832 réponses à ce sujet

[lady constance]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

lady constance wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

I like most of the improvements in DA2. Anyone who says it is not as tactical as DAO are completely blinded by butthurt fanrage, anyone who says it significantly shorter than DAO are completely blinded by butthurt fanrage, and anyone who says it looks bad are just blind period.

I know where BW were trying to take the series, and when taking that first step in evolving a franchise, mistakes can be made. These mistakes mainly being the lack of companion customisation, copy and pasted dungeons, lack of explorable locations (Outside Kirkwall), limited dialogue with companions, lack of strong emotional bonds with Hawkes family, and a sometimes an unreliable dialogue wheel. These things can be improved upon dramatically in DA3, and some could have been done if they didn't have the deadline set by EA.

The absolutely ridiculous gripes that some have with this game, however, just comes down to extreme butthurt fanrage.

Completely false. I recall the developers themselves saying DA2 was a shorter game than Origins.

Significantly. 

And it really depends, took me 40 hours to beat all of DAO, i'm still in Act 2 in DA2 and have just reached the 40 hour mark.

I feel DA2 is significantly shorter than Origins  DA2 took me about 30 hours while Origins took me 66, haha.

[Otterwarden]

Medhia Nox wrote...

For myself - I have decided that I will simply look to other companies (other chess clubs) who are not catering to newcomers in such a cut and dry fashion.

In the end - it is their choice who to sell to, but it is my choice to no longer purchase their products. My time on the boards is simply a mourning period - I'll get my aggravation about Dragon Age 2 out - then I'll move on and play any number of fantastic games.

Nicely put.  Feel the same way.

[AtreiyaN7]

Ashr4m wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...
evolution

Which would still mean trying to get better in the RPG-genre (which would most likely also mean getting more complex). So goign action actually isnt evolution because evolution tries as you said to claim niches and not to go mainstream because of obvious reasons.

@Thread
There is nothign wrong with Japanese RPGs. People are even annoyed by the gameplay-mechanics changing all the time. I think japanese RPGs show that RPGs are about story. Mechanics stay rather constant while story changes all the time. RPGs are like books they dont need to be totally different in every aspect, they just need to do something interresting when it comes down to story and characters.

Ah, another person who wants to try to throw evolution around without really understanding it. You can snip my post, but that doesn't change the reality of how evolution actually works. It's not about the creation of ever more complex systems for the sake of increasing complexity. It's about adaptations that ensure survival.

It can mean that games become more accessible and less specialized in order to ensure that the genre survives and grows. Did you know that there are plants that have evolved to be so specialized that they will go extinct if the insect/bird that pollinates them dies out? Complexity of a process (like the aforementioned plant reproduction seen in, say, an orchid species) isn't necessarily better just because it's so difficult and specialized.

[Persephone]

That whole interview was a fascinating read. Good to see him talk about the pros & cons of DA2 and good to see that they are taking feedback seriously. Good interview, all in all.

[Aermas]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Ashr4m wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...
evolution

Which would still mean trying to get better in the RPG-genre (which would most likely also mean getting more complex). So goign action actually isnt evolution because evolution tries as you said to claim niches and not to go mainstream because of obvious reasons.

@Thread
There is nothign wrong with Japanese RPGs. People are even annoyed by the gameplay-mechanics changing all the time. I think japanese RPGs show that RPGs are about story. Mechanics stay rather constant while story changes all the time. RPGs are like books they dont need to be totally different in every aspect, they just need to do something interresting when it comes down to story and characters.

Ah, another person who wants to try to throw evolution around without really understanding it. You can snip my post, but that doesn't change the reality of how evolution actually works. It's not about the creation of ever more complex systems for the sake of increasing complexity. It's about adaptations that ensure survival.

It can mean that games become more accessible and less specialized in order to ensure that the genre survives and grows. Did you know that there are plants that have evolved to be so specialized that they will go extinct if the insect/bird that pollinates them dies out? Complexity of a process (like the aforementioned plant reproduction seen in, say, an orchid species) isn't necessarily better just because it's so difficult and specialized.

Things will devolve & evolve for survival.

[Korusus]

Thalorin1919 wrote...

I hope he's still the Lead Designer for DA3. This guy knows what he's doing, imo.

Absolutely! I mean, why not?  He only managed to oversee the creation of BioWare' lowest rated game yet.  And he did it while alienating legions of BioWare loyalists and essentially tarnishing BioWare's good name in the industry.  And early sales indications suggest his early-on inane design decisions not only failed to increase the genres market share, but actually underperformed compared to all of BioWare's most recent releases, especially on PC (the prefered platform for Dragon Age: Origins).

It seems to me that Mr. Laidlaw is going to have to defend his position sometime in the near future.  You can argue that some of his decisions contributed just as much to how DA2 turned out as did as EA's rushed schedule (especially if they were made before DA:O even released as the article implies).  Not only that, but does anyone really buy his excuses about the recycled areas?  He didn't think going through the same cave over and over again 20 times would be noticeable because it has more background clutter?

[Sandmanifest]

I question the assumption that the RPG genre is in jeopardy. RPG's are not game pollution. RPG's aren't going to die.

On a separate note I agree with what Medhia Nox said about the mourning period. Bioware will have to earn back my respect. No more reserving their games that's for sure. Not until I come across one a really enjoy.

[upsettingshorts]

Sandmanifest wrote...

I question the assumption that the RPG genre is in jeopardy. RPG's are not game pollution. RPG's aren't going to die.

That's not what he said.

[Sandmanifest]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sandmanifest wrote...

I question the assumption that the RPG genre is in jeopardy. RPG's are not game pollution. RPG's aren't going to die.

That's not what he said.

Was responding to an above post

[Merced652]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sandmanifest wrote...

I question the assumption that the RPG genre is in jeopardy. RPG's are not game pollution. RPG's aren't going to die.

That's not what he said.

Then why is he worried about genre death? Its like me frantically modifying my life around the assumption the sun will not rise, and so i must somehow adapt so that i might live. If anything the "rpg" genre is so stupidly diverse that it could stand to converge a little, just not with other genres. 

Modifié par Merced652, 21 mars 2011 - 06:34 .

[AtreiyaN7]

Aermas wrote...

Things will devolve & evolve for survival.

And the evolutionary process sometimes dictates the casting off of useless things. You keep trying though.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 21 mars 2011 - 06:38 .

[lady constance]

Sandmanifest wrote...

I question the assumption that the RPG genre is in jeopardy. RPG's are not game pollution. RPG's aren't going to die.

On a separate note I agree with what Medhia Nox said about the mourning period. Bioware will have to earn back my respect. No more reserving their games that's for sure. Not until I come across one a really enjoy.

RPG's it will survive

[Kilshrek]

This is a "what cost victory" sort of thing. Sure, you want to bring more people in, sure you want to give the genre more exposure, sure you have to sell games to make more games. Where does one line begin and one line end though? Where is the Role Playing Game, and where is the Role-Play Game?

The easiest example would be Origins where you decided who your character is, as opposed to DA 2 where who you play has been decided for you. Admittedly who you are in Origins doesn't make too much of a difference, but if anyone has played Arcanum (that wonderful, slightly flawed game) or similar games would know. I think DA 2 is veering away from the RPG path, but not for its own good. Call it traditional, call it holding on to dying ideals, whatever you like. Mass Effect caters rather nicely to those who want some RPG with their role play as Shepard, DA 2 need not do the same.

I'm not saying I don't like DA 2 but so many things that were not broken now have been, in varying degrees.

[Merced652]

i liked how in arcanum if you had really low int score you talked or acted like a caveman, was hilarious and appropriate.

[AtreiyaN7]

Ashr4m wrote...

No you just fail to apply it to games. Tactical RPGs are a niche, when they loose elements, they will have more competition (Action-RPGs and maybe even Adventure games) if they travel further down this path maybe even FPS games with roleplay elements. So if the niche RPGs are in is about not being Action-RPGs then it wouldnt make sense to cast of elements, yes evolution can work like this aswell i never said something different, but it seems rather unlikely here since there arent that many instances when the evolution of something just takes over a different niche.

But i think the point here is, that we have different views on RPGs right now, i dont think RPGs have to fighit for survival, there will always be people playing RPGs. I even think it will be the other way arround, by the trend to make everything an FPS which will get ppl fed up pretty soon people will even try to find niche games.

First of all, I was responding to Aermas's tortured attempt at twisting the evolutionary process in biological organisms to meet his own narrow interpretation of the word (an interpretation that I consider incorrect). Secondly, mentioning "survival" is perfectly applicable to a game genre. However, that was actually ancillary to my original point which is that in games, evolution does not necessarily mean that a game should grow ever more complex over time - not even when it comes to a tactical RPG. Sometimes, complexity isn't necessarily desirable.

[DA2 Trolled Me]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Hey look everyone!!  It's a Biodrone! 

Hi Biodrone!

Having fun trolling topics telling people their opinions are wrong little Biodrone?

[Kastagir]

Trust a Bioware employee to translate "we didn't have time to make a proper game" to an "intriguing thought experiment." Do they honestly think that only unthinking, uneducated dolts buy their games? These people deserve to be unemployed.

[Satyricon331]

Korusus wrote...
It seems to me that Mr. Laidlaw is going to have to defend his position sometime in the near future.  You can argue that some of his decisions contributed just as much to how DA2 turned out as did as EA's rushed schedule (especially if they were made before DA:O even released as the article implies).  

While I think some of your points go too far, here I agree.  They spent so much time revamping the engine despite the time limit EA apparently gave them that Bioware shoulders some of the blame for the rushed feel.

And as I recall, DAA was the first game to implement some of Mike Laidlaw's ideas about accessibility, and critics didn't view it very favorably, either.  Admittedly, it had some expansion-pack issues quite apart from some of the accessibility "evolution," but it's kind of a pity that ML & co. are clinging to their paradigm despite having tried their ideas twice now without critical success.

Also, I posted this on the other thread about this interview, but since this thread's about the genre death specifically:

The interview just makes me sad. He seems to be happy with the anime direction they gave the rogues and warriors, and he takes his idea that the genre needs to adapt to new market demand in really strange directions. His idea that the DA games should vary in their gameplay each iteration, or nearly so, is really going to undermine DA. If you need to add life to the genre by varying up gameplay, it would make more sense to identify each niche and have a different sequence of games for each one (like Mass Effect for one, DA for another, etc.), since then consumers would know what to expect and could sort themselves. It would still allow for some change, but not as much as Laidlaw is implying. If you vary a single IP from game to game too much, you're just going to alienate people. They won't know what to expect, and they'll move to games and media that provide more consistently positive experiences. 

Or, perhaps he's just providing a veneer of rationalization for the move from DAO to DA2, and plans to leave things largely in the neighborhood of DA2's gameplay, which he appears to prefer. [...]

I really think ML is miscalculating if his goal is to prevent creative stagnation in the genre.  

[AlanC9]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...
First of all, I was responding to Aermas's tortured attempt at twisting the evolutionary process in biological organisms to meet his own narrow interpretation of the word (an interpretation that I consider incorrect). Secondly, mentioning "survival" is perfectly applicable to a game genre. However, that was actually ancillary to my original point which is that in games, evolution does not necessarily mean that a game should grow ever more complex over time - not even when it comes to a tactical RPG. Sometimes, complexity isn't necessarily desirable.

That's pretty accurate. As a wargamer, i've seen complexity come and go in waves; the complexity peaks haven't been notable for producing better simulations or better games than other eras.

[Aermas]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Things will devolve & evolve for survival.

And the evolutionary process sometimes dictates the casting off of useless things. You keep trying though.

Sent you  a message telling you how you are wrong so we do not off-topic this thread

[Dr. Impossible]

_000Darkstar wrote...

The story makes sense in the setting it's placed in. It feels right. Creating another cave map wouldn't have added a whole lot to that.

You could justify a lot of things this way. Like, why allow you to upgrade your equipment when it doesn't add anything to the story?

The wheel gives more dialogue options than the list did and simply looks better (but that's a matter of personal taste).

Uh huh.

I also believe the paraphrase system is better than having the full dialogue typed out for me to read, and then have it read back to me.

Worked fine in Grim Fandango.

Meltemph wrote...

Story driven old school mechanic CRPG's have just not grown enough, apparently, for big budget companies to justify the expenses that come with what is expected in games, nowadays.

There are fewer expenses when you don't have voice acting and cutscenes and the game is played from an isometric perspective. There is less stuff to render, and the environments, models and textures don't have to be so complicated. It could even use pre-rendered backgrounds.

Modifié par Dr. Impossible, 21 mars 2011 - 08:12 .

[delikanli]

DA2 Trolled Me wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Hey look everyone!!  It's a Biodrone! 

Hi Biodrone!

Having fun trolling topics telling people their opinions are wrong little Biodrone?

exactly

[AllThatJazz]

Laidlaw is right in that the CRPG genre is self-referential, it's probably the most self-referential of all game genres. It can be hard to get into RPGs (certainly the 'meatier' ones) if you aren't already familiar with the various rules & mechanics of the more traditional games. It isn't that people aren't capable of understanding, with a bit of effort, it's just that many don't necessarily want to expend effort in order to relax and have fun (which is, after all, the point of video games, no?). I doubt I would have picked up Baldur's Gate (not that BG was terribly complex) had I not already been familiar with d&d (Thac0 what? Armour class what? An amulet that decreases my armour class? Is this a good thing? whats a 1d4? ) And even being familiar with d&d, I still managed to spend a decent amount of time looking at the various tables in the manual.


I do understand why so many dislike the changes, and I share some of the dislikes, but Mr Laidlaw makes some valid points.