832 réponses à ce sujet

[SphereofSilence]

shantisands wrote...
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.

I agree. However, I think Bioware could have used testing via a large sample of randomly chosen people to test out those experiments/prototypes and to gain solid feedback from there, reiterate the concepts to a satisfactory level before going into a full production. That way, you stand a better chance of getting it right in the first place.

Well, that's ideal and easier said than done, maybe isn't always possible for various reasons.

I am making a custom mod for Starcraft 2, the best thing about it is that you can get immediate feedback from all the player base, tweak accordingly and release a new version quickly and painlessly via the ready-made online framework that is Battlenet.

[Alex109222]

Blooddrunk1004 wrote...

Oh great whats next?
Is DA III gono be hackn slash with Mass Effect dialogue wheel or Mass Effect 3 striped out of all RPG elements and focusing more on FPS...

I can see that happening. Let's hope they dont try to "evolve" Mass Effect. Maybe just tweak and bring some of the things missed from ME1.

[upsettingshorts]

Blastback wrote...

The problem is that DA2 is a sequal.  That tags it with the expectation that while changes will be made, it will at the same time be faithful to the first installment's experiance. 

I totally respect the desire to avoid creative stagnation, but I don't think the awnser is to make vast sweeping changes from game to game in a series.

That's an issue of expectations, and responding to that would result in a mostly unrelated spiel about Bioware's marketing - not just for this game, in general - and general presentation of their ideas, goals, intentions, and objectives to the public. 

The short version is that because of this, expectations for DA2 weren't so much high as they were very specific.  Specific expectations among the fanbase is a problem, I think, mostly of their own creation. 

But ultimately I think that's different and should be considered apart from the game design stuff.

Alex109222 wrote...

 Let's hope they dont try to "evolve" Mass Effect. Maybe just tweak and bring some of the things missed from ME1.

I'd love for them to evolve Mass Effect by ditching the deeply flawed Paragon/Renegade dichotomy and pasting in DA2's tone icons, just for starters.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 20 mars 2011 - 08:11 .

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Mike is confusing. He sounds so nice and looks like a cute teddy bear but *what* he says actually is...disappointing. Face it, DA:RtP will not make any CoD player stop playing CoD. DA:RtP is not a shooter or action game, it's a mixture of RPG and action game thus cannot satisfy either of the target audiences.

I don't know how many people I represent, but I'm an old-school RPG geek (like, playing D&D out of the white box in 1978 old) who likes the general direction Bioware is moving in RPG design.  I can't comment overall on DA2, as I haven't played it.  I've spent untold hundreds (thousands?) of hours hacking around on RPG design, and my personal conclusion is that RPG's often benefit from jettisoning some of old assumptions about RPG's carried on by rote from old D&D.

Many of the things I see described as fundamental elements of RPG's aren't fundamental at all, at least as far as I'm concerned.  I see the real core elements of an RPG as being things like customization of character, storytelling, the ability to affect story with one's decisions--things like that.  Things like HP and XP systems, inventory, kill-and-loot mechanics, gear emphasis--these aren't definitive elements of the RPG.  Any one of them may be useful in a particular game, but they don't define it.

Personally, I don't see action-oriented combat as necessarily diluting the role-playing experience.  As much as I enjoyed BG2  (and as much of my life as it consumed), I wouldn't necessarily have been opposed to a different camera angle or approach to combat (or a ruleset different from 2nd edition D&D).

If the conversations on the internet RPG sites I visit are any indication, I'm not alone.  How many of me are there?  I have no idea.  Tabletop RPG's define such a niche market, I'm not sure that a large number of tabletop players actually means that many people.  Maybe it's a tabletop thing, but there seems to be a much less rigid concept of RPG's in that part of the field.

For what it's worth, though, I like the streamlining (or "dumbing down", as my presumably more enlightened RPGing brethren may put it), I like the dumping of some non-critical mechanics, and I don't consider isometric view and turn-based combat on a grid to be a defining element of RPG's.

Dunno how I'll feel about DA2 when I get around to it, though.

[enrogae]

Upsettingshorts -- I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because I disagree with pretty much every point you've made. You say I don't value the positive aspects of what they did (what few there are), but you are wrong in your assumptions. I do value the positive aspects of DA:2, even if what I find positive differs from what you find positive.

A choice that you get to make, that has the same outcome no matter what choice you make, is less meaningful... period. It has no meaning if it changes nothing. And less dialogue is less dialogue period... the fact that it's a shorter game only reinforces my opinion here. But what I speak of is the fact that you can't really talk to anyone. You don't get to know your comrades in DA:2 as much as you could in DA:O. Talking to them gets repeated one-liners, much like the one-liners that are repeated by the same NPC's in the cities over the course of 9 years. Really, they just sit in the same spot for 9 years saying the same things?  Also how is having to take a person in your party to their "home base" to talk to them a change that furthers storytelling or enjoyment?  In DA:O you could talk to them anywhere, now you have to go where they live... even if they are in your party?

Ugh... I could make more points, but I'm starting to see that this will not be beneficial for either of us... and is therefore a pointless debate.

Modifié par enrogae, 20 mars 2011 - 08:17 .

[SphereofSilence]

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 agree. Some direction changes they did to DA2, they risk losing both sides.

[88mphSlayer]

SphereofSilence wrote...

shantisands wrote...
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.

I agree. However, I think Bioware could have used testing via a large sample of randomly chosen people to test out those experiments/prototypes and to gain solid feedback from there, reiterate the concepts to a satisfactory level before going into a full production. That way, you stand a better chance of getting it right in the first place.

Well, that's ideal and easier said than done, maybe isn't always possible for various reasons.

I am making a custom mod for Starcraft 2, the best thing about it is that you can get immediate feedback from all the player base, tweak accordingly and release a new version quickly and painlessly via the ready-made online framework that is Battlenet.

testing wouldn't have fixed a lot of the problems tho, good ideas can be let down by bad implementation

LAIR for the ps3 was like this, previews were all glowing with the possibilities, but the end product had terrible controls and bland missions - stuff you can't really tell from a few minutes of playing

which is why step 1 for any game development should be: make a good game, polishing old ideas isn't the end of the world if it means people still love your product, lord knows Call of Duty's entire popularity is based on polishing old ideas

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Blastback wrote...

The
problem is that DA2 is a sequal.  That tags it with the expectation
that while changes will be made, it will at the same time be faithful to
the first installment's experiance. 

I totally respect the
desire to avoid creative stagnation, but I don't think the awnser is to
make vast sweeping changes from game to game in a series.

That's
an issue of expectations, and responding to that would result in a
mostly unrelated spiel about Bioware's marketing - not just for this
game, in general - and general presentation of their ideas, goals,
intentions, and objectives to the public. 

The short version is
that because of this, expectations for DA2 weren't so much high as they
were very specific.  Specific expectations among the fanbase is a
problem, I think, mostly of their own creation. 

But ultimately I think that's different and should be considered apart from the game design stuff.

Alex109222 wrote...

 Let's hope they dont try to "evolve" Mass Effect. Maybe just tweak and bring some of the things missed from ME1.

I'd love for them to evolve Mass Effect by ditching the deeply flawed Paragon/Renegade dichotomy and pasting in DA2's tone icons, just for starters.

what does "friendly" - "sarcastic" - "dick" have to do with deciding the fate of the universe?

"Commander Shepard! Reapers are attacking earth! They're also attacking the Citadel! which one do we defend?!"

Shepard: "i want to be a dragon"

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 20 mars 2011 - 08:16 .

[Galad22]

Thalorin1919 wrote...

Look, you either like the game or not.

If you don't, I suggest you go and find a new RPG.

Oh wait! You comment on how you like The Witcher and stuff, what a surprise!

What are you doing here?

One of the best ways to give Bioware feedback is to be in these forums.

I bet that is why he is here!

[_000Darkstar]

What are you people smoking? DA2 is the same game as Origins. It simply changed some of Origins' shortcomings, i.e. Combat.
Everything that made Origins an RPG is still there... You people make my head hurt.

[billy the squid]

The Corporate wrote...

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.

I think across all platforms DA origins sold almost 4 million, the sales figures are somewhat hard to find, and I agree.

Stagnant RPG fanbase? when Baulder's Gate Came out in 1998 I was 12, a wee wiper snaper, with the attention span of a hamster on speed. Yet, I loved DA origins, but hated DA 2, so how does one equate the idea that the fanbase is declining when in actual fact people, such as myself, who like RPGs are added continuously to the fanbase as the entire genre appeals to a specific type of gamer who grows out of the demented bouncing of sonic the hedgehog and looks for something more involved.

[ExiledMimic]

I have no problem with Bioware experimenting on how to appeal to a larger market with an RPG that attempts to reach out to the FPS crowd.  They are a large company and if they want to expand their market to try it, then by all means: give it a whirl.

However... they should have created an entirely new game to test this out.  Not relied on the popularity of Origins to give them thousands of blind-buys where the new game could have succeeded or failed on it's own merrits.  In fact some of the raw lingering hatred for DA2 is that it's a kick to the scrotum for any die hard RPG fans who really loved the first one.  If they made some new RPG "The Kirkwall Chronicles" or some such, that wasn't tied to DAO's excellent story telling and following, then they could decide what did and didn't work.

Evolving what you make can work.  If done right.  Evolving most gamers sadly doesn't work so well.  Gaming is a hobby and just like a Football guy doesn't want to see people score touchdowns through a hoop, the basketball guy doesn't want you to kick the free-throws in.  Meshing the two together only causes blinding anger and lapses in forum judgement.  As we can plainly see here.  Maybe in DA3 they'll get smart, go back to Origins mode, and produce an RPG built for those who did enjoy DA2.  I don't see why they can't have a series of their own that they can love and enjoy.

Just keep it out of Dragon Age.  Some people who play RPGs absolutely LOATHE FPS games.  After DA2 I'm going to sit on Bioware titles for 2 weeks + until they get my respect back.  In fact most of those who're angry should do the same.

[Alex109222]

_000Darkstar wrote...

What are you people smoking? DA2 is the same game as Origins. It simply changed some of Origins' shortcomings, i.e. Combat.
Everything that made Origins an RPG is still there... You people make my head hurt.

may just be our opinion we are smoking here, but really most of what made Origins and RPG was missing.

[upsettingshorts]

enrogae wrote...

Upsettingshorts -- I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because I disagree with pretty much every point you've made. You say I don't value the positive aspects of what they did (what few there are), but you are wrong in your assumptions. I do value the positive aspects of DA:2, even if what I find positive differs from what you find positive.

No, you're saying the same thing I am - in this paragraph anyway. 

I'll show you in the next paragraph.

enrogae wrote...

A choice that you get to make, that has the same outcome no matter what choice you make, is less meaningful... period. It has no meaning if it changes nothing.

I disagree.  I value that my character in DA2's position and feelings on an issue matters to him and the people around him, even if the outcome remains static.  That's giving my protagonist characterization, it gives my companions characterization through their response.  Whether or not the same thing happens, or similar things happen, ultimately isn't as interesting to me.  So as far as something you value (variation in outcomes) and something I value (opportunities for characterization) goes, I can see why you'd prefer DAO and I'd prefer DA2.  Because neither is consistently good at both.

enrogae wrote...

And less dialogue is less dialogue period... the fact that it's a shorter game only reinforces my opinion here.

Eh... I don't want to get into a thing about hours per playthrough. 

enrogae wrote...

But what I speak of is the fact that you can't really talk to anyone. You don't get to know your comrades in DA:2 as much as you could in DA:O.

Sure you can, and I sure did.  The difference - and I think DG might have addressed this in another thread - is that in DA2 you can't simply chat them up on cue like you could in DAO.  They reveal themselves to you more or less at their own pace, in their own way - and sometimes in more than one way.  If you don't use a companion or simply don't keep up with them, you can miss out on that content more easily than you could in DAO, where you could simply have a sitdown with whoever whenever.  But overall I didn't experience the same lack of connection to the characters in DA2 that others claim to, with one exception:  Fenris.  Because I played a 2HW and simply lost track of the guy.  I'll recitfy that in another game.

enrogae wrote...

Really, they just sit in the same spot for 9 years saying the same things?

Definitely could have been done better.  Though personally to me it's not that much worse repeating the same stuff for months.  I do seem to recall Isabela's oneliner about the hat shop changing over time, but I don't remember a ton of examples.  Some of the banter between characters changed to reflect their personal quests, like Aveline and Donnic or Merrill with the mirror.

enrogae wrote...

 a pointless debate.

They pretty much all are.

88mphSlayer wrote...

what does "friendly" - "sarcastic" - "dick" have to do with deciding the fate of the universe?

You're doing it wrong.

Picking the same direction every time isn't what they intend people to do.  Furthermore there's more than 3 options - though the game only "tracks" three for one liners and such.   Heck I think they should move around the diplomatic/top, sarcastic/right, blunt/bottom thing with every option just to ensure people don't fall into that habit. 

DA2 allows you to play a character who has feelings and positions on things - unlike say, Commander Shepard, who is one of two barely coherent characters. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 20 mars 2011 - 08:24 .

[MonkeyLungs]

_000Darkstar wrote...

What are you people smoking? DA2 is the same game as Origins. It simply changed some of Origins' shortcomings, i.e. Combat.
Everything that made Origins an RPG is still there... You people make my head hurt.

Ummmm???? Origins combat is so much better than DA2 combat it is like night and day for me. What are you smoking (some kind of go-fast? bathtub crank?)

[Dr. Impossible]

What Laidlaw is saying is that their games have to appeal to the lowest common denominator using whatever means necessary. It's not enough for them to sell to people who enjoy RPGs, they must sell to everyone. There's the philosophy that everything has to be "inclusive" and there can't be any learning curves or anything to learn in general.

It becomes too referential or too reliant on people understanding that STR means strength which feeds into accuracy which results in damage done.

Yes, it's not like people new to RPGs can grasp that. It's not like WoW is played by countless people with no prior experience with RPGs. It's not like the concept of STR increasing your damage is easy to understand. And it's not like different genres have different conventions or anything.

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.

They don't play RPGs because they don't like them.

Savior Indra wrote...

I think what he was trying to say is that. In order for anything to survive (whether it be humans, games etc.,) it MUST evolve.

Strategy games, shoot 'em ups, and fighting games etc. have not changed drastically, yet they keep getting played. FPS games are all exactly identical yet they keep selling. There is no need to "evolve" these genres by completely changing them. Because then they are no longer strategy games, shoot 'em ups and fighting games.

Do comedy movies "evolve" by turning into dramas?

[TJSolo]

Point me towards the Bioware sequel that wasn't changed significantly from its predecessor. I don't expect an answer because there isn't one.

I am not familiar with Bioware actually making sequels to their games outside of the influence of EA.(I have not played the BG series.)
The only sequels from BW I am have played are DA2 and ME2, both were produced after EA bought BW and both have obvious large paradigm shifts away from their predecessors. The type of changes that took place in 2years simply is not found in any other successful series.

[AllThatJazz]

enrogae wrote...

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.

And no doubt the experience of many others. Not mine. I thought they succeeded more than they failed in DA2. And even in areas that I don't think they succeeded in, I credit them for giving something different a try. UpsettingShorts and ShantiSands both say this as well as it can be said, and better than I, but I have more appreciation and respect for people who try something new and fall short than for those who keep doing the same old same old because it has a guaranteed audience.

[enrogae]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

They pretty much all are.

Not really.  I've had plenty of discussions that gave me new ideas or ways of looking at things.  You and I seem to be so diametrically opposed, however, in our very core conceptions about what is good storytelling and what we find enjoyable, that this is unlikely to occur.

[Diacre]

so DA has been "evolved"

I think Mike Laidlaw has a strange definition of "evolving".

For me, DA has been destroyed, not evolved.

This game is no more a RPG game. It's not even an action game.
It s juste a game with no story, no dialogue, no customization, crappy graphism, and bad dubbing;

[Blastback]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Blastback wrote...

The problem is that DA2 is a sequal.  That tags it with the expectation that while changes will be made, it will at the same time be faithful to the first installment's experiance. 

I totally respect the desire to avoid creative stagnation, but I don't think the awnser is to make vast sweeping changes from game to game in a series.

That's an issue of expectations, and responding to that would result in a mostly unrelated spiel about Bioware's marketing - not just for this game, in general - and general presentation of their ideas, goals, intentions, and objectives to the public. 

The short version is that because of this, expectations for DA2 weren't so much high as they were very specific.  Specific expectations among the fanbase is a problem, I think, mostly of their own creation. 

But ultimately I think that's different and should be considered apart from the game design stuff.

Alex109222 wrote...

 Let's hope they dont try to "evolve" Mass Effect. Maybe just tweak and bring some of the things missed from ME1.

I'd love for them to evolve Mass Effect by ditching the deeply flawed Paragon/Renegade dichotomy and pasting in DA2's tone icons, just for starters.

Well, what I was trying to get at was how much should a series evolve from one game to the next.  For my money, Bioware is trying to force things to much inbetween games. I don't like the idea of having completely diffrent skill and ability mechanics with each new game.  Like how your stats in ME determined your accuracy only for in ME2 for those to go  away completly.  Or for Rogue skills going from being dependent on skill points in Origins to attributes in DA2.

[VanDraegon]

Blastback wrote...
The problem is that DA2 is a sequal. 

No, it isnt. Bioware have said more than once that DA2 is not a sequal to DA:O. It is meant to stand on its own.

Modifié par VanDraegon, 20 mars 2011 - 08:28 .

[Blooddrunk1004]

_000Darkstar wrote...

What are you people smoking? DA2 is the same game as Origins. It simply changed some of Origins' shortcomings, i.e. Combat.
Everything that made Origins an RPG is still there... You people make my head hurt.

Real questions is "what are you smoking".
DA II is lower then **** compared to Origins.
Recycled areas, horrible ending, weak romances, unable to change companions (armor, robes, clothes etc...), Mass Effect dialogue wheel...

[SphereofSilence]

MingWolf wrote...

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.

Absolutely agree with you here. The question is, how much heavy risks can ML and co can take before they find the not-yet-existing magic formula that will sell even more than Origins? Maybe in the next game, maybe never, who knows. At which point do they stop and say 'Enough is enough. Let's go back to older-style RPGs like Origins'?

[enrogae]

VanDraegon wrote...

Blastback wrote...
The problem is that DA2 is a sequal. 

No, it isnt. Bioware have said more than once that DA2 is not A sequal to DA:O. It is meant to stand on its own.

Then, in my opinion, it shouldn't be called Dragon Age "2".

[stoicsentry2]

The Diablo series is like whip cream; light, fluffy and sweet. A hack and slash masterpiece.

BG II is like a strawberry: rich and full of substance.

EA thought by combining the two they would get strawberries and whip cream.

Instead, they got honey and mustard. Both are nice complimentary substances. Both have their purposes. Together, they are nasty, bitter and vomit-inducing. Dragon Age 2 is the puke of roleplaying games.