832 réponses à ce sujet

[Brenus]

Brenus wrote...

Im completely sick of any IDIOT that uses the term evolution to defend the changes in DA2.

Go and bloody look up what evolution is - in a nutshell its a very slow genetic process which occurs over thousands of years and many many generations in organic lifeforms.

Immensely dumbing down a video game genre to become as lame as DA2 over the time frame of 2-20 years is not evolution, its pure and simple dumbing down because the people who developed the game are clueless ****s.

To quote myself. People who use the word evolution to defend the immense dumbing down in DA2 seriously have something wrong with their brain.

A real genetic evolution / alteration that is anywhere near as unfavorable as DA2 would be something like Down's Syndrome or Cystic Fibrosis.

[KLUME777]

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.

If you can call DA2 an RPG. I call it a bad action game.

[Balerion84]

Mike Laidlaw and the rest of BioWare need to grow a pair, make up their minds what they want to do and then come out and say it. If they want to move to consoles and make action games/action rpgs, fine, but hiding behind obvious lies like "death of genre" looks like a lack of backbone to me.

OMIGOSH PC IS DEAD.
OMIGOSH ADVENTURES ARE DEAD.
OMIGOSH classIC RPGS ARE DEAD.

Funny. Origins sold pretty well for a DYING genre on a DEAD platform. And don't get me started on the reception of DA:O and the "Evolution" that is DA2.

Modifié par Balerion84, 21 mars 2011 - 10:47 .

[AkiKishi]

I'm sure I posted this further up but anyway. I don't think it's the mechanics that make Bioware games "fail" it's the story/character design. You can't play a Bioware game without the story in the same way you can play other games FF's , Oblivion etc.
A lot of those have more complex mechanics, but what they don't have is a story that is more or less the game.

If Bioware are going to go mass market, then the change will be fundamental, because they have been using the same game template since BG.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Sandmanifest wrote...

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

Easy. Stop making RPG then. Why bother with evolution if action adventure is already there in the market for a long time?
There're reason why D&D rules are introduced. Although, the rules were revised from time to time it's purpose is as guideline to make better RPG. But if this rules are to be stripped down further and further till nothing is left, then what are the purpose of creating an RPG? Arcade Adventure games has no rules. You can twist it anyway you like. You can make movie interaction with it and nobody going to be angry. Nobody cares.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 21 mars 2011 - 10:59 .

[AkiKishi]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Easy. Stop making RPG then. Why bother with evolution if action adventure is already there in the market for a long time?
There're reason why D&D rules are introduced. Although, the rules were revised from time to time it's purpose is as guideline to make better RPG. But if this rules are to be stripped down further and further till nothing is left, then what are the purpose of creating an RPG? Arcade Adventure games has no rules. You can twist it anyway you like. You can make movie interaction with it and nobody going to be angry. Nobody cares.

I think you get a lot more cross over now. If we took Gauntlet as the baseline for action/adventure. Todays action adventures are character driven. Uncharted for example is all about Drake. The only thing missing are some conversation choices and level up's and it would be straying into RPG territory.

If you compare it to JRPG then the line is even more blurred. It has the same narrative with gameplay that JRPGs have. Even though it's classed as an "Action Adventure". It's got a lot things that make for a good RPG. Strong characters, expansive levels etc. What it does not have are "growth" mechanics. Drake is only ever as good as you are.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 21 mars 2011 - 11:05 .

[Kilshrek]

While I am loathe to pull up 'old news' :

Another interview(last question) has Mike saying that they didn't design a game to appeal far and wide. Slightly disingenuous considering there was a target of 10 million units shipped (which is no bad thing on its own surely) but I'm not sure some of these changes are really justified, and this article discusses some.

I believe a fear here is that the game will be watered down until it will no longer be the RPG it was intended to be, in the name of being more accessible to the 'everyman'. And why would people be wrong to fear? Streamlining has hit everything, and while it is not necessarily a bad thing, button = awesome combat is in my opinion. The game world's lack of response to you is one of them. Nobody cares what your specialisations are, you don't even have to work for them, you just level along. The uninspiring codex is another victim of the streamlining process, and perhaps even item flavour text? The world has lost some of its richness I feel.

I suppose it must be said that I'm not hitting out at the team for working hard to bring us this game, but expressing my concern at the possible direction the game is heading in.

[King_Theoden]

I think developers are misinterpreting "evolving" as meaning "streamlined and simpler." Bioware has always made games for RPG players, and RPG players love stats, highly customizable characters, and big open areas to explore. When a game like DA2 comes out, and it limits character customization (no race selection, skills like crafting are gone, etc), uses rehashed dungeons for every area, and limits the explorable area to one city, its nothing more than catering to a perceived "wider audience" that Bioware thinks are put off by "hard core RPG's."

Look at the Elder Scrolls series. Every new installment they give you less and less skills to choose from when making your character. I hear rumors that in ES5: Skyrim they combined the security and sneak skills. So, I can't make a loud hulking warrior who happens to be good at picking locks? And if I want to create a sneaky assassin, he must now also excel at lock picking?

[AkiKishi]

King_Theoden wrote...

I think developers are misinterpreting "evolving" as meaning "streamlined and simpler." Bioware has always made games for RPG players, and RPG players love stats, highly customizable characters, and big open areas to explore. When a game like DA2 comes out, and it limits character customization (no race selection, skills like crafting are gone, etc), uses rehashed dungeons for every area, and limits the explorable area to one city, its nothing more than catering to a perceived "wider audience" that Bioware thinks are put off by "hard core RPG's."

Look at the Elder Scrolls series. Every new installment they give you less and less skills to choose from when making your character. I hear rumors that in ES5: Skyrim they combined the security and sneak skills. So, I can't make a loud hulking warrior who happens to be good at picking locks? And if I want to create a sneaky assassin, he must now also excel at lock picking?

This is true. However it looks like Bioware have reached a cross roads either because.

1. Those sales numbers can no longer support the games they want to make.
2. They see CoD sell 7 million in a day and want some of that.

[Pcrews]

Dragon Age 2 could have been great, even as an action rpg. There are many reasons it failed and they were more due to Laziness and bad ideas than the combat.

[Nozybidaj]

King_Theoden wrote...
Look at the Elder Scrolls series. Every new installment they give you less and less skills to choose from when making your character. I hear rumors that in ES5: Skyrim they combined the security and sneak skills. So, I can't make a loud hulking warrior who happens to be good at picking locks? And if I want to create a sneaky assassin, he must now also excel at lock picking?

  That's not really how it will work at all.  But anyway....

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

But if this rules are to be stripped down further and further till
nothing is left, then what are the purpose of creating an RPG? Arcade
Adventure games has no rules. You can twist it anyway you like. You can
make movie interaction with it and nobody going to be angry. Nobody
cares.

Agreed.  I think there would probably be less negative reaction if they just came out and said "Sorry, no more rpg's.  We are making interactive story adventures for now on.".  Then this supposed "target audience" of folks that Mike talked about that won't play RPG's that they want to buy their games will finally take a chance on their games.

[Brenus]

BobSmith101 wrote...

King_Theoden wrote...

I think developers are misinterpreting "evolving" as meaning "streamlined and simpler." Bioware has always made games for RPG players, and RPG players love stats, highly customizable characters, and big open areas to explore. When a game like DA2 comes out, and it limits character customization (no race selection, skills like crafting are gone, etc), uses rehashed dungeons for every area, and limits the explorable area to one city, its nothing more than catering to a perceived "wider audience" that Bioware thinks are put off by "hard core RPG's."

Look at the Elder Scrolls series. Every new installment they give you less and less skills to choose from when making your character. I hear rumors that in ES5: Skyrim they combined the security and sneak skills. So, I can't make a loud hulking warrior who happens to be good at picking locks? And if I want to create a sneaky assassin, he must now also excel at lock picking?

This is true. However it looks like Bioware have reached a cross roads either because.

1. Those sales numbers can no longer support the games they want to make.
2. They see CoD sell 7 million in a day and want some of that.

1) I thought that DAO was eally successful in terms of sales numbers?
2) Yet most RPG fans hate games like COD, and the last thing they want is to see their games become like that. Also, the last thing that COD fans would probably want to do is play DAO / DA2.

DA2 doesnt appeal to DAO / BG fans, and no, I really dont see how it would appeal to COD fans. If those reasons are why Bioware made DA2 how it is, then yes, Bioware are totally freaking bonkers.   

[AkiKishi]

Brenus wrote...
1) I thought that DAO was eally successful in terms of sales numbers?
2) Yet most RPG fans hate games like COD, and the last thing they want is to see their games become like that. Also, the last thing that COD fans would probably want to do is play DAO / DA2.

DA2 doesnt appeal to DAO / BG fans, and no, I really dont see how it would appeal to COD fans. If those reasons are why Bioware made DA2 how it is, then yes, Bioware are totally freaking bonkers.   

1.I'd say so , but we don't know how that translates to profit.
2. Completely agree I don't play CoD because I don't like "real" war games. But I play Killzone so I don't really have any anti FPS bias.

You and me both... BIoware seem to have gone off the deep end somewhat between DA and DA2.

[Brenus]

Quoted instead of editing by mistake.

Modifié par Brenus, 21 mars 2011 - 12:06 .

[Dr. Impossible]

BobSmith101 wrote...

I think you get a lot more cross over now. If we took Gauntlet as the baseline for action/adventure. Todays action adventures are character driven. Uncharted for example is all about Drake. The only thing missing are some conversation choices and level up's and it would be straying into RPG territory.

I have not played Uncharted but I'm pretty sure it's about action and adventure. Not a character.

In fact, I don't think a "character-driven" game is even possible. How would that work?

[Brenus]

I dont play FPS games because I love RPG gameplay. And by RPG games I mean stuff like BG, TES, and yes, Diablo 2. I simply find running around and shooting things in the head completely boring.

The closest games to an FPS that I enjoyed was Deus Ex, and Giants: Citizens Kabuto (which I liked because it was really funny).

I dont care if the games are the same and not evolving, if they lose any of the depth, character development or gameplay, then they are becoming WORSE to me, not better.

Modifié par Brenus, 21 mars 2011 - 12:06 .

[Clammo]

Brenus wrote...

Brenus wrote...

Im completely sick of any IDIOT that uses the term evolution to defend the changes in DA2.

Go and bloody look up what evolution is - in a nutshell its a very slow genetic process which occurs over thousands of years and many many generations in organic lifeforms.

Immensely dumbing down a video game genre to become as lame as DA2 over the time frame of 2-20 years is not evolution, its pure and simple dumbing down because the people who developed the game are clueless ****s.

To quote myself. People who use the word evolution to defend the immense dumbing down in DA2 seriously have something wrong with their brain.

A real genetic evolution / alteration that is anywhere near as unfavorable as DA2 would be something like Down's Syndrome or Cystic Fibrosis.

Hey, I have CF and dealing with that isn't half as bad as playing DA2.

This game isn't evolution, it's the opposite, it's regression on pretty much all fronts with the exception of graphically (not artistically though!).

[Shinimas]

Faz432 wrote...

If a product is great it will sell, end of.

Not at all. Marketing has a huge impact on sales, be at advertising or the timing of release, building up the fanbase before the game comes out etc.

And then the accesibility. Mcdonalds doesn't serve great food, but it's tasy, fairly cheap, tidy but not fancy.

Finally, great is subjective too. Especially in the industry of entertainment, after all, there is no wrong point of view on such products, it's whether a person enjoys it or not.

[AkiKishi]

Brenus wrote...


I dont play FPS games because I love RPG gameplay. And by RPG games I mean stuff like BG, TES, and yes, Diablo 2. I simply find running around and shooting things in the head completely boring.

The closest games to an FPS that I enjoyed was Deus Ex, and Giants: Citizens Kabuto (which I liked because it was really funny).

I dont care if the games are the same and not evolving, if they lose any of the depth, character development or gameplay, then they are becoming WORSE to me, not better.

I enjoy stories, that was the reason I was drawn to RPGs in the first place. What mechanic gets wrapped around the story I don't really mind. It used to be RPGs had the best stories, but other geners are now catching up, even if the story is separate from gameplay unlike in an RPG.

Nothing shocked me quite as much as the ending of Killzone 3, and that's an FPS.

Dr. Impossible wrote...
I have not played Uncharted but I'm pretty sure it's about action and adventure. Not a character.

In fact, I don't think a "character-driven" game is even possible. How would that work?

The gameplay is action adventure, the cinematics are about the character.

It's character driven in the sense that Drake drives the game, he's the protagonist. Without Drake it would be a different story.
Yakuza is another example, if that helps any.Especially the new one, where you can now see events from other characters points of view (by playing as them).

Modifié par BobSmith101, 21 mars 2011 - 12:16 .

[Dr. Impossible]

BobSmith101 wrote...

It used to be RPGs had the best stories, but other geners are now catching up.

RPGs were, for a long time, dungeon crawlers with paper-thin plots. It was adventure games that had the elaborate stories.

Even if the story is separate from gameplay unlike in an RPG.

What does this mean?

It's character driven in the sense that Drake drives the game, he's the protagonist. Without Drake it would be a different story.

You could say that about almost anything. If Samus Aran was a scientist in a wheelchair, I bet the game would be a little different.

Modifié par Dr. Impossible, 21 mars 2011 - 12:18 .

[Kilshrek]

Clammo wrote...

Hey, I have CF and dealing with that isn't half as bad as playing DA2.

This game isn't evolution, it's the opposite, it's regression on pretty much all fronts with the exception of graphically (not artistically though!).

My friend's daughter has CF too, hearing some of the things he has to deal with.. I can appreciate what you're saying there. This discussion has gone off on a tangent somewhat I feel.

But I disagree with the all fronts regression, the story and companions is your usual great Bioware stuff, Hawke works in DA 2, and since we've already been set up for this Hawke had better return for DA 3. No more character switching, please. The game certainly has been prettied up compared to Origins, but drop the spiky armour fetish(and comical Darkspawn) and we've got a good thing going. Companions having their own armour is okay, having to pick up various upgrades from around town, buying and discovering them, is a nice twist. The inability to have a full conversation with a companion other than plot related ones is very disappointing though. Where I feel the game has gone wrong is the warp speed combat along with the annoying waves, and minimilisation/streamlining of items/inventory/codex entries. And teleporting mages. Very naughty.

[cephasjames]

BobSmith101 wrote...

This is true. However it looks like Bioware have reached a cross roads either because.

1. Those sales numbers can no longer support the games they want to make.
2. They see CoD sell 7 million in a day and want some of that.

I think its a little of both. And part of 2 is true because all of 1 is true. Whether they are trying/wanting to sell 7 million in a day, I don't know. I think reality says it can't happen with an rpg.

[Brenus]

Kilshrek wrote...

My friend's daughter has CF too, hearing some of the things he has to deal with.. I can appreciate what you're saying there. This discussion has gone off on a tangent somewhat I feel.

Sorry, CF / Downs Syndrome are nowhere near as bad as DA2 is

This discussion is comply relevent and valid, because its Bioware afterall that are comparing DA2 to evolution.

[Soul Cool]

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...

You are not special because you have bought a BioWare game. They are not obliged to make something you want to play, just as you are not obliged to buy something from them because they make it. Go buy stock if you want them to listen to you. (Unless you already own it, of course, and what are you doing here if you do? Go complain!)