the CoD crowd on board? 

Well, I didn't read those official interviews, but thanks for pointing that out.

If 50% of players skip the conversations, it really raises questions into the worth of allocating resources to develop them. The conversation wheel in DA2 might help out because you no longer have to read through each individual sentence of response text to decide which one you want. You can respond much faster, meaning the conversations have better flow and a clearer progression. Perhaps that's one of the reasons they decided to implement it.

Microsoft Word can be used as an example. I can't give any specific deatils at the moment, but when some of the older versions were new, there were some new features added that had a purpose and expanded on what the older versions of Word could do. However, in analysis of the software usage, some of those new features were used by less than 2% of the users. There was siginificant resources dedicated to those features, and barely anyone used them. Software developers worked on those features for a long time, only to have them go unwanted by the public. That money and time tied up in those features could've been better spent.

The games industry is extremely competitive, and you need to be able to adapt. If you find out that only 10% of players even bothered to fire crossbows, should they really have been put in the game? If a specialization for a particular class was only used in 5% of all PCs of that class, should it be maintained? If PCs were only dwarves 10% of the time, were they really worth all the effort? I'm assuming they have appropraite methods and data by which to make judgement calls on those changes, but the primary objective of any business is to turn a profit. There's no incentive for them to cater towards a smaller playerbase if it means they end up sacrificing money. Less profits directly influences their chance for survival and the resources available for future titles. The best way you can prove them wrong is to refuse to purchase their merchandise, in addition to submit customer feedback requests.

Besides, that's a good thing if they can keep the CoD crowd on board. It can be really difficult to get people to play RPGs unless they're inclined to do so already. I mean, it'd be nice if they had all the time and money necessary to build very elaborate games, but they don't. Not to mention it also depends on other external demands, such as what the publisher demands or if there's any other parties involved (i.e. the NWN series needed to be developed in accordance with the D&D ruleset and features in order to use the IP of WotC). Besides, I don't think the changes to the game are quite that drastic. I think the majority of them are actually pretty nice changes, in fact. But that's just me.

Modifié par Yamsandjams, 05 mars 2011 - 02:33 .

[AkiKishi]

Graunt wrote...

If the change to the combat ends up pleasing those who did not like it in Origins, then Bioware made the smart move, because believe it or not, it doesn't matter how a few disgruntled has beens feel when keeping the newer generation happy is what matters the most.

It's only a smart move if it brings in more people than it alienates. I personally don't mind the speed, I play action games anyway. But the speed does make a difference. Why they could not have just had a variable speed slider I don't know EA's football games have them. The game moves significantly quicker on pro than on amatuer and it means people who can't hand pro are not alienated.
Seems simple ? You get both the people who found things too slow and the people who liked DA's combat. Because aside from the speed there are pretty much the same (allowing for various cooldown differences).

[The Greye Hawke]

So much negativity and doomsaying. I highly doubt this genre will die off, especially because of one developer. Or because of a demo based on an older build.

In the end its juts a video game and I think people get too heated about these topics (on both sides). If you don't like a game just don't buy it. You don't have to act like its the end of world. And if you love a game don't put it on pedastal either and get angry because someone voices their opinion of dislike.

[DragonRageGT]

Yamsandjams wrote...

Graunt wrote...

RageGT wrote...
And honestly, I never played Table RPG and have no interest in them. cRPG are way different even those using D&D rules and stuff.

It's quite telling when someone comes off as the last word on Role-playing games, yet scoffs at the idea of playing the very foundation for all of them.  Your pedigree is laughing at you.

Heh. Actually, I can understand such sentiments about no desire to play tabletop games... but you should give 'em a try. You can't say you're a serious RPG player until you've played PnP D&D... at least in my books.

Well, I played some roles in the Theatre... does that count?  And 5 years of speaking sindarin Elvish with many DM granted awards for good rp in a graphical computer video game based on the best story ever written kinda make up for some tabletop PnP D&D RPG fun I may have missed while I was in a very different stage of my life.

Also remember that Brazil used to have a very different timing and delayed arrival of most anything developed abroad because of many factors. Started to change after 1990 when lots of crazy regulations on imports were brought down but only with the Internet and the instant communication boom we actually started getting the good stuff in real time as they were released around the world.

[Stakis]

BobSmith101 wrote...

DA sold VERY well. That's what makes the whole change even stranger. If DA had bombed then clearly they would have had to re-think the design. But DA sold really really well. In the millions.

DA is an 18 rated game, so either they have a very low opinion of 18 year olds, or they are aiming the game at people they should not.

Saying it plays like God of War is an insult to God of War. It played like Baldurs Gate:Dark Alliance, or Champions of Norath. Only without a block or dodge button independent of skills.

Completely agree with this, i bought DA2 , not
because i liked the demo, quite the opposite but because i really like bioware
and couldn’t see myself getting the game in a illegal way, now said that i really
really really can’t understand why the IP got in one shot consolized and
mass-effectized, specially when the DAO was a success , every time i see Mike
Laidlaw speaking its like seeing a cars salesman, i fail to see the emphasis on
the " ppl who stop playing the game after 30 mins " , honestly i couldn’t
care less and am willing to bet 99 % of those ppl were console players,.

I knew this was going happen, at least the killing of the warden, i mean i remember
a couple of posts from D Gaider where he sounded bored of ppl wanting more
warden stories in the future, the warden was the players character it could
turn out to be both physically and from a moral point of view pretty much
anything, i understand this is a limitation for developing sequels, but turning
the IP into a mass effect with swords imho was the poorest choice.

Modifié par Stakis, 05 mars 2011 - 02:38 .

[Yamsandjams]

RageGT wrote...

Yamsandjams wrote...

Graunt wrote...

RageGT wrote...
And honestly, I never played Table RPG and have no interest in them. cRPG are way different even those using D&D rules and stuff.

It's quite telling when someone comes off as the last word on Role-playing games, yet scoffs at the idea of playing the very foundation for all of them.  Your pedigree is laughing at you.

Heh. Actually, I can understand such sentiments about no desire to play tabletop games... but you should give 'em a try. You can't say you're a serious RPG player until you've played PnP D&D... at least in my books.

Well, I played some roles in the Theatre... does that count?  And 5 years of speaking sindarin Elvish with many DM granted awards for good rp in a graphical computer video game based on the best story ever written kinda make up for some tabletop PnP D&D RPG fun I may have missed while I was in a very different stage of my life.

Also remember that Brazil used to have a very different timing and delayed arrival of most anything developed abroad because of many factors. Started to change after 1990 when lots of crazy regulations on imports were brought down but only with the Internet and the instant communication boom we actually started getting the good stuff in real time as they were released around the world.

Mmm, yes. I'm judging things purely from a North American standpoint. I guess if you've rolled a D20 before, that's good enough for me, ha.

[AkiKishi]

Yamsandjams wrote...
Well, I didn't read those official interviews, but thanks for pointing that out.

If 50% of players skip the conversations, it really raises questions into the worth of allocating resources to develop them. The conversation wheel in DA2 might help out because you no longer have to read through each individual sentence of response text to decide which one you want. You can respond much faster, meaning the conversations have better flow and a clearer progression. Perhaps that's one of the reasons they decided to implement it.

Microsoft Word can be used as an example. I can't give any specific deatils at the moment, but when some of the older versions were new, there were some new features added that had a purpose and expanded on what the older versions of Word could do. However, in analysis of the software usage, some of those new features were used by less than 2% of the users. There was siginificant resources dedicated to those features, and barely anyone used them. Software developers worked on those features for a long time, only to have them go unwanted by the public. That money and time tied up in those features could've been better spent.

The games industry is extremely competitive, and you need to be able to adapt. If you find out that only 10% of players even bothered to fire crossbows, should they really have been put in the game? If a specialization for a particular class was only used in 5% of all PCs of that class, should it be maintained? If PCs were only dwarves 10% of the time, were they really worth all the effort? I'm assuming they have appropraite methods and data by which to make judgement calls on those changes, but the primary objective of any business is to turn a profit. There's no incentive for them to cater towards a smaller playerbase if it means they end up sacrificing money. Less profits directly influences their chance for survival and the resources available for future titles. The best way you can prove them wrong is to refuse to purchase their merchandise, in addition to submit customer feedback requests.

Besides, that's a good thing if they can keep the CoD crowd on board. It can be really difficult to get people to play RPGs unless they're inclined to do so already. I mean, it'd be nice if they had all the time and money necessary to build very elaborate games, but they don't. Not to mention it also depends on other external demands, such as what the publisher demands or if there's any other parties involved (i.e. the NWN series needed to be developed in accordance with the D&D ruleset and features in order to use the IP of WotC). Besides, I don't think the changes to the game are quite that drastic. I think the majority of them are actually pretty nice changes, in fact. But that's just me.

How far do you go to get new people vs keeping your old user base ? A 50% dilalogue cut would be a huge saving, even having a choice of sexes is one set of redundant lines for the PC.
Funny thing is , Bioware is getting more and more JRPG like with every game. DA was a step back from that and more towards their "roots".
I like JRPGs but I can get those from Square for the big production values and any number of Japanese developers for great games but less bells and whistles.

I personally don't feel that engaged choosing things for pre-generated characters which is why I don't care if there is "interactive" speech, or a cutscene. Cutsenes are better because they can be dramatised in a way interactive speech can't.

I agree the changes are not too drastic, but there are lot of them and they add up. It remains to be seen how being stuck in one location, with outlaying generic caves works. I really enjoyed ME1's plot. But the areas outside of it were generic and bland. If DA2 is the same, that's not a good thing.

[Dlokir]

In Exile wrote...
...
There's walking out of the way and rogue abilities. That isn't dodging like in any respectable action game.
...

I like the quote but I wonder, you can dodge bullets and laser fire in modern shooters?

[Black-Xero]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

You say decline, I say evolution. Let's call the whole thing off.

This!

[Obiyer]

Yamsandjams wrote...

Well, I didn't read those official interviews, but thanks for pointing that out.

If 50% of players skip the conversations, it really raises questions into the worth of allocating resources to develop them. The conversation wheel in DA2 might help out because you no longer have to read through each individual sentence of response text to decide which one you want. You can respond much faster, meaning the conversations have better flow and a clearer progression. Perhaps that's one of the reasons they decided to implement it.


Microsoft Word can be used as an example. I can't give any specific deatils at the moment, but when some of the older versions were new, there were some new features added that had a purpose and expanded on what the older versions of Word could do. However, in analysis of the software usage, some of those new features were used by less than 2% of the users. There was siginificant resources dedicated to those features, and barely anyone used them. Software developers worked on those features for a long time, only to have them go unwanted by the public. That money and time tied up in those features could've been better spent.

The games industry is extremely competitive, and you need to be able to adapt. If you find out that only 10% of players even bothered to fire crossbows, should they really have been put in the game? If a specialization for a particular class was only used in 5% of all PCs of that class, should it be maintained? If PCs were only dwarves 10% of the time, were they really worth all the effort? I'm assuming they have appropraite methods and data by which to make judgement calls on those changes, but the primary objective of any business is to turn a profit. There's no incentive for them to cater towards a smaller playerbase if it means they end up sacrificing money. Less profits directly influences their chance for survival and the resources available for future titles. The best way you can prove them wrong is to refuse to purchase their merchandise, in addition to submit customer feedback requests.

Besides, that's a good thing if they can keep the CoD crowd on board. It can be really difficult to get people to play RPGs unless they're inclined to do so already. I mean, it'd be nice if they had all the time and money necessary to build very elaborate games, but they don't. Not to mention it also depends on other external demands, such as what the publisher demands or if there's any other parties involved (i.e. the NWN series needed to be developed in accordance with the D&D ruleset and features in order to use the IP of WotC). Besides, I don't think the changes to the game are quite that drastic. I think the majority of them are actually pretty nice changes, in fact. But that's just me.

I don’t think you can make a role playing game by deciding on how much of the player base chose one option from another. The point of playing a role playing game is having choices. You can’t role play if you have no choices to choose from or if your choices don’t have consequences in the game world. Well, you can, but it wouldn’t be a role playing game anyway, or if it was, it would be a pretty bad one.  

Frankly, if you’re playing a role playing game and skipping the dialogue then you’re missing the point. You’d be better off playing a strategy game instead. The thing is, I’m hypocritical on this point because I skipped the dialogue on my multiple runs through the demo.  This is because I’m always inclined to choose the top right option on the wheel, and the only thing that changes in my play through is the stats and talents I allot to my characters. On that note, at least from the demo, I don’t think DA2 will excel as a role playing game, but maybe as a strategy game with some light action elements. 

Whether they can keep or get the CoD crowd is pointless because the two games aren’t even in the same genre. Why would a role playing game developer even care about first person shooter players? That is unless they’re making a role playing first person shooter hybrid. 

Modifié par Obiyer, 05 mars 2011 - 02:59 .

[Gvaz]

Because some people don't do something in a game, there is no reason to develop for it. I mean, it's not as if the people who didn't do it didn't enjoy it! Everyone must hate it - Typical Bioware Logic

[Cloaking_Thane]

This sounds like a poorly written review from a forumite TBH, full of buzz words and poor adjectives because they lack the ability to get a decent point across, consider me unimpressed. If I were an editor they would be fired.

[Solo80]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

This sounds like a poorly written review from a forumite TBH, full of buzz words and poor adjectives because they lack the ability to get a decent point across, consider me unimpressed. If I were an editor they would be fired.

But surely the quality of the piece doesn't matter - only the number of clicks it receives...? 

[YuniSticksitDeep]

Pink Leaf wrote...

It seems all the great games developers are exchanging their love for the game for a love for money.  Joining forces with greedy publishers to sell what ever nice looking rubbish they can push out the fastest.

As for big game releases, I think DAO was one, if not, the last, that's why I have turned to playing indie games.  In the Indie market you can still find games with game-play and heart..

QFT ^

Blind Faith...."Because thinking is Hard".

Remember Yuni's Metascore Projections....Tick Tick.. Wait for them.... xoxoxoxoxo

Prediction No. 1  Bioware will announce another Dragon's Age Game in a RPG Heavy style within 6 Months. (Look forward to it!!!!)

Yuni

PS Oblivions new game coming soon looks like it has more than 3 colors!!! woohoo. :)

[Cloaking_Thane]

Solo80 wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

This sounds like a poorly written review from a forumite TBH, full of buzz words and poor adjectives because they lack the ability to get a decent point across, consider me unimpressed. If I were an editor they would be fired.

But surely the quality of the piece doesn't matter - only the number of clicks it receives...? 

In this day and age, that's the hard truth isnt it.

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

Except that it plays NOTHING like God of War.  People that keep saying this have either not even played God of War, or they haven't actually played the demo yet.  For one thing, as shallow as it was, for a "pure action game" the combat was INFINITELY better than anything in DA2.  They aren't even comparable because DA2 wasn't even meant to play like that. 

The game would be better off if it did play like God of War or Gears of War for that matter. This fake stat based action has done nothing but take away the tactical cam. Blood and animations are not action. As an action game DA is bargain bin, as a strategy game its good compared to something like Oblivion but weak compared to oldskool RPGs. 

 A good action game like God of War, or Ninja Gaiden provides its own fast paced strategy as you have many attacks, and defenses to choose and chain together. The AI is much better at least in the variety of ways enamies battle. 

Marhkus wrote...


In any case, an artivle should be written called 'The Rise of the New RPG-Genre'. All I'm saying. There's a lot of good that should also be mentioned.

Beyond graphics and the budget for voice acting since they have a larger audiance what is better? 

Modifié par Dorian the Monk of Sune, 05 mars 2011 - 03:39 .

[lsumd2011]

Personally it doesn't matter to me what Bio does to the game or how they change it, so long as they do it well. If they want to turn DA2 into an action RPG, I'm all for it so long that its a good action RPG.

The major issue DA2 has right is, as the article pointed out, the quickness of which it has come out. Thus, everyone and their grandma is assuming EA pushed them to rush the game out the doors ASAP. Every change, every alteration, every, well, everything that is infinitesimally different from DAO has only served to confirm these people suspicions. That's my opinion anyway.

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

BobSmith101 wrote...



Silverman,Laidlaw, Melo they all say the same thing.

I think what spooked them are the stats "X number of players never completed DA" that being the case, if only say 20% completed it would that mean only 20% would buy DA2 without radical "streamlining"..
Everything about DA2's "Mass Effecting" screams "safe option".

If the EA spybot is going to be the new guide on how games should be made, we should all be very concerned.
What happens if EA spybot says 50% of new players skipped conversations ? Does that mean next time the conversations get trimmed to keep the CoD crowd on board? 

How did they make that conclusion? My last 20 hours of DA:O was that of boredom, and tired mechanics. I have never quit an RPG except DA:O because of it. You have people like me who didnt finish because I found that the game was cliche, and boring. Streamlinging would only make it worse. Then you have folks like my best friend who didnt finish KOTOR because he didnt like stat based combat and didnt know where to go.

Watching more casual gamers and my seven year old son I found that
Baldur’s Gate was more accessible than KOTOR. It had a weak tutorial so it
helped that I taught them how to play but they could correct that.




BG did have a detailed journal so players didn’t get lost. People didn’t
get lost playing it and the 6 player parties justified the stat based combat
and people generally prefer it. My son kept asking me why I leave so many
people to sleep at the campfire in DA:O.

EA's dip testing market crap proably wont hurt the game's sells but its not going to help. 
It didnt work for Fable 

remember when http://www.thatvideo...fully-adaptive/

Peter Molyneux has set a sales goal for the studio’s upcoming Fable III; five million copies.

The target was set not for financial reasons, the Lionhead boss explained during a talk given at GDC today, but rather to see how much the numerous changes implemented in the third game —Fable III is moving away from being a more traditional RPG and is turning into a more of an action adventure title — will affect its popularity among consumers.

Did it work?

http://www.vgchartz.....php?name=fable

1Fable II (X360) 4.05 million






Fable III (X360) 2.89 million

Modifié par Dorian the Monk of Sune, 05 mars 2011 - 03:51 .

[Therefore_I_Am]

People need to adapt. People need to accept that the days of Baldur's Gate are done. Adapt or you will be complaining until you are old and grey.

The changes are not BAD. I honest do not see what these people are up and on against... All I see are a bunch of rose-colored glasses wearing geeks that are are afraid of change.

[AkiKishi]

Dorian the Monk of Sune wrote...
How did they make that conclusion? My last 20 hours of DA:O was that of boredom, and tired mechanics. I have never quit an RPG except DA:O because of it. You have people like me who didnt finish because I found that the game was cliche, and boring. Streamlinging would only make it worse. Then you have folks like my best friend who didnt finish KOTOR because he didnt like stat based combat and didnt know where to go.

Watching more casual gamers and my seven year old son I found that
Baldur’s Gate was more accessible than KOTOR. It had a weak tutorial so it
helped that I taught them how to play but they could correct that.


BG did have a detailed journal so players didn’t get lost. People didn’t
get lost playing it and the 6 player parties justified the stat based combat
and people generally prefer it. My son kept asking me why I leave so many
people to sleep at the campfire in DA:O.

Most people quit within 1-2 hours according to statistics. How they choose to veiw those statistics with regards to change, that's something only they know.

We know that "Legend" mode was an attempt to immediately grab the attention of the player without having to look at a stat/cc screen first.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 05 mars 2011 - 03:43 .

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

BobSmith101 wrote...

[

Most people quit within 1-2 hours according to statistics. How they choose to veiw those statistics with regards to change, that's something only they know.

We know that "Legend" mode was an attempt to immediately grab the attention of the player without having to look at a stat/cc screen first.

Understood. I would be willing to bet that most who quit in the first hour or two did so because the game was marketed as the predecessor to BG online and Dante's Inferno in the commercials. People that were expecting a 3D BG probably stuck around a little longer than the people expecting an action game. Larger parties would do well to solve things for both demographics.  

[termokanden]

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

People need to adapt. People need to accept that the days of Baldur's Gate are done. Adapt or you will be complaining until you are old and grey.

The changes are not BAD. I honest do not see what these people are up and on against... All I see are a bunch of rose-colored glasses wearing geeks that are are afraid of change.

I agree... Well somewhat. I'm not scared of the changes at all. I just want it to be a good game, that's all.

Still, I find it very sad that many people would quit playing after 1-2 hours. The game isn't that boring. Maybe some people just don't WANT a PC style RPG and should have made a more informed decision not to buy the wrong type of game.

I also don't see why you would expect it to be basically Baldur's Gate with better graphics.

Dragon Age was pretty much what I thought it would be before I bought it.

Modifié par termokanden, 05 mars 2011 - 04:01 .