832 réponses à ce sujet

[Big_Choppa]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

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.

Same here.

[Insom]

Rawgrim wrote...

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

Well New Vegas sold 5 million copies already. It has a ton more depth than DA2 that's for sure.

[enrogae]

88mphSlayer wrote...

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?

If they could find a way to convince those 100 million people to pay $60 a copy, you bet your *** it would!  Focus on sales numbers will be the death of quality gaming, but unfortunately it is also what drives it. 

[_Aine_]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

Agree 100%.  that is what I took home from the article as well, if perhaps I didn't convey it as concisely.  

[Alex109222]

Rawgrim wrote...

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

The Elder Scrolls fanbase is larger than Biowares, so an outsell there.
But I am curious if The Escapist would rate it 5/5, 10/10 100 on metacritic like they did DA2, although without the big bag of money I think it would be lower.

[MonkeyLungs]

Insom wrote...

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.

Agreed. Also I don't want Dragon Age 3 to be multiplayer. Hopefully people don't send me too much hatemail.

And yeah, Demon Souls gamers are NOT the intended audience for Bioware games. Too punishing.

[AkiKishi]

Insom wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

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

Well New Vegas sold 5 million copies already. It has a ton more depth than DA2 that's for sure.

Really ? I'm pleased. Despite the flaws it did try to go beyond just being a re-done FO3. One of my favourites.

[enrogae]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

The thing is that all of the "changes" they've made in the past have had one core principle behind them... one question Bioware has asked when they made the changes.  "What can we do to tell the story better and make it a more personal, and enjoyable, experience."  I can't imagine they asked that with DA:2, because they didn't tell the story better nor make it a more personal, and enjoyable, experience.  They told the small-scale and limited story worse, and made it less personal and enjoyable.  That is my experience with the game, anyway.

No, I think they asked "What can we do to sell our product to a wider audience." The motives behind their changes are less beneficent, I think, than Laidlaw would have us believe.

[dheer]

His use of "evolve" really does bother me. Evolution is not perfect. There are many mutations that hurt or kill something. Just because he thinks he's "evolving" rpgs doesn't mean the direction he took is the right one.

Turning solid rpg foundations into more of an action console game could very well cause the "genre death" he goes on about.

[Alex109222]

Insom wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

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

Well New Vegas sold 5 million copies already. It has a ton more depth than DA2 that's for sure.

New Vegas was awesome. Has alot of heart when Obsidian is behind it. And there is no company like EA brething down it's neck to appeal to the larger audiance, what Obsidian did was appeal to the olf Fallout and Fallout 2 audiance, and it worked, lots are calling it Fallout 3: New Vegas.

[Blastback]

It's fine to want to experiment with and evolve RPG's.  But Bioware already has a franchise that is doing that, Mass Effect.  Honestly, I don't think that Bioware needs to use both franchises to evolve RPG's. 

For me, part of the problem with what Bioware is doing is that they are trying to evolve to much in to short a time.  Mass Effect was a RPG/Shooter hybrid.  ME2 was a shooter with RPG elements.  That's a pretty sudden change from just one game to another.  A number of the changes from Origins to DA were equaly sudden imo.  It felt forced. 

[Rawgrim]

I don`t really see the logic in going for the CoD crowd as a new audience though. If Bioware wants to make rpgs, and Bethesda (for example) have a larger fanbase with their rpgs...wouldn`t it make more sense to try and go for the fans of The elder Scrolls games, and stuff like that?

[Aesieru]

Insom wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

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

Well New Vegas sold 5 million copies already. It has a ton more depth than DA2 that's for sure.

I don't agree, horribly buggy and bland game in my opinion.

[SirGladiator]

SphereofSilence wrote...

Gavinthelocust wrote...

I hate to say it because Mike is a nice guy, but we need his ass fired if this was all his fault.

IMO, the biggest scapegoat is EA. I think EA's investors wanted more profit returns, citing that DA franchise need to perform better (there's a source somewhere which I can't remember, you can prolly search it up). Thus, they asked BW for a shorter release date and to generate more sales. You can imagine these led the changes of direction for DA2 in the attempt to reach a bigger audience. 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.

I'd look at it a different way.  He was put in charge of the most successful game that Bioware has, they gave him way less time to make a sequel than they had for the first one, to me the logical choice would be to 'not' take any risks at all.  Why completely overhaul the best selling game in your company, 'especially' when you've got such limited time?  Just improve the graphics, tweak a few things here and there (like the improved crafting system which is great), and basicly make DA2 a true sequel with another epic storyline.  Thats the safe thing to do, pretty much guaranteed to result in keeping your DAO fans happy plus gaining new fans due to the better graphics and other little improvements that you do make.  He instead wanted to roll the dice, take the big risks to try to get the big rewards, and it appears that didn't work.  I like the new combat system (of course I liked the old combat system too), I like a lot about DA2, but it does appear he lost a lot more of the core fans than he gained in new ones, and it wasn't because he was in a difficult position, it was just because he wanted to go away from what he, and everybody else, knew was virtually guaranteed to work because it worked so incredibly well last time.  He knew what the core DAO fans wanted, and he chose to give them something different, its as simple as that.

[Imryll]

The problem isn't experimentation and evolution. It's Bioware's tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater (and to toss around gratuitous insults in the process). Bethesda is making huge gameplay changes in Skyrim and by and large fans are in wait and see mode. It's amazing how much difference a we're trying to make the game fun for ALL our fans attitude makes. Not shipping before the game is ready helps, too. Of course, serving thin gruel with attitude gets folks' backs up.

[Sandmanifest]

Blastback wrote...

It's fine to want to experiment with and evolve RPG's.  But Bioware already has a franchise that is doing that, Mass Effect.  Honestly, I don't think that Bioware needs to use both franchises to evolve RPG's. 

For me, part of the problem with what Bioware is doing is that they are trying to evolve to much in to short a time.  Mass Effect was a RPG/Shooter hybrid.  ME2 was a shooter with RPG elements.  That's a pretty sudden change from just one game to another.  A number of the changes from Origins to DA were equaly sudden imo.  It felt forced. 

This is an excellent way to put it, and I agree.

I'm not trying to demonize anybody, just voice where my dissapointment is and get everyone's honest opinion on what was said.

[Faz432]

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

So instead of trying to 'evolve' the RPG genre just make a Great RPG.

Mike needs to seriously consider his position.

[Alex109222]

Rawgrim wrote...

I don`t really see the logic in going for the CoD crowd as a new audience though. If Bioware wants to make rpgs, and Bethesda (for example) have a larger fanbase with their rpgs...wouldn`t it make more sense to try and go for the fans of The elder Scrolls games, and stuff like that?

They could do that but that would mean going and making a whole other game, fadding a first person and thrird toggle would be tough, but no life-long Elder Scrolls fan would go for Dragon Age, just like no dedicated WoWer would go for another MMO. Besides, they don't want to rip off anything that isnt their own game already.

[Curlain]

shantisands wrote...

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.

I don't think you're being simple-minded, and I fully agree.  Products often succeed best by not trying to be all things to all people but rather just focusing on being a quality product, and that brings in new people.

DA:O did bring in new players who had never played that kind of game before, it's financial success was certainly not down to a just load of old school RPGers crawling out of the woodwork.

[upsettingshorts]

enrogae wrote...

That is my experience with the game, anyway.

I think that's the key part of your post right there.  You didn't like what they did, so you don't want to think that their reasons for making the changes they made came from the right place.  

But what if they did?

dheer wrote...

Turning solid rpg foundations into more of an action console game could very well cause the "genre death" he goes
on about.

Hence the whole "damned if you do" and "damned if you don't" thing.  A lot of people around here would rather they be damned if they don't, because hey - they've already demonstrated the ability and willingness to make the same kinds of games, why not more.  But I don't know too many creative types who would pursue that approach. 

Blaming an unpopular change on greed or arrogance is a copout, it makes it easy to dismiss changes without thoughtful consideration.  It's even less useful than throwing around labels like a pitching machine.  Not everyone who has issues with DA2 does this, and those who do not have much more interesting things to say about what went wrong and how it could be improved.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 20 mars 2011 - 07:46 .

[Kendaric Varkellen]

SphereofSilence wrote...
IMO, the biggest scapegoat is EA. I think EA's investors wanted more profit returns, citing that DA franchise need to perform better (there's a source somewhere which I can't remember, you can prolly search it up). Thus, they asked BW for a shorter release date and to generate more sales. You can imagine these led the changes of direction for DA2 in the attempt to reach a bigger audience.

That would be like SWG's scenario when the NGE was developed and basically devolved the game. Basically LucasArts was pushing for a larger subscriber base, SOE followed suit and destroyed the game in the process.

I wonder if we'll see history repeating itself here eventually...

[AkiKishi]

Aesieru wrote...

Insom wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

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

Well New Vegas sold 5 million copies already. It has a ton more depth than DA2 that's for sure.

I don't agree, horribly buggy and bland game in my opinion.

Buggy I get, but why bland?

[The Corporate]

Veex wrote...

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.

The entire premise of this point - that a fanbase for a certain genre (in this case, RPGs) will inherently stagnate and die unless you make fundamental changes to it - is false.

DA:O sold 3 million copies and was, when it was released, the highest grossing BioWare game of all time, despite explicitly appealing to RPG fans. Based on early sales figures, it's set to be more successful than DA2 is likely to be. The idea that appealing to this same set of people will lead to a genre dying is absurd. If that were the case, DA:O would have shrinking sales compared to previous RPG titles, not record-breakers.

Laidlaw put down some transparent marketing patter to justify his attempt to fundamentally alter a series in the persuit of $$$ and you've fallen for it wholesale.

Modifié par The Corporate, 20 mars 2011 - 07:51 .

[Brenus]

Rawgrim wrote...

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

Dont forget the Witcher 2!

[enrogae]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

enrogae wrote...

That is my experience with the game, anyway.

I think that's the key part of your post right there.  You didn't like what they did, so you don't want to think that their reasons for making the changes they made came from the right place.  

But what if they did?

I allow for the possibility that I am entirely incorrect, but I think that if they did -- it would have shown in the product.  My opinion is that the story wasn't told as well, wasn't as "epic" as the first, and wasn't as enjoyable.  How does less dialogue, and less interaction, and less breadth to the story make it better?  How does less-meaningful choces make it more personal?  How does recycled maps make it more enjoyable?  I just don't see how they could be trying to do what I said and end up with this.  I am not trying to rationalize my opinion, because I think my opinion is rationalized with logic in-and-of itself.

Again, I think they were just looking for a wider audience to generate a larger balance of sales.  You are, of course, free to disagree with me, and I respect that.