336 réponses à ce sujet

[ExtinctRPG]

By this time I think BioWare has to know they ****ed up with DA 2. Laidlaw is just giving his interviewer corporate speak in order to save face.

[DA Trap Star]

The game isn't that bad, the only thing that saves it is the battle or I would of fell asleep by now.
The biggest thing that kills it, is your stuck in one town the entire game. Even Awakenings had a bigger variety of locations than Dragon Age 2. Every location in DA:2 so far looks the same.

[JoePilot]

Yriss wrote...

JoePilot wrote...

From the Interview:

Eurogamer:
One stronger criticism levelled at Dragon Age II was that it was
designed by committee; it tried too hard to appeal too far and wide, and
in doing so it lost a sense of self. What do you say to that?

Mike Laidlaw:
Dragon Age II was designed by just the senior, core team.
Honestly I don't feel it's a game that's been designed to appeal far and
wide and so on. If it were, there were choices we could have made that
would have taken it much, much further. We would have probably
simplified down to a single character, maybe with companions; probably
looked at doing some even deeper changes to inventory management, making
sure that... You wouldn't want to confuse people with enchanting or
anything complex like that. Really what we wanted to do with the game,
just talking about first-principles, was to look at elements of Origins
that were over complex and needlessly so and see if we could pull those
out in a clean way and didn't take out what I always saw as core
elements of the experience: strong, character-driven stories, and the
idea that the combat should be a party working together, especially at
higher difficulty levels.

I just threw up a little in my mouth.  Laidlaw seems to think you are all mouth-breathing imbeciles who can barely tie your shoes in the morning without getting confused.

This man should never be allowed to work on a video game ever, ever again. 

Maybe it's just me, but I read the first few sentences that you bolded as sarcasm from him (the "We could have" stuff), which may not have translated well in writing.

I'm willing to entertain that notion, but honestly a damage-control interview you're giving because an extremely vocal group of players hates your game with a white-hot passion is probably NOT the best place to use sarcasm and joke about how much worse the game could have been.

[ExtinctRPG]

tausra wrote...

I like the game, I enjoy the combat, iIt's not DA:O 2, and I thank BIoWare for that. I like almost all the characters, and I like the setting. It's better than any game I've ever made, so I don't have much room to complain. Could they have improved some things? Yes, but everything could be improved. The game isn't the pointless grind that Origins was, go to point a, trek through location B, discover the plot twist, fight the boss and move to point c.

Flame On!

At this point the community's response to DA 2 is so negative that saying you like DA 2 is a trolling giveaway.

[Massi75]

element eater wrote...

its pretty weak how he dismisses the negative feed so back so quickly. Also the interviewer didnt have the balls to mention metacritics user score which is very weak indeed

No kidding, It's funny, I just noticed that now when you got to the DA site an annoying pop up appears with all the scores of "selected" reviews (xbox nation an PS official magazine). Ridiculous!

[Nozybidaj]

So basically it is just the old BW line of "If you don't like it, well you're just afraid of change so we'll ignore you till we see good reviews". Nothing new here really.

[Malja]

Yriss wrote...

Maybe it's just me, but I read the first few sentences that you bolded as sarcasm from him (the "We could have" stuff), which may not have translated well in writing.

I also read it as sarcasm. Still not very appropriate though.

[Dansayshi]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

moilami wrote...

Ok time to move on and play some DA2 while waiting for DA3.

Yeah, at this rate you won't have to wait long. Maybe they will churn it out before 2012 hits so they can flood the market in a bid for RPG of the year.

Ha as if.

I really doubt DA2s unfinished cut corner form will beat the likes of the witcher 2 and.... elder scrolls 6! Yes its out in november, classed as this year.

Theirs also ME3 which... I really really really hope isnt internally sabotaged like DA2 is.

[Senzen Sumnor]

Eurogamer: The Metacritic score for Dragon Age II (at the time of writing) is 82 per cent. Is that in-line with expectations?
Mike Laidlaw: It's a little bit lower than we were expecting.

I'll tell you exactly what they were expecting, 90 average or better on consoles and 8..0 average on PC (reverse of DA:O).  They are pissed because xbox and ps3 are lower than expected.  That's the market that they made these changes for.  Definitely a step back for them anyway you look at it.

[packardbell]

I've enjoyed playing DA2 and another persons opinion won't change mine, and vice versa. Yes the game had problems - primarily it recycling areas... but many 'critically acclaimed' rpg's do that. Oblivion? Yeah.. I think I've been through this ruin the hundredth time.

[TheKnave69]

As a project manager, I have to find the balance between three factors: schedule, budget and quality.  Here's what I see from the interview, and from what I gather from the various websites/interviews/comments:  The schedule was predetermined by the parent company Q1-2 2011, and the budget is handed down from the parent company.  If I change any of the factors involved, then I change the quality.  I have to cut corners to make dates, work within the budget, etc.  As a project manager, I am also, at times, required to spin to my customers why the quality of my project is not what they expected. 
I may not necessarily agree with the spin, privately, but publicly, I tell them that getting less for more is actually in their best interests.  After all, I have a family to feed.  If they don't buy into the spin, then I am required to fall on my sword and own up that I messed up (which we may or may not see in the coming months), whether I am personally responsible, or whether management decisions are.
I am sure that the product will be very successful for EA, and provide good cash flow and profit for the stockholders, and if it is, then there will be more product.  Regardless of all the talk about pleasing customers, looking at feedback, etc.  The bottom line is the profit margin.  I remember one of my teachers back in college telling me, "It's the entertainment industry, not the entertainment art."  That's one of the reasons why there is such sequal-itis out there. 
Given these pressures from the industry, I think Mike did the best he could given the circumstances.  Don't blame BW any more than Mike.  What we need to remember is that they are no longer an independent developer, but are now a subsidery to a publisher, and as such, now serve two masters:  The publisher and the public.
Don't hate the player, hate the game (metophorically speaking).

[Itkovian]

I don't see what's wrong with this. It's a reasonable response to the criticism.

If in the end (and he rightfully states that they'll be looking beyond the day one knee-jerk reactions) the reviews are not as high as they were hoping for, they'll see what they did wrong and move on from there. If that means recapturing elements from DAO, then excellent.

Either way, we got a good game.

My only fear is they don't take the whole "repeating maps" criticism as indication that the fans would rather have less overall gameplay time if it meant not having to repeat maps.

Itkovian

[gilgalad80]

Rykoth wrote...

The interview is fine. I wish people who didn't like DA2 would get their heads out of their arses and think that maybe just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's a bad game as a fact. It's an opinion.

Sure, the reuse of areas is annoying. But when you have a deadline, which is probably what they had... I'll take content any day over new maps that seldom get used.

And yes, the majority of anti-DA2ers ARE mad and throwing tantrums that this isn't Origins 2.

.... guess what, I'm sure DA3 won't be Origins 3 either.

People need to stop with the "throwing tantrums because it's not origins" responses.  They're getting old.

DAO was a deep RPG game that set a high bar for rich gameplay and content.
When you make a game with the same name (i.e. sequel) the fans sort of expect SOME of that quality retained.
Big mystery eh? 

The "But they had a deadline" argument is lame.  Deadlines are always there.  I don't care who's fault it is.. EA's,  Bioware's.... You won't be seeing that little DA2 icon under my avatar anytime soon.  I hope DA3 gets better attention and returns to its roots.

[Ledshot]

“Have you sold your souls to the EA devil?”

[JoePilot]

Bioware are greedy  It's a fact.  The corporate culture has taken hold, and everything is now quarterly results and marketshare and 'growing the brand'.  Let's accept it and move on.

[Grandchamp1989]

17thknight wrote...

Twaddlefish wrote...

I thought he addressed a lot of the major concerns that PC gamers. He admitted things we'd rather not believe e.g. that it wasn't a primarily PC development, but I think he's being quite fair about things. The thinking 6/10 is a bad score is nonsense though, 60% is GOOD and at university level it'll net you a 2:1.

6/10's are a death sentence for a video game.

Games are NOT reviewed on a 1-10 scale. They are reviewed on a 7-10 scale. Anything below a 7 is pure garbage and utterly unplayable.

Any score, 1-6, is essentially a 0.

Once you start rising above that, 7 is a low rental, 8 is where people can have varying levels of disagreement over the quality of the game and it'll please some but not others.

9 is where the game is solidly a quality title.

6/10 is not good.

THAT being said, this game is not getting 6/10's across the board, that's not even remotely the aggregate, but he'd better take a long, serious look at the criticisms from people giving those levels of reviews and fix the problems. You bring the 6's up to 8's and everyone else will be in the 9's and 10's.

Couldn't agree more. Quoted for the truth.

[Pixieking]

Grandchamp1989 wrote...

17thknight wrote...

Twaddlefish wrote...

I thought he addressed a lot of the major concerns that PC gamers. He admitted things we'd rather not believe e.g. that it wasn't a primarily PC development, but I think he's being quite fair about things. The thinking 6/10 is a bad score is nonsense though, 60% is GOOD and at university level it'll net you a 2:1.

6/10's are a death sentence for a video game.

Games are NOT reviewed on a 1-10 scale. They are reviewed on a 7-10 scale. Anything below a 7 is pure garbage and utterly unplayable.

Any score, 1-6, is essentially a 0.

Once you start rising above that, 7 is a low rental, 8 is where people can have varying levels of disagreement over the quality of the game and it'll please some but not others.

9 is where the game is solidly a quality title.

6/10 is not good.

THAT being said, this game is not getting 6/10's across the board, that's not even remotely the aggregate, but he'd better take a long, serious look at the criticisms from people giving those levels of reviews and fix the problems. You bring the 6's up to 8's and everyone else will be in the 9's and 10's.

Couldn't agree more. Quoted for the truth.

I'm sorry, but no. So far from truth, it's not funny.

It's not that 6/10 is not good, it's that 6/10 on a sliding scale indicates an average game. 1=bad, 10=genre-definingly amazing, everything else in-between is gradients of quality.

Now, some magazines do not use this system, even if they use 1-10 scoring system. This is where the idea that "Anything below a 7 is pure garbage and utterly unplayable." It's not. Superman64? That was unplayable. Bomberman64 was the same. They got 1 and 3 in Edge, respectively. Just because other magazines don't give out 1s and 3, does not mean that 1-6 is garbage. 7 is not an unplayable game. It's one that just above average. Read the Edge review of DA2, and you'll see that what is written is a fair review, and the score is 6. 6=average.

[gilgalad80]

TheKnave69 wrote...

What we need to remember is that they are no longer an independent developer, but are now a subsidery to a publisher, and as such, now serve two masters:  The publisher and the public.
Don't hate the player, hate the game (metophorically speaking).

Although I understand where you're coming from I don't fully agree.  "The game", so to speak, was established by players.  It didn't make itself.  Blaming the game changes nothing and is a little defeatist.

"Complaining" and "ranting" and boycots are the only thing a consumer can do to get what he/she wants and is paying for.   And it does work most of the time, especially mass boycots.

[gilgalad80]

JoePilot wrote...

Bioware are greedy  It's a fact.  The corporate culture has taken hold, and everything is now quarterly results and marketshare and 'growing the brand'.  Let's accept it and move on.

We might as well bend over while we're at it. 

[morgueanna]

What's really ironic is that a lot of people (including myself) have been under the impression that they 'dumbed the game down for the masses' when in fact, they dumbed it down for the minority. Let me explain.

Again and again, Bioware reps have stated they did extensive research into the first game and discovered that some people bought the game and only got a few hours in. They've overwhelmingly used this as an excuse for the changes they've made. But those people are obviously the minority, considering the strength of DLC/expansion sales and usage. Let's look at it this way:

10 people play the game, and two don't get very far. Instead of Bioware talking to the 8 that loved the game, they pull the two over to the side and ask them what happened. While the remaining 8 are loving the game, paying for DLC content and supporting future releases through that, Bioware is making the sequel for the two idiots who just never caught on to the game.

Bioware, and EA, are under some weird assumption that if they can please the minority of people that didn't like the first one, that this will somehow translate into appealing to the masses. What they don't understand is...the masses don't enjoy niche games unless they're a niche gamer anyway.

No matter how dumbed down and slick the combat is, no matter how simplified the RPG elements are, this is still not a first person shooter. So they didn't appeal to the masses. And those two people who didn't finish the game remember they didn't like the first one...so they didn't buy the sequel. All they managed to do was anger those 8 fans who stood by them and financially supported the sequel to begin with.

Does that make sense?

[syllogi]

This interview just made me sad. I would really, really like to see the devs admit that the game was NOT the best quality product they could have put out. I am not even saying that I don't like the game, but it is far from the standards I expect from Bioware. Nothing Mike said reassures me that they are cognizant of how disappointed long time fans are, and how poorly this game is being received by those who were on the fence about RPGs in the first place.

And I would love clarification about the "taking away complexity" bit. Assuming that gamers don't want stuff like enchanting in RPGs is a *horrible* idea. I'd like to know if he was really being sarcastic there.

[JoePilot]

gilgalad80 wrote...

JoePilot wrote...

Bioware are greedy  It's a fact.  The corporate culture has taken hold, and everything is now quarterly results and marketshare and 'growing the brand'.  Let's accept it and move on.

We might as well bend over while we're at it. 

I couldn't disagree more, I just meant that denial wasn't helpful.  I was speaking more to the Bioware DefenseForce© forumites, than to people who already 'get it'.

[TheKnave69]

gilgalad80 wrote...

Although I understand where you're coming from I don't fully agree.  "The game", so to speak, was established by players.  It didn't make itself.  Blaming the game changes nothing and is a little defeatist.

"Complaining" and "ranting" and boycots are the only thing a consumer can do to get what he/she wants and is paying for.   And it does work most of the time, especially mass boycots.

I agree completely.  The complaining, ranting and boycots are part of the "game," and how the public exercises its power of the purse against the publishers.  I'm just talking about the personal vitriol against Mike L. and Bioware.  I've been through more than a couple of M&A's and generally find that the company that purchases another does so for their IP, customer goodwill, reputation, talent, etc. and then generally applies their culture on the new business, which usually leads to discontent.  There was the same vibe a couple of years ago with the Sierra/Vivendi thing.

The only thing that I was saying is that ML and Bioware may not have as much autonomy as people credit them with, dumping all of the negative vibes on them. 

[AJRimmsey]

JoePilot wrote...

Bioware are greedy  It's a fact.  The corporate culture has taken hold, and everything is now quarterly results and marketshare and 'growing the brand'.  Let's accept it and move on.

No actually,lets not accept it.

Accepting it is why every game released with "2" strapped on in past few years has been a money maker instead of a boundary pusher.
You accept it and pay over and over again for a product thats worse than the one before,I would prefer to use my wallet to force them to get back to where a "2" means they have outdone themselves after the  first game.

A second in a series should either be better and bigger or be an expansion,as it should be.

[Ixalmaris]

Emoking wrote...

Grandchamp1989 wrote...

17thknight wrote...

Twaddlefish wrote...

I thought he addressed a lot of the major concerns that PC gamers. He admitted things we'd rather not believe e.g. that it wasn't a primarily PC development, but I think he's being quite fair about things. The thinking 6/10 is a bad score is nonsense though, 60% is GOOD and at university level it'll net you a 2:1.

6/10's are a death sentence for a video game.

Games are NOT reviewed on a 1-10 scale. They are reviewed on a 7-10 scale. Anything below a 7 is pure garbage and utterly unplayable.

Any score, 1-6, is essentially a 0.

Once you start rising above that, 7 is a low rental, 8 is where people can have varying levels of disagreement over the quality of the game and it'll please some but not others.

9 is where the game is solidly a quality title.

6/10 is not good.

THAT being said, this game is not getting 6/10's across the board, that's not even remotely the aggregate, but he'd better take a long, serious look at the criticisms from people giving those levels of reviews and fix the problems. You bring the 6's up to 8's and everyone else will be in the 9's and 10's.

Couldn't agree more. Quoted for the truth.

I'm sorry, but no. So far from truth, it's not funny.

It's not that 6/10 is not good, it's that 6/10 on a sliding scale indicates an average game. 1=bad, 10=genre-definingly amazing, everything else in-between is gradients of quality.

Thats wishful thinking. For a AAA titlee 6/10 is a death sentence. For some people, such a game not getting at least 9/10 already shows that it has serious problems but is still enjoable. Anything lower than 7/10 are just curtsey points because of the loads of money invested into graphics and music.
I ask you, when have you last seen a game with less than 5/10?
THe scale is not 1-10, its more like 6-10, especially for big titles.