832 réponses à ce sujet

[Sandmanifest]

So, there was a recent interview with Mike Laidlaw on 1up.com. I went through the whole thing, but one response in particular caught my attention. This is one of the last questions asked, and part of the response (the whole interview is in the link below). I just want to know your thoughts and feelings, especially on the bolded part.

Personally I felt pretty bad after reading it, considering I'm one of the people that "enjoy that experience". Also a little insulted after the second paragraph, but that could be completely unwarranted. I just want your opinions.

1UP: It's safe to say that there was a lot of people who expected "Origins 2," and to have more of Origins' gameplay (which in itself hearkens back to Baldur's Gate 2's gameplay). Dragon Age 2 is obviously not that; it's you taking RPGs in a different direction. In light of that, I'm curious: do you think there's still room for a more, "grognard"-driven RPG in the vein of BG2 in the modern marketplace?

ML: It presents an intriguing thought experiment: is it viable to have a game that's closer to Baldur's Gate 2 in terms of the raw mechanics and execution? I don't think there's anything preventing it. However, I do think that, as a genre, if RPGs can't evolve and can't change -- and I know people yell at me for daring to use the word "evolve" -- but if they can't change or experiment, then the genre itself is going to stagnate. Not only in terms of mechanics,
like in rehashes and stuff, which I think we mostly manage to avoid, but the bigger problem is that if we don't have RPGs that present a different type of experience, then we kind of encapsulate our potential audience to people who enjoy just that experience, and we drive others away.In of itself, that runs the risk of genre death -- it becomes too referential or too reliant on people understanding that STR means strength which feeds into accuracy which results in damage done, and so on. You end up in a case where, the genre eventually burns out, or falls flat, or becomes too risky to take any risks in development, and so on and so forth, and that's not something I want to see happen.

http://www.1up.com/f...?pager.offset=0

Modifié par Sandmanifest, 20 mars 2011 - 06:54 .

[mesmerizedish]

I <3 Mr. Laidlaw.

[CRISIS1717]

So basically Mike Laidlaw wants to make rpgs for people who don't play rpgs.

[mesmerizedish]

CRISIS1717 wrote...

So basically Mike Laidlaw wants to make rpgs for people who don't play rpgs.

He wants to turn people who don't play RPGs into people who play RPGs.

[abaris]

And by what Laidlaw calls evolving, they drive their core audience away.

I wonder if catering to the mass market makes up for that.

[Savior Indra]

I think what he was trying to say is that. In order for anything to survive (whether it be humans, games etc.,) it MUST evolve. And we all know that evolution is a trial and error process. I personally love DA2, i enjoyed it a lot more than DAO. But the thing with trial and error is that sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. This is what i think the DA2 team was trying to do. Push the boundaries in a direction that they hadn't previously been. Some people loved it, some people hated it. The point is if the DA2 team had just taken the DAO formula and pasted into a new story; sure the people who loved DAO would've loved it, but they would be limiting themselves to just that audience and then if that keeps on happening as Laidlaw said "...the genre eventually burns out, or falls flat, or becomes too risky to take any risks in development..."

but that's just my opinion

[CRISIS1717]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

So basically Mike Laidlaw wants to make rpgs for people who don't play rpgs.

He wants to turn people who don't play RPGs into people who play RPGs.

That game is called Fable 3 and it didn't work.

[MonkeyLungs]

So because the perceived audience for more traditional role playing experience is not large enough the game has to evolve to attract a wider audience.

[Veex]

CRISIS1717 wrote...

So basically Mike Laidlaw wants to make rpgs for people who don't play rpgs.

Kind of. He wants to make RPGs appealing to a wider audience so that the ever-shrinking "hard core" fanbase isn't all that sustains them. Having not played an RPG before shouldn't prohibit someone from becoming an RPG player after all. You can certainly make the argument that BioWare has gone too far in trying to appeal to one segment of the market at the cost of alienating another, but you can't really argue with the logic of not relying on a stagnant fanbase to sustain a company.

[TheMadCat]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

So basically Mike Laidlaw wants to make rpgs for people who don't play rpgs.

He wants to turn people who don't play RPGs into people who play RPGs.

In order to achieve that though you need to change what defines the genre which risks putting people off who enjoyed what originally defined the genre. As one of the people who does enjoy many of the aspects which defined the RPG genre for so many years, I don't believe it's a fair trade off.

Modifié par TheMadCat, 20 mars 2011 - 06:56 .

[Deep_Sea_Diver]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

So basically Mike Laidlaw wants to make rpgs for people who don't play rpgs.

He wants to turn people who don't play RPGs into people who play RPGs.

By getting rid of what people who play RPGS like, in other words he's trying to switch one audience for a another.
One with arguably more people, sadly hardcore RPG fans are in the minority now.

Modifié par Deep_Sea_Diver, 20 mars 2011 - 06:55 .

[Chewu]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

So basically Mike Laidlaw wants to make rpgs for people who don't play rpgs.

He wants to turn people who don't play RPGs into people who play RPGs.

But by changing the RPG genre to non-RPG that means that those people won't actually play a RPG.

[AkiKishi]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

So basically Mike Laidlaw wants to make rpgs for people who don't play rpgs.

He wants to turn people who don't play RPGs into people who play RPGs.

That will never work. The whole premise is flawed, DA2 should hopefully come out as evidence of that.

People either want to skip the whole RPG stuff and get on with the combat. Or they want to be told the story in the same way they are through cutscenes in FPS and action adventures.

They like stats but they have no interest in playing a character like in DA or DA2.

Just compare FF's sales figures, those are games that tell a story, they are not roleplaying games in the traditional sense.

Do you know why Dynasty Warriors is successful ? Because it makes what people who want to play the game want. New people come to it because of that, not because it tries to be something it's not. You have spin offs which alter the formula, but the main series remains more or less the same.

[mesmerizedish]

Chewu wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

So basically Mike Laidlaw wants to make rpgs for people who don't play rpgs.

He wants to turn people who don't play RPGs into people who play RPGs.

But by changing the RPG genre to non-RPG that means that those people won't actually play a RPG.

I'm really not interested in arguing about whether or not DAII is an RPG. DAII had its failings. Not living up to some "RPG standard" was not one of them.

[Alex109222]

LAIDLAAAWWW!!!
sadly I cannot continue my rant without getting banned.

[FellowerOfOdin]

Mike Laidlaw: "We want to alienate our old audience and appeal to the CoD crowd."

No need to make a whole interview about this...

[Zealuu]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

He wants to turn people who don't play RPGs into people who play RPGs.

But not by giving them great RPGs to play, obviously.  Much easier to just rebrand RPG, from "Role-playing Game" to "whatever slightly grenre blending action game Bioware makes". Great!

[Taltherion]

There was another Bioware interview where indeed Call of Duty and similar games (where you can put points into abilities) are portrayed as some sorts of RPGs (more or less).

[Alex109222]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Chewu wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

So basically Mike Laidlaw wants to make rpgs for people who don't play rpgs.

He wants to turn people who don't play RPGs into people who play RPGs.

But by changing the RPG genre to non-RPG that means that those people won't actually play a RPG.

I'm really not interested in arguing about whether or not DAII is an RPG. DAII had its failings. Not living up to some "RPG standard" was not one of them.

That was a huge problem. in fact it's the soul reason I did not buy DA2, it's the main problem, it is THE problem. Are you blind?

[Sandmanifest]

That game is called Fable 3 and it didn't work.

Heh heh heh.

I don't know I just remember loving DA:O for going back to that sort of gameplay. KOTOR is one still of my favorite games of all time. I feel like if they wanted to do that, why do it with my traditional Dragon Age? Thats what I loved about it. I guess I feel a bit like they turned their back on me with that move. Again, could be unwarranted, but it doesn't feel like it.

[Mox Ruuga]

Deep_Sea_Diver wrote...

By getting rid of what people who play RPGS like, in other words he's trying to switch one audience for a another.
One with arguably more people, sadly hardcore RPG fans are in the minority now.

This is what I'm afraid of. It won't be an official goal, very likely not even something that they openly admit to themselves, but its there as a sinister undercurrent.

They seem to take even the most inane complaints from non-fans very seriously, while defending obviously FUBAR decisions like the recycled dungeons that their (former) core audience criticises them for.

[Alex109222]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Mike Laidlaw: "We want to alienate our old audience and appeal to the CoD crowd."

No need to make a whole interview about this...

I need a cold bath.

[TJSolo]

I would think that Bioware would know how to please their audience by now not to need to obese over how to theoretically please potential customers.
I also don't see how abbreviations like STR or notions that strength is a modifier for attacks is going to stagnate anything. Evolving implies taking what you do well and using that to survive and excel. What Bioware is doing is copying what others do well and coming up short in execution.
So Mr. Laidlaw and your handlers at EA should just sit back and watch Bethesda and Valve provide actual sequels to theirs games that also evolve to match the strengths of those two genres.

[mesmerizedish]

Alex109222 wrote...

That was a huge problem. in fact it's the soul reason I did not buy DA2, it's the main problem, it is THE problem. Are you blind?

Not at all. I just have an opinion. And unless you want to start comparing RPG credentials, I'll assume that mine is just as valid as yours.

[Aldaris951]

Well don't worry if mike didn't learn from DA2 I'm sure his job will be on the line when EA why DA3 will have crap sales. Because DA2 was crap they have lost peoples trust and blind buys. DA2 might not sell well due to the core game being rubbish to start with.