This interview is a joke:
http://www.gamespot....g=picks;title;1GameSpot: How do you think the reception for Dragon Age II would have been different if this had been the first game in the series?
Mike Laidlaw: I think it would have been different--exactly how is probably hard to tell...
ME-What a way to say "my game sucks and it will be bad for the players"at this point. When you think about Dragon Age, one of the things that
comes to mind is the legacy, going back to the Baldur's Gate games and
that kind of thing. Actually, [that comparison] was drawn during
Origins. It was an explicit, spiritual successor kind of connection.
Certainly, I think Origins did a very good job of following in that
vein. What Dragon Age II does, or what I perceive it as doing, is take a
lot of those gameplay elements--working together as a team, functioning
as a combat unit,..
ME- O my god that was really your intention?, it is just BAD, you really dont realize that Dragon Age 2 Actually KILLED the Origins Gameplay experience, with DUMBED equipment saying to you the stats you have to pump (otherwise you canot equip it) and you cannot be creative qith you characters without the fear that you cannot equip the next armor you see, so the equipment get dumbed.
The skills are just DUMBED aswell, now your characters are predestined to be only 1 posible build, like fenris has to stuck in two handed build, meril cant cure etc... now your alies cant have specialisations like "spirit healer" or something, so this was dumbed aswell.
In origins you can create a wide variety of type of characters, even if you are an idiot you can create something interesting without the need of the DUMMIES options.
In origins the warriors can dual wield, the mages can became a melee character, and the rougues can put traps and actually ambush their enemies.... NOW YOU JUST KILLED THAT and you dare too say DA2 tooks the gameplay elements from origins better?, are you fu,kking kidding me? having a story that unfolds with choices (all of
those core things that I see as principal to both Baldur's Gate and,
more importantly, to Dragon Age)--and tries to bring some newer ideas to
the table (elements of responsiveness, elements of interactivity in the
way those fights are coordinated) into what I think is a more modern
setting and expectation. For most players, the idea of the solo combat
is surprising.
ME-for me the surprising thing its that your stupid decitions dosent get an impact on really absolutelly nothing important, and now we are entering the DUMBED response weel from mass effect territory, now you just put an stupid weel with no variations at all, just the 3 simplest posibilities, SUPER-HERO,STUPID-RESPONSE,BAD-ASS,and thats very stupid compared to the more options in origins, you can get a STR response if you had a lot of str, a mage or rougue response or actions if that was your class, adn you can actually read what are you goig to tell, now the stupid weel surprise you with some dialogs you dont wnat to say.
I do think Dragon Age II is running up against some elements of Origins,
and it's not something we went into completely blind.
ME-So you killed Dragon Age and you just say it with no remorse... and you know that your game sucks but you cant actually say it...EA owns you sooo bad. We certainly knew there would be some friction between what Origins players have come to
expect and what Dragon Age II delivers. But I don't see the two in
opposition to each other. I've talked to Origins players who said, "As
soon as I moved it to hard, I totally see where Origins is again."
That's fair, and I think that's something over time we'll continue to
tune and capitalize on that fusion between the Origins experience and
Dragon Age II.
GS: In terms of the story in Dragon Age II, it feels like Hawke's
rise in Kirkwall comes at the expense of the gameworld as a whole. In
contrast, the player saw and learned a lot about the world in Origins.
Is the idea that Dragon Age II has a narrower focus and lacks the
broader context a fair assessment of the story?
ML: The goal that we were going for is twofold. First, we did
want to focus in on a more personal experience--the experience of one
person and not the avatar of an organization. To be quite frank, that's a
story we told before, and while there's nothing wrong with it, we
really wanted to challenge ourselves to not have you end up in the Jedi
Order or a Child of Baal, what have you. The story is tighter, and what I
think it does is it moves through time in a way that we move through
space in Origins.
ME-You know the story its really non interesting, and the stupid things like this "hey we are going to be rich!"-->3 YEARS LATER, are the things that killed the inmersion to that story, you really dont get inmersed with those things, the scenarios are dull and so ****ing repetitive,hell mario bross has more escenarios than this "game",so how in the world do you think we are going to like the story qith those things there?.
In Origins, we very much had a mandate to bring a new fantasy world to
life--one country, specifically, of a new fantasy world to life. And we
moved around through that. But really, what I want to see Dragon Age II
set up is a world that's evolving over time just in the same way that
Ferelden, as the Blight advanced, evolved through space. When I look
where Dragon Age II leaves us, it leaves us with a phase that's
inherently more interesting--one where we see strife and things falling
apart. This is in stark contrast to the ending of Origins, where we saw
things resolved. Oh good, the Blight's over. That's great. We can all go
back to minor politicking, which as comfortable as that would be makes
for a far less compelling world to be in.
ME-Yeah!... kirkwall evolving, thats new... ITS THE SAME FU.KKING STUPID ESCENARIO ALL THE STUPID GAME!, and not just it ALL THE STUPID ESCENARIOS ARE THE SAME, EVEN THE CAVES! (the 2 types of them...),
SO... that with the stupid "HEY 3 YEARS PASSED" thing you just do it WRONG.So, in that respect, I think the narrow focus of Dragon Age II really
does what we originally hoped to do, which is to say, "This is an event.
We want to change the world." As our lead writer said, we want to kick
over the sand castle we just built to change something and to show that
this is a dynamic space. But we don't want to do it in a way that's just
a heavy-handed, "And then a war started!" What we wanted to do is show
in a uniquely Dragon Age way this is something that people and real
passions and motivations got involved in. It wasn't just an event that
happened because it seemed convenient for the narrative.
GS: In terms of the creative process, can you talk about how the
story came together and how the final product compares to the initial
ideas the team had?
ML: That last answer covers a lot of what we wanted to
achieve--the changing of the world and evolving it over time. Obviously,
there are a million small permutations that change over the course of
any game's development, but really, the scope and the movement of Hawke,
from Ferelden survivor--something that ties it to Origins--to champion
of Kirkwall, and the chaos that ensues as a result of that, is pretty
much the original story arc we envisioned. In the same way that Loghain
is a comprehensible villain, such as it is, we wanted to make sure that
we were telling the story of a descent into madness in a lot of ways.
It's driven by miscommunication, suspicion--human motivations rather
than some sort of overarching evil.
ME-You really think you acomplished that?, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you have to be kidding me!, that you actually acomplished its ti make a game so damm dummbed that now its non atractive, an now everyone here knows that EA OWNS YOU SO BAD!, and you prefer to make money cheating on your clients than actually making a good game, so you know put MONEY in front of whatever you make, and now you are going to make dumbed games so ****ing simple, and you are going to launch tons of DLC to get MORE money, that is just an insult, you know you killed dragon age 2, mass effect 2 was left in agony and only needs more dumbed options that will make you to kill it completely like you did with dragon age.
So you just better think to have a new slogan that says "Games for dummies, we want your money!"
the inly thing i know is...
This game should be called:
Dragon Age For Dummies!
Modifié par Lobato, 29 mars 2011 - 05:33 .
Retour en haut
it was a thoroughly enjoyable Tale within a tale and I hope the writers/script director stays for DA DLC's and DA3 because this is the way a story is told
's his crossbow, etc. Like, in origins, I would be forced by the game to make Varric get rid of Bianca because inevitably something would come along that was just much better gear-wise. By making him keep it, you get all those awesome scenes with him chatting with his crossbow, taunting enemies about how "she's" going to taste their blood, etc. 
). Would've been nice if you could've upgraded their gear a la ME2--so their outfits stay the same, but the stats are different. Also dug how everything doesn't look quite as generic and brown as Origins. Darkspawn look creepy, gross and plagued instead of like Origins burn unit escapees. 
