1286 réponses à ce sujet

[Duncaaaaaan]

The question was purely about the PC platform, nevermind.

[MacrossMan]

I must say that this screw up doesn't give me any more confidence that Biowares The Old Republic will be anything special. If this is the sort of quality I can expect from Bioware then I'd rather save my money on buying a laptop for their upcoming MMO.

[GulfWarVet]

 http://www.gameblurb...and-commentary/

starts at the begining of the game. Scroll to about 6:20 and listen carefully. I can't make out what they say correctly but it does mantion auto attack. Xbox 360 version.

[Vmode]

second-02 wrote...

Vmode wrote...

sycophanticchallenger wrote...

DDragonfly1990 wrote...

Vmode wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Since a thread asking when we might have a patch was just locked, I'd like to ask:
Any word on when we might have a patch? 

Apparently, they had no idea this was even an issue until now, so it took them nearly a month just to find the issue. Now they have to not only fix the issue, but also come up with a plan to distribute it to console players via a network they do not control (Live, PSN) that has its own restrictions.
So I'm guessing they'll go with the standard EA approach: Say they're "working on it" for a couple of weeks hoping people will forget about it eventually.

We probably wont see it until they decide to release some DLC, at which point they'll want to spark some extra interest in the game for the people that haven't played the game in a while. "Hey, buy our new add on! It totally has that feature we said would be in the original game (but wasn't) and we said we would patch (but didn't) and you probably forgot about by now! But its here now, so why not buy this and try playing the game in a whole new way (the way we said you'd get the first time around)!"

It's funny cause it's true... unfortunately...

Do you really think they had no prior knowledge of this? The game was gold 20+ days ago....

I look at it this way. Either they didn't know and they're quite inept, or they did know and they been purposely lying to customers and press all this time.

Now, having worked in marketing for a number of years I've experienced (and sometimes even perpetrated) corporate misinformation on several levels. As such, I'm perfectly willing to believe they would misslead everyone in order to serve their own ends. However, I can not prove any such thing and claiming it would just make me loose credibility.

It's like in the old days when people got married and had a kid 4 months later and went "Whoops, we didn't even know I was pregnant! We totally didn't get married just so our child wouldn't be a bastard and have us get ostracized by the community!". Claiming otherwise just made you look lesser, because in the end you couldn't proove that they had.

Same here, I can't argue against it because all I can offer is speculation. In high level marketing you're often told to only accknowledge a problem if you have to (the game is out so it's quite hard to deny it) and after that you keep quiet untill the next piece of news you can give is "it's fixed".

which is stupid when yours customers has some brain. sometimes what you gain by acting this way doesn't cover what you loss. sometimes is better admiting your errors or other solution...  like don't release without some plan for a easy fix and a fast schedule. Or better what blizzard usually do : take your time, your clients won't disappear in the air and will be even more happy( read : willing to buy more things) with the game release smoothly.

The operative word being "sometimes". Let's engage in some hypotheticals here.

Say they did know about this right after the game went gold. Your suggestion to not release the game without a plan for a fix isn't even an option. You have a set date, it's gone gold, they're committed at this point, a proverbial point of no return. And to do what you are suggesting would cost them a lot, in both money and reputaion for little to no gain.
The whole "taking your time" approach is moot since again, they have a set date and this is not the time for hindsight.

So lets speculate then. This is all hypotheticals based on my own experience and I'm not claiming any of it as historical fact. So don't bite my head of in true fanboystyle just because you do not agree (though if you disagree then feel free to reply with some constructive comments/feeback).

Anyways, for the sake of argument I'm going to assume that their main concern is profit (since this is virtually always the case when large companies are involved). Again, holding of on realease is a no go at this point, which leaves you with two options. Fess up and prepare the consumers for it, or keep your mouth shut and hope you can fix it in time for it not to be an issue.
If your goal is safeguarding your bottom line (IE making as much money as possible) keeping quiet makes more sense, since the revealing the flaw will inevitably result in a loss of sales. How big a loss I wont speculate on, but looking at all the "I'll cancel my pre-order" posts, you see it's there. This ties in to what I said earlier about how you only accknowledge a problem if you have to. At this point, they don't have to, so they don't.
Of course when the review copies hit the press you're left with the same choice. Fess up, or keep quiet until you can no longer deny it. Again, never admit to anything you don't have to. This might mean lying to certain press people though so you really have to handle it with care so when looking back you appear to just have been missinformed back then rather then having actually purposely lied.

So the game comes out and the issue becomes undeniable. At this point you admit to it with just a short statement saying basically "We are aware and will try to fix it". Then you do another cost benefit analysis calculating how much you'll loose depending on when said fix will be availiable. If it had been a game breaking bug it would have been all hands on deck since such a thing would have hurt sales immensly. Here, they probably would come to the conclusion that it's a minor thing and that since the innitial launch day sales have already been made, they don't need to re-allocate as much resources to fix it, instead keeping it back to focus on other more profitable projects.

As I see it, that would be the most smartest course of action to follow if you're mostly interested in just making money, which again, most companies are.

[GulfWarVet]

well so far 3 UK mags have published reviews and not one mentions Auto attack as being in game.

Fromm Eurogamer

In combat this manifests as a more real-time experience. Every basic attack is now triggered by a button press rather than the activate-and-watch method of old. To begin with, it feels weird. Mashing the A button over and over is quite clearly Not RPG.

But as with all things Dragon Age, the wisdom in the change becomes clearer over time. Once you've added some extra ability shortcuts to your battle menu the tactical nature shimmies into focus.

The shift to a more immediate combat style allows you to react quickly to the field. Every sword swing, every arrow fired, every spell unleashed is now at your command, and it can't help but make the fights feel more visceral and satisfying – especially when you're able to explode enemies into bloody chunks.

The fact there's no way of going back to the old method suggests Bioware has no patience for those who insist on keeping the status quo. You can still use the radial menu to pause the action and hop from character to character, but combat is too fast and frantic for this to ever feel natural. As a tactical combat tool it's past its sell-by date, and you end up getting used to the new style by default.

[GulfWarVet]

From gaminformer

The biggest change from the first game is the combat. No longer trying to straddle the fence between tactical and action-focused systems, Dragon Age II gives itself over entirely to fast-paced, responsive battles. This drastic departure from the original formula is bound to upset purists, but it suits the game well. Throwing down a non-stop barrage of spells and weapon techniques is empowering, and since you aren’t just issuing commands and waiting for their execution, the action feels more immediate. Don’t expect this sensation right away, though; you’ll have to play for several hours before you have enough abilities to keep combat interesting. In the early stages, you’ll burn through your meager skills and then mash the attack button while you wait for them to recharge. I promise, it gets better. By the time you’re wiping out your opposition before they even hit your front lines, it all seems worth it.einformer

Modifié par GulfWarVet, 08 mars 2011 - 05:26 .

[GulfWarVet]

From nowgamer

Those returning to the Dragon Age series will see changes – beyond the visuals – immediately. Combat is now far more responsive, with a press of the attack button equating to an attack from your character.

Pause, instruct, cast, strategise - it's all still in here.
No longer is it a case of ordering your controlee what to do and only half paying attention to what’s going on. But that’s not to say it’s simpler – not by any means. Players are still able, if not expected, to issue orders to their four-character party, as well as pause during combat to change instructions on the fly. It’s still not as well handled as on the PC, with fiddly targeting holding effectiveness back, but it is a strategic element of the game you will have to master to make any progress. Unless you’re playing on easy. Pansy.

[GulfWarVet]

Gameinformer actually scores the PC version .5 lower than the console version!! 7.75 to 8.5 for console!

Still not all bad for us ADD numpties then.

[GulfWarVet]

 from joystick

With no auto-attack, fights feel more fast-paced and chaotic, thanks in part to the fact that I was playing a rogue who flipped wildly between enemies in a hypnotic shower of blood. It's action-heavy, sure, but also requires some tactical forethought. A straight fight between an enemy and my sneaky duelist would rarely pan out well, which required me to constantly be aware of my tougher warrior buddy's actions and location. I'm not a big proponent of the "stop and give orders" approach to combat, but Dragon Age 2[/i] provides just the right blend of strategy and stab...egy for my tastes.

[Mousers]

Vmode I've been enjoying your marketing posts, all so true and well done on your explanations. Although I have my doubts as to the choices they made, as in your hypothetical to stay silent until highest profit obtained, was a wise one. Gamers are emotional about their "chosen" game series or gaming house. That house makes a big drop in integrity and trust to its customer base and their choice turns into a quick cash flow but no long term. If their choice at this point is that the things broken and not included as promised is minor, it is a fail in my eyes. Are they so blinded by marketing hype and the all mighty buck that they don't see a games community is important?

Another question is Customer Service. Companies with the best CS thrive with repeat buyers over the big names that could care less about CS that are laying off and even closing doors, fact. So we bought a BW product, it is broken, we would like it fixed. So BW CS, when will that happen? And as a reminder many of us are intelligent professionals not kids so you can elaborate as to the tasks involved to remedy the bad release into what it should have been and a time frame. I think what is important now is to repair your customer base with more information than less. The bad parenting method of ignoring the children until the problem goes away just won't cut it. We aren't kids. We would like to hear from Customer Service. Details appreciated.

[GulfWarVet]

from 1UPAdditionally, as part of Bioware's aim to make combat feel snappier with the much-stated, "push a button and something awesome happens" tagline, one of the odder changes is the removal of a traditional auto-attack in favor of constant button-mashing. Early on, you'll be giving your X or A button (depending on system) a bit of a workout, as every swing/arrowshot/magic missile requires an individual press. It's kind of silly and downright annoying at times to button-mash your way through basic and early combat encounters; to be fair, though, later encounters mitigate the repetitive button-mashing a bit via an expanded array of talents and spells. In short, the game's early combat against fodder enemies borders on mind-numbing simplicity and button mashing, but later encounters against more varied foes with a wider arrange of tools turn combat into something actually interesting -- it might not be quite as hardcore as BG2 or even DAO, but it's satisfying enough.

[Blablabla79]

GulfWarVet wrote...

From gaminformer

The biggest change from the first game is the combat. No longer trying to straddle the fence between tactical and action-focused systems, Dragon Age II gives itself over entirely to fast-paced, responsive battles. This drastic departure from the original formula is bound to upset purists, but it suits the game well. Throwing down a non-stop barrage of spells and weapon techniques is empowering, and since you aren’t just issuing commands and waiting for their execution, the action feels more immediate. Don’t expect this sensation right away, though; you’ll have to play for several hours before you have enough abilities to keep combat interesting. In the early stages, you’ll burn through your meager skills and then mash the attack button while you wait for them to recharge. I promise, it gets better. By the time you’re wiping out your opposition before they even hit your front lines, it all seems worth it.einformer

GulfWarVet wrote...

well so far 3 UK mags have published reviews and not one mentions Auto attack as being in game.

Fromm Eurogamer

In combat this manifests as a more real-time experience. Every basic attack is now triggered by a button press rather than the activate-and-watch method of old. To begin with, it feels weird. Mashing the A button over and over is quite clearly Not RPG.

But as with all things Dragon Age, the wisdom in the change becomes clearer over time. Once you've added some extra ability shortcuts to your battle menu the tactical nature shimmies into focus.

The shift to a more immediate combat style allows you to react quickly to the field. Every sword swing, every arrow fired, every spell unleashed is now at your command, and it can't help but make the fights feel more visceral and satisfying – especially when you're able to explode enemies into bloody chunks.

The fact there's no way of going back to the old method suggests Bioware has no patience for those who insist on keeping the status quo. You can still use the radial menu to pause the action and hop from character to character, but combat is too fast and frantic for this to ever feel natural. As a tactical combat tool it's past its sell-by date, and you end up getting used to the new style by default.

GulfWarVet wrote...

From nowgamer

Those returning to the Dragon Age series will see changes – beyond the visuals – immediately. Combat is now far more responsive, with a press of the attack button equating to an attack from your character.

Pause, instruct, cast, strategise - it's all still in here.
No longer is it a case of ordering your controlee what to do and only half paying attention to what’s going on. But that’s not to say it’s simpler – not by any means. Players are still able, if not expected, to issue orders to their four-character party, as well as pause during combat to change instructions on the fly. It’s still not as well handled as on the PC, with fiddly targeting holding effectiveness back, but it is a strategic element of the game you will have to master to make any progress. Unless you’re playing on easy. Pansy.

GulfWarVet wrote...

 from joystick

With no auto-attack, fights feel more fast-paced and chaotic, thanks in part to the fact that I was playing a rogue who flipped wildly between enemies in a hypnotic shower of blood. It's action-heavy, sure, but also requires some tactical forethought. A straight fight between an enemy and my sneaky duelist would rarely pan out well, which required me to constantly be aware of my tougher warrior buddy's actions and location. I'm not a big proponent of the "stop and give orders" approach to combat, but Dragon Age 2[/i] provides just the right blend of strategy and stab...egy for my tastes.

Clearly someone has told them how to try and spin it around. And it utterly fails. 

[Vmode]

Mousers wrote...

Vmode I've been enjoying your marketing posts, all so true and well done on your explanations. Although I have my doubts as to the choices they made, as in your hypothetical to stay silent until highest profit obtained, was a wise one. Gamers are emotional about their "chosen" game series or gaming house. That house makes a big drop in integrity and trust to its customer base and their choice turns into a quick cash flow but no long term. If their choice at this point is that the things broken and not included as promised is minor, it is a fail in my eyes. Are they so blinded by marketing hype and the all mighty buck that they don't see a games community is important?

Another question is Customer Service. Companies with the best CS thrive with repeat buyers over the big names that could care less about CS that are laying off and even closing doors, fact. So we bought a BW product, it is broken, we would like it fixed. So BW CS, when will that happen? And as a reminder many of us are intelligent professionals not kids so you can elaborate as to the tasks involved to remedy the bad release into what it should have been and a time frame. I think what is important now is to repair your customer base with more information than less. The bad parenting method of ignoring the children until the problem goes away just won't cut it. We aren't kids. We would like to hear from Customer Service. Details appreciated.

Don't missunderstand me here, I am in no way condoning this sort of corporate behavior. Personally, I detest it and it's one of the reasons I don't work in marketing or sales anymore. I'm just trying to get people to understand how things often work behind the scenes so they don't get their hopes up to much or go all crazy with their speculation.

You do make a good point about about the long term effects of such a decision and its result on long term reputation loss leading to future loss or revenue. However, gamers are nutrious for their knee jerk reactions and being quick to forget past hostilities when being tempted by a new hot tripple A game on the horizon. I remember Kotaku running a story complete with a screenshot from the boycott Left 4 Dead 2 steam group where pretty much all of them had "Playing: Left 4 Dead 2" as their status.

Therefore, companies like EA do not put much stock into gamers opinions unless it proves to actually have a detremental effect to sales. Here, such an effect would be minor at most and as such I doubt the people making the decisions about this put much stock into the idea of this leading to future loss of revenue due to a sullied reputation. This all sucks for gamers like you and me who actually do follow through and in the future will show our disscontent with our wallets and who prefer frequent news and uppdates, even bad ones, and can handle it without going balistic and cursing out everyone and their mother.

[GulfWarVet]

makes you wonder about the review embargo!!

[Sylvius the Mad]

Loon PL wrote...

And why couldn't BioWare answer the question when it was asked on these forums? EA's fault?

EA owns BioWare.  EA is BioWare's boss.

So yes, if EA told BioWare not to relase information, BioWare's going to listen to them.  If some BioDev showed up here and blatanatly disregarded his orders like that, I would expect him to get fired.

[AkiKishi]

PSM3 makes no mention of autoattack either.

[Vmode]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Loon PL wrote...

And why couldn't BioWare answer the question when it was asked on these forums? EA's fault?

EA owns BioWare.  EA is BioWare's boss.

So yes, if EA told BioWare not to relase information, BioWare's going to listen to them.  If some BioDev showed up here and blatanatly disregarded his orders like that, I would expect him to get fired.

I have seen things like that happen. People that talk to consumers usually aren't the ones who decide what they are allowed to say (or not say as the case may be). That call is tends to be made higher up the corporate food chain by people that do not take kindly to having their instructions ignored.

[djackson75]

Here's another theory, and the more I read, the more I feel like it's the truth..

They lied.

They had no intention to put auto attack in the game. There was no missing code, and no error.

They said what they said about it being in the game to shut the people complaining up.

Then one dude makes one statement in the middle of a thread on their message board, and up until this point (2pm March 8th, 2011, eastern time), absolutely no place else. In an attempt to quell the issue in only one way: To keep all the complaints in one thread that 95% of the gamers will never see.

Every minute that goes by without an official statement from a game developer makes me believe this more.

And another thing... Don't blame EA.. EA may do the marketing and publishing, but Bioware has enough cache to be able to tell EA "we need to do this right", and get their way. Bioware isn't some startup studio trying to stay in the game, they are one of EA's big cash cows.

On top of that, Bioware didn't sell their services to EA at gunpoint.

Modifié par djackson75, 08 mars 2011 - 07:05 .

[lionsfan208]

Chris Priestly wrote...

OK: Here is the story.

Auto-attack option for consoles was added in to the games late in the development cycle after the initial certification build was sent. The auto-attack functionality was sent to be added to the game for testing and approval. This was why staff said it was in game.

Due to an error during mastering, the auto-attack file was omitted during manufacture.

We apologize for this. It was meant to be in game, but it is not currently in the console versions. We are working on how best to distribute this to console users. When we have information, we will let everyone know.

That is great news Mr. Priestly, thank you for letting us know.  I am not sure I would like it or not but it seems like it could be useful on Nightmare.

[djackson75]

lionsfan208 wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

OK: Here is the story.

Auto-attack option for consoles was added in to the games late in the development cycle after the initial certification build was sent. The auto-attack functionality was sent to be added to the game for testing and approval. This was why staff said it was in game.

Due to an error during mastering, the auto-attack file was omitted during manufacture.

We apologize for this. It was meant to be in game, but it is not currently in the console versions. We are working on how best to distribute this to console users. When we have information, we will let everyone know.

That is great news Mr. Priestly, thank you for letting us know.  I am not sure I would like it or not but it seems like it could be useful on Nightmare.

Which is the great part? The part where they "screwed up in mastering", the part where they kept quiet about it for over 3 weeks, only letting everyone know the eve of the game's release, or the part where the only place they've even admitted the issue is on page 5 of a message board thread?

[BingoParadox]

Bumpity-Bump-Bump

[Mousers]

Vmode wrote...

Don't missunderstand me here, I am in no way condoning this sort of corporate behavior. Personally, I detest it and it's one of the reasons I don't work in marketing or sales anymore. I'm just trying to get people to understand how things often work behind the scenes so they don't get their hopes up to much or go all crazy with their speculation.

You do make a good point about about the long term effects of such a decision and its result on long term reputation loss leading to future loss or revenue. However, gamers are nutrious for their knee jerk reactions and being quick to forget past hostilities when being tempted by a new hot tripple A game on the horizon. I remember Kotaku running a story complete with a screenshot from the boycott Left 4 Dead 2 steam group where pretty much all of them had "Playing: Left 4 Dead 2" as their status.

Therefore, companies like EA do not put much stock into gamers opinions unless it proves to actually have a detremental effect to sales. Here, such an effect would be minor at most and as such I doubt the people making the decisions about this put much stock into the idea of this leading to future loss of revenue due to a sullied reputation. This all sucks for gamers like you and me who actually do follow through and in the future will show our disscontent with our wallets and who prefer frequent news and uppdates, even bad ones, and can handle it without going balistic and cursing out everyone and their mother.

No missunderstanding at all, I knew what you were trying to explain and commend you  for your efforts. Another part of marketing is word-of-mouth which ties into customer base. Their experience with the game, patches in a timely manner, feedback to customers, et al. A good case in point is Turbine. They were on the gold train but didn't listen or pay attention to their customer base. Over time they were heading downhill fast all attributed to poor customer relations, patches, etc. Finally someone had the intelligence to turn them around by listening to their customers, understanding what they were concerned about. Made changes and started the uphill climb. Whether they still can climb all the way back up only time will tell for their popular franchise. But they are working darn hard at repairing and getting back the initial customer support. There are other companies and I don't care to do the research,

And yes, I agree a few of us will show our distaste to the actions with our wallets, and spread the word on the trust issue. Will it impact the sales revenue for this game? Nope, but over time history proves it will show a decline. They might get away with propitiating with verbal cookies here, but the adults that have the bucks and the bucks for their kids, can easily see lack of customer service, avoidence of point blank questions, etc and decide not to financially support a company with no intregrity. Word of mouth marketing and its strength, don't bite the hand that feeds you, it is a no-win everytime.

I do hope they will respond soon with useful data and not a pitance of propitiation. Hope you are wrong also that they are going to put their full focus on upcoming titles and a small crew on fixing the problems with this release. Maybe they are intelligent enough to get their priorities straight. This isn't a strong economy, anywhere, like it was before when you did business/marketing as you said. Customers count now  more than ever because they have to carefully budget that extra entertainment expense. Would they buy from a company that is known for releasing unfinished games with maybe a patch to fix it 6 mo to 1 yr later, if that? Doubtful. I'd rather spend the money on a proven house that puts out close to perfect releases and patches any fix within a week.

And to Bob, you mentioned reading the game manual to see if auto-attack was mentioned. It is not. "In combat, the character you're controlling executes a basic attack maneuver each time you press A" (360)  So if AA was meant to be in the game and sent to Master (production and distribution) as per Chris, then it would have been mentioned in the manual.

[Mousers]

Goodness close to 3rd page. Needs a gentle nudge.

[Mousers]

oops it double posted

Modifié par Mousers, 08 mars 2011 - 08:34 .