832 réponses à ce sujet

[TMZuk]

mjboldy wrote...

People seem to not want RPG's to change and to keep the same old formula. Yes then we can suffer the same fate that FPS games are suffering now (Get to this point and KILL KILL KILL. Repeat).

So because that formula is bad for FPS, you think RPGs are evolving when the copy that excact formula? Because that is all DA2 is. (Get to this point and KILL KILL KILL. Repeat). You see the highligt on you map. You go there. You kill. You get xp. Then you repeat this ad nauseum.

I am all for evolving. But narrowing and limiting is not evolving, and that is what DA2 does compared to the original. Look at Bethesda. Bethesda RPGs has always been the anti-thesis of Bioware RPGs. They are huge, they impose very few limits, they encourage exploration. But they have weak stories and very weak NPCs, compared to a Bioware game. However, when you hear Todd Howard - lead designer on TES 5: Skyrim - speak about evolving, he speaks about all the points where the TES games have always been weak.

Wether Bethesda can change that by hiring new people with expertise in this field, as they say they have done, that remains to be seen. But it show that Bethesda has a clear view on where they fail to deliever, and that they attempt to do something about it.

Bioware, on the other hand, has taken all the weaknesses of DA:O and enhanced them. There wasn't a lot to explore in DA:O, so they have less in DA2. The classes was very restrictive in DA:O, so they make them even more restricted and archetypical in DA2. Interaction with and responsiveness of the world, aside from speaking to NPCs, was hardly exisiting in DA:O, so they make it absolutely absent in DA2. They have taken all the flaws of DA:O and enhanced them, promoting them as if they were virtues.

In my opinion it seems counter-productive wanting to evolve, and then follow a path of simplification and restriction.

[lobi]

This is is exactly how Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei started.

[Realmzmaster]

Ah! An interesting conundrum. Some forum mates like the changes that were made and other do not. Some of the established base dislike the changes. Others in the base like the changes and state that if Bioware had not changed, Bioware would have lost them.
Others in the base say Bioware has lost them because of the changes, so what is Bioware to do? Most companies will do what Bioware is trying and that is to expand the base. Whether they succeed or not is the question.
I personally like DA 2 and DA:O. Let me state that I did not think I would like DA 2 after playing the demo.
I purchased the full game and started playing. After getting use to the different combat style I really enjoyed the game. The lack of having to manage my companions armor did not bother me. I was able to customize my companions enough for my taste.
The exploding bodies is cartoony and could have been left out, but not a big deal. The recycled maps did not annoy me. I seen it used in many different cRPGs. If you grew up on Wizardry, Ultima, Might & Magic recycled maps, towns etc are not a big deal.
I like DA 2 because it is not a rehash of DA:O.

[Cutlasskiwi]

Nice and interesting interview. I like that he acknowledge the reuse of areas as a problem and something he want to change if he had the chance.

DA2 is refreshing (to me) and for once we're not fighting against the 'big evil bad guy/girl/monster' like in so many other BioWare games. Something I fully embraced and welcomed. DA2 offered me better characterization than I thought possible and that will keep future playthroughs fun. In the end I cared much more about what happened to Hawke and the followers in DA2 than every character I met in DAO.

[Aneurin_Asrai]

I'm struggling a bit with his argument... It seems to imply that at some point, everyone knew that str meant strength, and that it modified your attacks, but that now we're moving away, to a place where nobody knows this - otherwise how can we have a decreasing knowledge of such a thing?
Why would there have been a time when people had a greater knowledge of Str rules, and why is it any the less now?

Further, successful games can INTRODUCE new players to these ideas. I picked up the original BG, and whilst it took me a while to get a handle on the finer points, its relatively easy to have a tooltip explaining what each characteristic does.

I also don't really understand what the alternative is, if, as he states, players like stats? Introduce simplistic ones: e.g. damage, hit rate, hit points?

[supertouch]

one only has to look at the reception of dragon age: origins to see that their aim was completely misguided. developers need to search for other areas of innovation instead of disrupting the bedrock elements of a series or genre. a sequel that had adhered to a successful formula would have gotten a much warmer reception than the uninspired product we were given. bioware should relegate dragon age 2 to the annals of gaming failures and move on. 

[BlameBot]

supertouch wrote...

one only has to look at the reception of dragon age: origins to see that their aim was completely misguided. developers need to search for other areas of innovation instead of disrupting the bedrock elements of a series or genre. a sequel that had adhered to a successful formula would have gotten a much warmer reception than the uninspired product we were given. bioware should relegate dragon age 2 to the annals of gaming failures and move on. 

They innovated the hell out of that game, according to Mr. Laidlaw. It's the perfect blend of What The Hell Were They Thinking and We Hate Our Core Fans.

Because, you know. We're holding them back.

[Nick Fox]

Sinvx wrote...

quilla.b wrote...

I think Bioware took a big risk changing the mechanics of the Dragon Age franchise. Even with a strong and loyal fan base, they wanted to reach out to a wider audience which caused them to dilute the experience of what made DA:O so great. I say, don't change the formula. Don't fix what isn't broken. Bioware veered away from the vision of the original DA:O and they failed.

If they wanted to experiment on a new RPG concept, they shouldn't have used the brand but instead created a new game title altogether. Don't change the identity of the brand. It's like taking Diablo and making in turn-based. It's a big fail.

BUT I know Bioware will get it right.  This brief stumble won't keep them from making great RPGs.  Their listening to us.  EA back off! 

You do realise what biowares formula has been for the last few games is right? Super awesome hero + Some companions + Main Enemy(Geth/Collectors/DarkSpawn/Sith) + Final Boss. The story is pretty much the same crap, save the world/universe, by fighting through hordes of main enemies, then kill the final boss. They just slap a different theme, and change the names around for characters and places.

DA2 took a new refreshing approach to story telling and gameplay. I am a loyal Bioware fan, and I loved DA2.

PS - Like i've said before, Bioware has stated, that Dragon Age universe isn't about Fereldan and the blight, it's about the Thedas, and all it's places. We aren't going to get more of the same, it's going to change with each new game.

But we may get back some features like companion armor, tactical view, and such. Personally I didn't mind the removal of companion army, just made my companions look identical and silly. If they do bring it back, I hope each piece of gear gives them a unique look, like if you were to have 2 sets of the same gear, equip 2 companions they have their own personal style to it as to looking like twins.

So it's not like they really veered from the original vision, since the prequel wasn't suppose to be the same.

Its ok you can love DA 2 but not everybody does and you have to deal with that.
Personally i dont care to much for the arcade game I find that DA 2 is and prefer by far the DA O,
nothing wrong with that and for folks like me to let their opinion on this sequal is valid even if you find all of us "whiners". Dont put people down just becouse they dont agree with your views of things.
If thats to hard for then just stop reading, cant be to hard. Or you can act like ML...

[OriginalTibs]

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.

...

The culture has changed from what it was. Reading/writing skills have changed. Liberal Arts have become either arcana or marred by misconceived second-hand impressions, and critical thinking is considered a professional specialty.

Laidlaw looks pretty right when he says the RPG genre must adapt to changes in the popular marketbase. We can feel bad about that, but just as language must adapt to changing usage (newspeak), so too must other media.

Us old timers can always retire to the back with our 12-sided dice. Wanna be DM this week?

[AkiKishi]

It occured to me in an earlier post. DA2 is Hawkes mother.

[byzantine horse]

Alex109222 wrote...

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?

You haven't even played it, how can you know?

[Sandmanifest]

Sinvx wrote...

2nd Quote... He still has faith in Bioware, until they make another game that isn't his cup of tea, then he is "Out". He doesn't like the new approach to DA2.

Overall my 2nd Quote wasn't directed at just him, it was directed at all the little babies who cry about something we were told about IN ADVANCE. Saying Bioware is doomed because the Sequel was nothing like the Prequel. It's rediciulous.

Hmm. I like in depth RPG's. I enjoyed Mass Effect 2 because it still had that ME feel to the combat and a decent story in my opinion. Although it did feel a bit too simplified. I remember being put off by the lack of inventory, armor, and items. It seems the only way to wear anything but N7 is to have a download code. Dragon Age Origins was much more in depth than Dragon Age 2. I've been through every inch of 2, which isn't exactly a daunting task. DA2 was even more simplified than ME2. I mean, half the items I come across just have names and GARBAGE can symbols. On top of that, the combat feels rediculous. I feel more like a magician than a Warrior because I can make 80% of the enemies I touch with my sword explode with blood and split into 6 pieces. Not a lot of immersion going on there for me. The quests (especially if you do all of them) feel very back forth back forth ect ect.

Point is, lately Bioware games seem to have a lack of depth. If they keep going in THAT direction, yeah, I am "out". I know I'm certainly not the only one. However, do I think people who really enjoy these games are less intelligent? Of course not. Do I think people who go around calling others who criticize the games "little babies" are less intelligent? Of course I do, but it goes the same the other way around.

[Otterwarden]

OriginalTibs wrote...

The culture has changed from what it was. Reading/writing skills have changed. Liberal Arts have become either arcana or marred by misconceived second-hand impressions, and critical thinking is considered a professional specialty.

Laidlaw looks pretty right when he says the RPG genre must adapt to changes in the popular marketbase. We can feel bad about that, but just as language must adapt to changing usage (newspeak), so too must other media.

Us old timers can always retire to the back with our 12-sided dice. Wanna be DM this week?

Ah, yes, Noob Age is upon us... a true blight.

For those who can't read...visual provided on Page 7 of the Motivational Posters Thread

http://social.biowar...index/6594400/7

[billy the squid]

Otterwarden wrote...

OriginalTibs wrote...

The culture has changed from what it was. Reading/writing skills have changed. Liberal Arts have become either arcana or marred by misconceived second-hand impressions, and critical thinking is considered a professional specialty.

Laidlaw looks pretty right when he says the RPG genre must adapt to changes in the popular marketbase. We can feel bad about that, but just as language must adapt to changing usage (newspeak), so too must other media.

Us old timers can always retire to the back with our 12-sided dice. Wanna be DM this week?

Ah, yes, Noob Age is upon us... a true blight.

For those who can't read...visual provided on Page 7 of the Motivational Posters Thread

http://social.biowar...index/6594400/7

Never!

Now, you will have to excuse me whilst I rail against the decay of modern civilisation, and the debasement of the English language.

[mcha82]

The whole interview reeks of damage control.

[EDarkness]

I just wanted to chime in and say that I understand what Mr. Laidlaw is trying to say, but this kind of thing shouldn't be done with established brands. If they are trying to experiment, then start something new where the framework can be laid down without messing with expectations. I would have no problem playing a game like Dragon Age 2 if it wasn't "Dragon Age". My expectations for what the game was going to be like were already solidified, and while Dragon Age 2 was basically fun, it wasn't really "Dragon Age" to me. It was something completely different.

I've noticed this trend with Bioware recently where they're changing their games with the sequel and it's really getting annoying. I didn't like the changes with Mass Effect 2 and while I purchased a copy of that game, I had no desire to go back to it after I completed it. The experience just wasn't what I had come to expect out of the series. Dragon Age 2 is the same. If this trend continues, then I will stop buying Bioware games, because they're simply not making games I like to play. That's a shame, too, because I've purchased pretty much all of Bioware's games.

I understand going after some new gamers, but it just doesn't make sense to give up on the players they have already. I thought the general idea was to grow, not simply replace.

[Otterwarden]

billy the squid wrote...

Never!

Now, you will have to excuse me whilst I rail against the decay of modern civilisation, and the debasement of the English language.

Seriously though, it does seem that this game has spawned a real life RPG:

Epic struggle:  fighting the masterplan to remove RP from RPGs
Forced to choose sides:  PC or Console
An "illusive man" who can't be trusted:  EA

When they said "Think like a general, fight like a Spartan" they were unawares that many would take that to heart.  I've seen a great many "generals" out there picking up their pens and weilding them.

So, carry on!

Modifié par Otterwarden, 23 mars 2011 - 11:19 .

[Sandmanifest]

EDarkness wrote...

I just wanted to chime in and say that I understand what Mr. Laidlaw is trying to say, but this kind of thing shouldn't be done with established brands. If they are trying to experiment, then start something new where the framework can be laid down without messing with expectations. I would have no problem playing a game like Dragon Age 2 if it wasn't "Dragon Age". My expectations for what the game was going to be like were already solidified, and while Dragon Age 2 was basically fun, it wasn't really "Dragon Age" to me. It was something completely different.

I've noticed this trend with Bioware recently where they're changing their games with the sequel and it's really getting annoying. I didn't like the changes with Mass Effect 2 and while I purchased a copy of that game, I had no desire to go back to it after I completed it. The experience just wasn't what I had come to expect out of the series. Dragon Age 2 is the same. If this trend continues, then I will stop buying Bioware games, because they're simply not making games I like to play. That's a shame, too, because I've purchased pretty much all of Bioware's games.

I understand going after some new gamers, but it just doesn't make sense to give up on the players they have already. I thought the general idea was to grow, not simply replace.

Thanks for saying this, I feel the same way. I don't disagree with Bioware experimenting at all, but why with the game that I loved because of its more... traditional rpg feel. You said it very well though.

[Few87]

BlameBot wrote...

They innovated the hell out of that game, according to Mr. Laidlaw. It's the perfect blend of What The Hell Were They Thinking and We Hate Our Core Fans.

Because, you know. We're holding them back.

So true, all they want is the super cool casual gamer......

[mordarwarlock]

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...

pretty much spot on

bioware is dead as an RPG company, its just that simple

[WilliamShatner]

BobSmith101 wrote...

It occured to me in an earlier post. DA2 is Hawkes mother.

A bad Evil Dead homage at an inappropriate moment? 

[TheKnave69]

The whole thing kind of reminds me of Baldur's Gate II vs. Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance. Follow up a critically successful PC oriented RPG with a console oriented Action-RPG. I'm just saying that for all of the evolution and innovation, it's been done before.

[Cutlasskiwi]

mordarwarlock wrote...

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...

pretty much spot on

bioware is dead as an RPG company, its just that simple

I disagree, it's just that simple. See, it works both ways. 

[Otterwarden]

mordarwarlock wrote...

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...

pretty much spot on

bioware is dead as an RPG company, its just that simple

Well with You Tube game reviewers telling people that want to be able to customize their companions armor that they should just "go buy dolls"  (up in the thread that has just been locked) I must confess that I am truly baffled. 

[Exzander1]

I liked the game, personally. I've definitely played better RPG's, but the game was solid and fun, and I enjoyed it. I respect that they are trying to move "forward" and try to innovate/do some things different, even if it isn't received well.

I believe it was the dev of Kane and Lynch 2 that said:

"could we have added this feature to the combat? Yes. Could we have added this to the game? Yes. Could we have gone this way? Yes. Would it have scored better in reviews? Probably. However, was that the game we wanted to make? No, it was not. We made the game we wanted to make, the product that we wanted to create, that is that."

Keep in mind it's not a direct quote, and I could be wrong about which game dev stated it (pretty sure it was Kane and Lynch 2, though).

Bioware wanted to make their game like this, and so it was done, I can respect that and honestly, I fully enjoyed the game. Few gripes, but mostly it was a solid, fun, enjoyable experience.

Then again, I do play games just to have fun with them, I don't pick and gripe and choose a game based on what it doesn't have or compare it to another game and say "wait, this game doesn't have X feature when Y game does, this is retarded!". I just buy games that look good, play them and enjoy them for what they are, and not take it all so serious.