832 réponses à ce sujet

[Forsakerr]

With a completely new game that kind of "evolution" would have been more accepted than what they did with a great/good selling franchise with some flaws in it, which ended up what we have now with DA2, it was a rush job and they cut corners, dont think that people are too stupid to notice it was rushed, they just wont admit it and try to make us swallow: it is evolution i swear !!

[Alex109222]

Brenus wrote...

Alex109222 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

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.

Just out of curiosity who sells more Bethesda or Bioware?

SphereofSilence wrote...

What Mike said there sounds fair and reasonable. But the question is 'Have you found a successful gameplay formula yet, one that is great for both newcomers and traditional RPGers alike?' The answer is obviously no. It's sitting between an RPG and an action game, it's actually neither of them. You risk losing both set of players.

Absolutely.. I love action games. I should really love DA2's combat, but I don't . Because it's bad combat for an action game, the cooldowns ruin the action. I can't make something awsome happen when I press a button when it's cooling down. As a result it fails me both as RPG combat and as action combat.

Bethesda has the larger fanbase, and since Oblivion their fanbase has gottan ever so larger, one of the most anticipated games this year.

And Bioware would have had an even larger and devoted fanbase if they had kept making games as good as BG2.

Thats true, Bethesda dosen't stop and try to appeal to a larger audiance, as it already has one, Oblivion just gave it that boost. (To the dismay of the TES I II and III fans)

[_Aine_]

good link, thanks.

i think it underscored a couple of valid points:

1) Taking chances in order to keep a story/genre fresh and interesting is needed. Now, whether you think it *worked* or not for DA2, is up to interpretation and I am not getting into my opinion(s) on the matter here in general.... but there you have it.

2) They understand some things didn't work and blatantly and honestly admitted as such, saying also that they use those things to shape what they do moving forward.

They didn't want to give us DA:O2 and didn't. They took a chance. Some chances work fantastically, some work moderately, some almost work and some just don't work out at all.

What you DO with failures as much as successes for certain areas moving forward is really what dictates the future, more than any one success or failure itself.

For example: I totally get what they were trying to accomplish with the companion armour not being upgradeable with found/earned/purchased equipment. But, despite that understanding I HATED IT when I found something fantastic, that would be a " omg that is just perfect for Isabella!" and then... oh yeah, all armour is for me or trash. Yay. *sad face* "Why bother" is how I felt half-way through and didn't even bother reading the stuff anymore unless it was an upgrade for me.

Same thing with companions conversation pacing. I TOTALLY understand the why's of it, because in DA:O you could completely exhaust relationships so easily and early. But I think more balance, having some pivotal conversations paced along a time line and some not paced would do *much* for promoting understanding your characters a bit more and feeling more of a connection than relationships devoid of interaction until the companions themselves decide to speak to you. It felt sterile. (to me) these are just examples. Some people probably *loved* those same feature changes. I don't consider it *bad* just because I personally didn't like it.

I am sure comments/accolades/criticisms are not simply brushed aside for the sake that they exist. i have seen too many changes from DA:O to DA2 that were at the very least *intended* to improve upon comments received from DA:O to believe that to be true.

Just because we are heard though, doesn't mean the "vocal minority" will get their own ways however. I'm a risk taker myself and have failed more times than I have succeeded in life. *shrugs* Some of the best successes come because you were willing to take those risks though. You just have to accept that some risks don't pay out as well as they seemed to in theory.

Modifié par shantisands, 20 mars 2011 - 07:25 .

[MonkeyLungs]

I think if they really want to grab some of those action game fans they need to include an intense multiplayer mode for Dragon Age 3. It wouldn't have to be connected to the game in any way other than the characters, races, clases, spells etc. Just awesome maps, intense PvP action, good net code ... great netcode, and aggressive action to foster a multiplayer community and the will to limit the cheating/hacking that plagues many games on Xbox Live.

[VanDraegon]

Laidlaw's points about evolving are certainly true in todays gaming market. There is a big however to this argument though.

If the trend of rpgs that are more "console-ized" from Bioware continues, if DA3 evolves even more away from the type of rpg DA:O was, well it is going to have some serious negative impacts for the company. The type of gamers that like the more traditional rpgs like DA:O, and the earlier offerings, are going to abandon Bioware. The very type of gamers that bought the early games that made them so successful.

I am certain though that they will more than off set the losses of "traditionalist rpgers" with those who like the faster, trimmed down console type rpg. However, will it bother them to lose those original gamers? Obviously, not all will abandon them but i can certainly see a lot doing so. There is a reason a lot of us stick to gaming on the pc and traditional rpgs were a big draw to a lot of us.  If i wanted an Xbox and a console rpg like god of War or Darksiders, i would already own it.

Modifié par VanDraegon, 20 mars 2011 - 07:31 .

[Alex109222]

88mphSlayer wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...

Alot of CoD players play because of the intense player vs. player competition. They enjoy the game for the shooting mechanics, the guns, the fast paced thrill of trying to survive against HUMAN opponents instead of AI. Also many FPS gamers on Xbox at least play CoD for all those reasons mentioned before and also the game has a massive community. There are always matches to be played and plenty of opponents out there for matchmaking.

Alot of these gamers are guys like my brother who just love the intensity of battling other players. He will not EVER watch a cutscene for a game because to him that stuff is just pure boredom. Thre is nothing wrong with that kind of gamer, those are his tastes and there are awesome games out there for him.. But to try and make an RPG appeal to him you would have to turn it into a a hyper competitve player vs. player instant action type game .. basically not an RPG.

a lot of CoD players don't even play the single player, trying to appeal to the ones who do is kind of futile

CoD is not even the biggest gaming audience out there anyways, not sure why it's such a big target for non-shooter devs

CoD sells millions in one week, companies like Bioware/EA want a slice of that mass money making pie.

[Edli]

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.

and turn peoples who play rpgs away from his games.

[abaris]

One thing I am sure of is I do not want to be in the position and circumstances of Mike. It's a very difficult position to be in, and there may be no way for him to please all sides. He has to take risks. It's not just Mike alone I'm sure.

And by trying to please all sides, you most likely end up sitting between the chairs.

As has been said. They won't win the COD audience, since their game is the multiplayer layer. By watering down a RPG, you only win the game locusts, who eagerly look for the next big sensation on the horizon, once the initial excitment wears off.

[Kendaric Varkellen]

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

I'd rather say he wants to turn people who don't play RPGs into people who play something that loosely resembles a RPG (a.k.a. action RPG or RPG Lite). The key problem here is that those people still wouldn't touch a RPG, a minority of them might eventually try a real RPG and like it but the majority most likely won't.

DA2, in a way, is somewhere inbetween two genres or rather sub-genres without really committing itself to either. It's heavily focused on combat/action in terms of game mechanics, to the point of removing any non-combat skills and severely limiting customization, but tries to have a story focus as well.
If he truly wanted to bring non-RPG players into the RPG genre, they should be developing two seperate product lines rather than what we have now, one for the more action-oriented crowd and one for the more old school crowd. The way it is now, they'll be alienating parts of the fanbase which certainly can't be their goal.

[Alex109222]

Edli 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.

and turn peoples who play rpgs away from his games.

Hello!

[Brenus]

Alex109222 wrote..
Thats true, Bethesda dosen't stop and try to appeal to a larger audiance, as it already has one, Oblivion just gave it that boost. (To the dismay of the TES I II and III fans)

I didnt think that Oblivion was as good as Morrowind, but it was still a huge and highly immersive RPG with plenty of character customisation, plus the modding community foxed a lot of problems that people had with the game.

Bethesda didnt actually try to purposefully dumb the game down, they just made it slightly different.Though it didnt appeal as much to some morrowind fans, most of them still loved the game.

Modifié par Brenus, 20 mars 2011 - 07:28 .

[enrogae]

Forsakerr wrote...

With a completely new game that kind of "evolution" would have been more accepted than what they did with a great/good selling franchise with some flaws in it, which ended up what we have now with DA2, it was a rush job and they cut corners, dont think that people are too stupid to notice it was rushed, they just wont admit it and try to make us swallow: it is evolution i swear !!

Actually, I think if it had been a new game it would have failed miserably.  The franchise is what sold this game... the previous experience we all had with DA:O and looked forward to with a sequel.  However, this game isn't a sequel.  This pretty much is a completely new game, it just has the "skin" of Dragon Age.  A completely new game (not Dragon Age) would have suffered less backlash, however, because it doesn't negatively affect (for many of us) an IP/Skin we came to love in it's predecessor.

[Insom]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

I think if they really want to grab some of those action game fans they need to include an intense multiplayer mode for Dragon Age 3. It wouldn't have to be connected to the game in any way other than the characters, races, clases, spells etc. Just awesome maps, intense PvP action, good net code ... great netcode, and aggressive action to foster a multiplayer community and the will to limit the cheating/hacking that plagues many games on Xbox Live.

It would have to be like Demon's Souls to be any good. That's an intense PVP game online and Demon's Souls players are polar opposites of what they're going for.

[_Aine_]

Maybe I am simple but why try to convert action gamers to RPG-ers. DAO didn't try to convert and probably gained new RPG fans simply through being a FANTASTIC RPG.

If you want action game success, create an action game. If you want RPG success, create a better RPG than you did before.

Quality wins people over at times, rather than familiarity.

But, maybe that is too simplistic and naive. I don't know.

[Big_Choppa]

I think the reason Origins was successful was the fact that people WANTED another Baldur's Gate type of game, not some Mass Effect inspired Dragon Age mod. I sure as hell wanted another Baldur's Gate game and I got Origins which was the closest thing I've gotten in a long time. I'm sick of people sacrificing their core audience to attract others into RPGs. If people like RPGs they will get into it. One of my first RPGs ever was Baldur's Gate and I didn't get into RPGs because it was streamlined.

[Alex109222]

enrogae wrote...

Forsakerr wrote...

With a completely new game that kind of "evolution" would have been more accepted than what they did with a great/good selling franchise with some flaws in it, which ended up what we have now with DA2, it was a rush job and they cut corners, dont think that people are too stupid to notice it was rushed, they just wont admit it and try to make us swallow: it is evolution i swear !!

Actually, I think if it had been a new game it would have failed miserably.  The franchise is what sold this game... the previous experience we all had with DA:O and looked forward to with a sequel.  However, this game isn't a sequel.  This pretty much is a completely new game, it just has the "skin" of Dragon Age.  A completely new game (not Dragon Age) would have suffered less backlash, however, because it doesn't negatively affect (for many of us) an IP/Skin we came to love in it's predecessor.

not to mention those poor people who listened to the reviewrs, (the escapists rated it flawless 10/10 100 on metacritic, you do the math on how that came about.

[TheConfidenceMan]

Wow, so they're really trying to save the genre. How noble! And here I thought they were just dumbing it down.

[Rawgrim]

It will be interesting to see how many copies Skyrim sells. Should be a good indicator on how big the rpg market actually is.

[Big_Choppa]

I couldn't agree more. If Dragon Age 3 is going to be like this, Bioware isn't getting my money. That's hard to say considering I liked Bioware but turning all of their games into something similar to Mass Effect is going to make my head explode. Streamlining is ruining the genre for me. Call me an elitist or a purist, I don't mind.

Modifié par Big_Choppa, 20 mars 2011 - 07:33 .

[lx_theo]

He is COMPLETELY CORRECT.

[88mphSlayer]

Alex109222 wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...

Alot of CoD players play because of the intense player vs. player competition. They enjoy the game for the shooting mechanics, the guns, the fast paced thrill of trying to survive against HUMAN opponents instead of AI. Also many FPS gamers on Xbox at least play CoD for all those reasons mentioned before and also the game has a massive community. There are always matches to be played and plenty of opponents out there for matchmaking.

Alot of these gamers are guys like my brother who just love the intensity of battling other players. He will not EVER watch a cutscene for a game because to him that stuff is just pure boredom. Thre is nothing wrong with that kind of gamer, those are his tastes and there are awesome games out there for him.. But to try and make an RPG appeal to him you would have to turn it into a a hyper competitve player vs. player instant action type game .. basically not an RPG.

a lot of CoD players don't even play the single player, trying to appeal to the ones who do is kind of futile

CoD is not even the biggest gaming audience out there anyways, not sure why it's such a big target for non-shooter devs

CoD sells millions in one week, companies like Bioware/EA want a slice of that mass money making pie.

and Angry Birds has sold over 100 million copies... is Call of Duty going to evolve into a physics minigame?

[MingWolf]

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.

Just quoted ML's statement for reference. The first sentence seems contradictory, as DA2 might every well prove (though probably not quantitatively measured), is the attraction of those "others" while driving away those who "enjoy just that experience." Can genre death really that be risky by catering a game to those who look for something a little more specific?

I understand Mr. Laidlaw's point of view, but I find them rather too idealistic for the masses. If I'm not mistaken, he values changes to the genre to keep people interested, and through "evolving" the genre to make it attractive to those who are turned away by the core foundations of RPGs. In effect, he wants an RPG to turn into something other than an RPG, still call it an RPG, but that would please everyone.

Well, you can't please everyone, that is for certain. I also find a flaw in turning an RPG into something that is not... assuming this is the motivation. You can evolve a game through innovation perhaps--improvement of graphics, dialogue, presentation--but if you change too much, you might run into the trap of losing the foundations of what made RPGs so special in the first place.

[MonkeyLungs]

VanDraegon wrote...

Laidlaw's points about evolving are certainly true in todays gaming market. There is a big however to this argument though.

If the trend of games rpgs that are more "console-ized" from Bioware continues, if DA3 evolves even more away from the type of rpg DA:O was, well it is going to have some serious negative impacts for the company. The type of gamers that like the more traditional rpgs like DA:O, and the earlier offerings, are going to abandon Bioware. The very type of gamers that bought the early games that made them so successful.

I am certainly though that they will more than off set the losses of "traditionalist rpgers" with those who like the faster, trimmed down console type rpg. However, will it bother them to lose those original gamers? Obviously, not all will abandon them but i can certainly see a lot doing so. There is a reason a lot of us stick to gaming on the pc and traditional rpgs were a big draw to a lot of us.  If i wanted an Xbox and a console rpg like god of War or Darksiders, i would already own it.

Nice post. To me it is sad but nobody gives a flip what I think anyway. I've been buying Bioware games since basically the beginning (no Shattered Steel, but I did buy the MDK game they made). If the games get too streamlined I just won't play them anymore. No big loss for Bioware but I've been a fan for a long time.

[Sandmanifest]

Brenus wrote...

I didnt think that Oblivion was as good as Morrowind, but it was still a huge and highly immersive RPG with plenty of character customisation, plus the modding community foxed a lot of problems that people had with the game.

Bethesda didnt actually try to purposefully dumb the game down, they just made it slightly different.Though it didnt appeal as much to some morrowind fans, most of them still loved the game.

This!

[upsettingshorts]

He's talking about creative stagnation, guys. If you make the same game over and over again only the same people will buy it. This isn't anything new from Bioware, I can't think of a single game they've made that wasn't significantly different in a number of ways from its predecessor. Each time some fans jumped ship, and others jumped on. That approach is what got them where they are, not making (insert game here that is your personal favorite). It's one thing to say they made the wrong calls, but it's something else entirely to say that that they shouldn't make them and just keep putting out the same game - which is all Mike Laidlaw says they aren't going to do. Other games, like Madden from EA Sports for example are pretty much the same game year in and year out, and they're criticized for that.

It seems in this industry you're damned for taking risks and damned for not taking them. I think all he's saying is he'd rather be damned for taking them. I can respect that. Doesn't mean I'm going to like every change made, or they'll always hit the mark, but it's not some grand conspiracy or personal attack on vague veteran/hardcore/loyal fans.

Note that I say nothing about the relative quality of DA2 in this post. Only that I think that this thread misrepresents his position.