390 réponses à ce sujet

[Neku054]

OPini wrote...

Q: Why is it no longer possible to manage your party's gear? Why is it that an armor worn by Hawke cannot be given to other characters?

A: There are many benefits of keeping a unique appearance for the companions: it gives them presence during cutscenes and dialogues and it's even useful during combat - they're easier to tell apart that way. I know it limits the possible customization but there are still many other elements you can upgrade such as weapons, accessories and even upgrade the main armor's stats.

i think he meant "we can make money off of people by releasing costume packs later on."

[Stckysixx]

kelsjet wrote...

Filament wrote...
Yeah, I know what the term means, bigot.

If I am a bigot for calling a stove "a stove", then you are a racial supremacist for thinking that this guy should get a free pass.

We were promised a Bioware game. Instead we got 4 levels repeated 50 times with identikit waves of trash mobs to fight. This guy is directly responsible for this (notice the "Lead" in "Lead Level Designer").

If that's not the core definition of "getting jewed", I don't think anything else can be.

I think the people on forums who beleive its (<--uh oh missed the apostraphe, please notify me) ok to bring about the word bigot and "that guys a 4-year old he can't spell fabulooous lololol" need to die and find something relative to the topics to say. For example: Dragon age two is a rushed piece of garbage.

[Brockololly]

Yeah....I want some of that Kool Aid if anyone is trying to paint Kirkwall as even remotely in the same league as the settings of a GTA or Assassin's Creed. BioWare has never made a very convincing city outside of Athkatla in BG2.

These interviews just sort of reinforce the notion that some straight up puzzling design decisions were made on DA2, seemingly ignoring many of the strengths of Origins. I mean, ignoring the fact that Hawke can flaunt blood magic right in front of Templars when Kirkwall is supposed to be a damned Templar stronghold? Come on- BG2 had the Cowled Wizards crack down on magic use in Athkatla, why not the Templars in DA2? Oh, Hawke is just too awesome apparently.

And this gem:

A talking hero is a very strong thing and so is a specific man with a history and family of his own. This is a different approach which meant we had to give up the freedom of the character designs. The team believes that overall this approach is better and develops the genre towards more interesting directions.

Yeah, a fixed protagonist just develops the genre into an on rails wanna be movie. What use is a fixed PC, "personal" story when the player doesn't give a damn about the PC and everything thats supposed to make the story more personal?

[City6]

scpulley wrote...

*facepalm again* Wow.....see this is why I'm scared if they talk about a DA game anytime soon. I REALLY hope this isn't them trying to say 'We got bored writing good games and rolling around in our piles of money so we decided to try making lousy games in the name of creative expression'.

It's odd..... you'd think it would be the other way around: a company moving from mindless hack-and-slash to the complex depth of games like the BG series and PS: Torment, if "freedom of expression" is the issue.


If Bioware has had a secret creative expression bubbling up inside and the result is DA2, apparently their secret desires are for bland and beige. All the wit and genius was clearly boring them.

[Coldest]

Korusus wrote...

OPini wrote...



Q: Could prolonging development time for the game result in a better variety within the city itself and avoiding reused areas, as seen in the game?

A: Obviously, more time would enable more areas and bigger variation. Honestly, we did not expect this to be such a big deal, but it seems the subject gave rise to a significant number of complaints by both critics and players alike. We listen to the reviews and we will try to address the issue in future games.

Not possible.  There's no way they didn't know this would be a huge glaring flaw.  I refuse to believe they're that obtuse.

This.

[Brockololly]

Interviews like this just remind me of some of the quotes I've read in reviews on how the changes in DA are just borderline insulting to player's intelligence. From Worth Playing's review:

It isn't so much consolitis that consigned the sequel to the pit of  disappointment for me, nor is it crying over PC-flavored milk because it doesn't try to harness what the platform is capable of doing. Instead,  the wholesale changes reflect a deeper problem in assuming that your  audience isn't as smart as it was to enjoy the first game. It makes the  only answer that of dumbing down the sharp edges in an effort to appeal  to a wider audience.

Change by itself isn't a bad thing, but there is a thin line between streamlining a game to make it more playable —  e.g., the interface, improvements to inventory handling, party  management or sharpening the underlying technology — and in making  changes that simply insult your audience's intelligence. This is the  same audience — on both consoles and PCs — that relished learning how Origin's combat system worked, pored over each skill tree in planning their  characters, and replayed it over and over again. It wasn't perfect, but  at the same time, it didn't scare enough people away to make it seem  like a tragic mistake.

One can only hope that a future installment will learn these lessons and return the Dragon Age series to the fore with the kind of risk-taking and storytelling that  the first game had handily delivered. It is also difficult to ignore how these sweeping changes pushed Dragon Age into this direction. After so many exploding corpses and fireballs flung around like medieval bullets, Dragon Age II will make me think twice when I see another blood-splashed ad shimmying to guitar riffs and beckoning me to step back into the next dungeon on  Thedas.

Modifié par Brockololly, 23 mars 2011 - 12:33 .

[Stckysixx]

Deified Data wrote...

addu2urmanapool wrote...

"

Q: Blood Magic is a forbidden art in the world of DA2, but the main character uses it freely during the game against civilians and Templars. How is that logical?

A: Well, sometimes you have to give up perfect inner logic to make the game more fun. This is one of these cases. Anyway, this can be explained by the fact that the champion is someone who can do whatever he wants. No one is bold enough to lecture him about that. This is kind of like when the authorities ignore certain crimes because the criminal's aid is of great importance."

Weak!

Is he wrong? The same logic applies to being a mage in general. Why would the Templars let you run around in robes with a staff slung over your back, slinging fireballs? They wouldn't. Would you rather there be no mage option to begin with?

Weak or no, his logic is as close as we'll ever be to an answer. Presumably mage Hawke is subtle enough to lie low during acts I & II, with no one daring to touch him during act III. It follows a certain reason, does it not?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no. It does not. Way to try though.

[2papercuts]

I think hes trolling

Modifié par 2papercuts, 23 mars 2011 - 12:32 .

[aphelion002]

lazuli wrote...

DocDoomII, your images are funny, but the inventory for the DA2 one is almost completely empty, giving it a false appearance of simplicity. I'm not saying the inventory isn't simpler in DA2, I just don't think your images are as accurate as they could be.

Yea, I'm sure the ten rings with identical icons and names that he left out of there would make the DA2 inventory look so much deeper and more nuanced.

[Morroian]

Brockololly wrote...

Yeah, a fixed protagonist just develops the genre into an on rails wanna be movie. What use is a fixed PC, "personal" story when the player doesn't give a damn about the PC and everything thats supposed to make the story more personal?

I gave a damn, more than for any of my wardens.

[DocDoomII]

lazuli wrote...

DocDoomII, your images are funny, but the inventory for the DA2 one is almost completely empty, giving it a false appearance of simplicity. I'm not saying the inventory isn't simpler in DA2, I just don't think your images are as accurate as they could be.

right, better showing the lack of fantasy in icon making  and item naming!


done!

[Mike2640]

I suspect that most of the Bio-Interviews were heavily prepped by their PR department beforehand. He isn't really saying anything that hasn't been said. He thinks their decisions were the right ones, and feels good about the quality of the product they put out. Basically everything Mr. Laidlaw has been saying in all the interviews.

Props for taking the time to translate this, OPini.

[MonkeyLungs]

Comparing their (Bioware's) cities (villages more like) to GTA or AC is really weird. Liberty City is more packed with areas and explorable gamespace than the last 4 Bioware games combined. If he means it in the way that they wanted to keep the game in one location it is still a really bad comparison. When you play GTA, Liberty City unfolds as you play the game to try and give players a chance to not feel absolutely lost. Players get around Liberty City in a vehichle and move quie fast and the city is still MASSIVE.

Bioware doesn't even make towns or villages that compare to those found in Two Worlds. In fact Bioware's level design is, and has been since they swiitched to 3D, way way below the standard of games like Two Worlds.

[John Epler]

Unsurprisingly, racial slurs are not acceptable on these forums.

[Merced652]

I'm amazed people are defending this.. i.. i.. yikes. 

Modifié par Merced652, 23 mars 2011 - 12:43 .

[slimgrin]

contown wrote...

God, this is bad...

This is embarrasing. They probably need to take a break from the interviews because their answers to some of the hard questions aren't helping things.

[tmp7704]

OPini wrote...

The interview is entirely in Hebrew so I assumed most people here never saw it (and if I'm wrong and it has been published here before then forgive me). So for the people here interested to hear about some more developer interviews I translate here some of the most important parts of the interview:

Thank you very much for taking your time to do that

[aphelion002]

slimgrin wrote...

contown wrote...

God, this is bad...

This is embarrasing. They probably need to take a break from the interviews because their answers to some of the hard questions aren't helping things.

Yea, I'm surprised their PR department is even allowing this. 

[gonzalovm]

OPini wrote...

Q: Does every battle consist of enemy waves? What is your answer for all those people that claim the lack of ability to know the number of waves and where they will pop up causes a battle that consists of reactions instead of tactics and planning?

A: Part of the tactical game is adapting to changes. The waves might feel different, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. I do not agree with those that think the wave pattern is terrible as of itself, but I do agree that there are things it's possible to do in order to improve the use of the waves. We can use them less often and improve the breeding mechanic, for instance. All in all I think the waves are an excellent addition to the game.

Q: Why is the tactical game view unavailable in this game? Is the reason technical, aesthetic or a design problem?

A: Support for upper angle of view means creating the graphics in such a way that'll enable cutting the upper parts of the geometry, when you use that option. This causes a decline in quality because it's impossible, or at least very hard, to create the same environments in this way. In short - it was a difficult decision but we believe it was right.

Q: Blood Magic is a forbidden art in the world of DA2, but the main character uses it freely during the game against civilians and Templars. How is that logical?

A: Well, sometimes you have to give up perfect inner logic to make the game more fun. This is one of these cases. Anyway, this can be explained by the fact that the champion is someone who can do whatever he wants. No one is bold enough to lecture him about that. This is kind of like when the authorities ignore certain crimes because the criminal's aid is of great importance.

Q: Why is it no longer possible to manage your party's gear? Why is it that an armor worn by Hawke cannot be given to other characters?

A: There are many benefits of keeping a unique appearance for the companions: it gives them presence during cutscenes and dialogues and it's even useful during combat - they're easier to tell apart that way. I know it limits the possible customization but there are still many other elements you can upgrade such as weapons, accessories and even upgrade the main armor's stats.

*FACEPALM*

[Persephone]

addu2urmanapool wrote...

"

Q: Blood Magic is a forbidden art in the world of DA2, but the main character uses it freely during the game against civilians and Templars. How is that logical?

A: Well, sometimes you have to give up perfect inner logic to make the game more fun. This is one of these cases. Anyway, this can be explained by the fact that the champion is someone who can do whatever he wants. No one is bold enough to lecture him about that. This is kind of like when the authorities ignore certain crimes because the criminal's aid is of great importance."

Weak!

No weaker than using blood magic in front of Wynne and her not caring. Or turning Wynne herself into a blood mage & her not piping up at all.<_<

[L33TDAWG]

I can definetely say I would rather have saved my money for Crysis 2 or the ME2 Arrival DLC.

[Morroian]

Brockololly wrote...

Interviews like this just remind me of some of the quotes I've read in reviews on how the changes in DA are just borderline insulting to player's intelligence. From Worth Playing's review:

It isn't so much consolitis that consigned the sequel to the pit of  disappointment for me, nor is it crying over PC-flavored milk because it doesn't try to harness what the platform is capable of doing. Instead,  the wholesale changes reflect a deeper problem in assuming that your  audience isn't as smart as it was to enjoy the first game. It makes the  only answer that of dumbing down the sharp edges in an effort to appeal  to a wider audience.

Change by itself isn't a bad thing, but there is a thin line between streamlining a game to make it more playable —  e.g., the interface, improvements to inventory handling, party  management or sharpening the underlying technology — and in making  changes that simply insult your audience's intelligence. This is the  same audience — on both consoles and PCs — that relished learning how Origin's combat system worked, pored over each skill tree in planning their  characters, and replayed it over and over again. It wasn't perfect, but  at the same time, it didn't scare enough people away to make it seem  like a tragic mistake.

Meh, using dumbing down is an automatic reduction in credibility. As for the second paragraph above IMHO character construction in terms of planning abilities is more complex in DA2 than in DAO for those who like that side of it, some aspects are streamlined some are more complex. If one is not motivated to go too deep into that planning because other changes that they don't like have had a de-motivating effect well thats a different thing.

[aphelion002]

Persephone wrote...

addu2urmanapool wrote...

"

Q: Blood Magic is a forbidden art in the world of DA2, but the main character uses it freely during the game against civilians and Templars. How is that logical?

A: Well, sometimes you have to give up perfect inner logic to make the game more fun. This is one of these cases. Anyway, this can be explained by the fact that the champion is someone who can do whatever he wants. No one is bold enough to lecture him about that. This is kind of like when the authorities ignore certain crimes because the criminal's aid is of great importance."

Weak!

No weaker than using blood magic in front of Wynne and her not caring. Or turning Wynne herself into a blood mage & her not piping up at all.<_<

That was horrible too. But this game it stands out more because of the story and setting. At least in Origins there were consequences when first obtaining the reaver and blood mage specializations. Here its entirely glossed over as simply another gameplay mechanic, that you have access to instantly, to boot.

[Merced652]

Morroian wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

Interviews like this just remind me of some of the quotes I've read in reviews on how the changes in DA are just borderline insulting to player's intelligence. From Worth Playing's review:

It isn't so much consolitis that consigned the sequel to the pit of  disappointment for me, nor is it crying over PC-flavored milk because it doesn't try to harness what the platform is capable of doing. Instead,  the wholesale changes reflect a deeper problem in assuming that your  audience isn't as smart as it was to enjoy the first game. It makes the  only answer that of dumbing down the sharp edges in an effort to appeal  to a wider audience.

Change by itself isn't a bad thing, but there is a thin line between streamlining a game to make it more playable —  e.g., the interface, improvements to inventory handling, party  management or sharpening the underlying technology — and in making  changes that simply insult your audience's intelligence. This is the  same audience — on both consoles and PCs — that relished learning how Origin's combat system worked, pored over each skill tree in planning their  characters, and replayed it over and over again. It wasn't perfect, but  at the same time, it didn't scare enough people away to make it seem  like a tragic mistake.

Meh, using dumbing down is an automatic reduction in credibility.

Is this a personal thing or something society has agreed upon and left me out?

[Crash_7]

Those two articles go to demonstrate just how badly the ageing 360 is holding back gaming. If they had designed the damned box properly in the first place MS wouldn't have lost over a billion in recall costs. The consolers would of had a new console by now and RPGs could be RPGs once more.