476 réponses à ce sujet

[Baelyn]

moilami wrote...

Baelyn wrote...

moilami wrote...

Baelyn wrote...

Abraxas11 wrote...

I've certainly seen a fair amount of feedback that says, "I couldn't play Origins, I thought it was too slow, the story was too plodding, too typical, and Dragon Age II is awesome by comparison!"

I forgot the kubler-ross model...what comes after denial?

Edit: Sorry, didn't link www.eurogamer.net/articles/biowares-mike-laidlaw-a-defence-of-dragon-age-ii-interview

Did you guys miss where the developers took statistics on the amount of people that started DA:O and didn't finish it?

They were clear from the start that this bothered them and they wanted to make a less intimidating game to people who aren't familiar/used to RPG's.

I don't get how people can say "Man I couldn't even finish DA2 because it was so bad/I didn't like it/it wasn't Origins" etc....but then in the next thread..."Man anyone who couldn't finish origins must be a dumb console-playing mouther breathing retard." 

Who the hell can say in straight face DA was intimidating. Or if average "gamer" can say so, then I really don't know what to say. I have a picture though. A picture of big baby being spoonfed.

Example:

Me (a motorcyle enthusiast) : Man who can say riding a motorcyle is intimidating? You just ride it like a bike but use the throttle and clutch and have to shift gears.

A person who was never even ridden a bike: Uhhhh

To a person that has not ever played anything similar to an RPG (I.E. Someone who has only played a game like God of War where you simply have to press buttons in succession to execute combos and go through the linear levels) introducing them to system of attributes, talents, inventory, party management, crafting, skills, yes...will be intimidating for most. Its not that they are dumb (just as someone who has never ridden a bike before isn't dumb) its just that they are limited in their experience.

So please. Get off your RPG high horse. You are no more intelligent for playing RPG's than Joe Console is for playing God of War.

Hahahahaha, I am certainly more intelligent than you. There is no doubts of that. First practical proof of is that I would had never done so freakingly stupid analogy like you did.

You can't ever compare motorcycles and RPGs in intimidating factor. If you drive a motorcycle it is real thing and serious stuff and you can kill yourself with it or break the bike causing financial losses. There is tons of power available (depending of the bike) with just a little twist of wrist - suddenly you have 150 horses in front of you pulling you forward.

In video game you have no threats to your safety.

Those two things are not comparable in any level.

Motorcyclist for life here (and been that before you were even born).

(Spam facepalm removed)

Does it make you feel better to think that you are more intelligent than me? If it does, by all means go ahead and think that! 

And my analogy is sound. No analogy is exactly perfect in every way and in no way did I infer that I was comparing the physical threat to playing an RPG, rather the mechanics. Either one would discourage someone not familar with the concepts to endure it.

Also, never did I say that YOU weren't familiar with motorcycles. But nice try.

And, do you have psychic powers too? How could you possibly know how old I am or how long I have been riding? 

[Nick Fox]

Baelyn wrote...

moilami wrote...

Baelyn wrote...

Abraxas11 wrote...

I've certainly seen a fair amount of feedback that says, "I couldn't play Origins, I thought it was too slow, the story was too plodding, too typical, and Dragon Age II is awesome by comparison!"

I forgot the kubler-ross model...what comes after denial?

Edit: Sorry, didn't link www.eurogamer.net/articles/biowares-mike-laidlaw-a-defence-of-dragon-age-ii-interview

Did you guys miss where the developers took statistics on the amount of people that started DA:O and didn't finish it?

They were clear from the start that this bothered them and they wanted to make a less intimidating game to people who aren't familiar/used to RPG's.

I don't get how people can say "Man I couldn't even finish DA2 because it was so bad/I didn't like it/it wasn't Origins" etc....but then in the next thread..."Man anyone who couldn't finish origins must be a dumb console-playing mouther breathing retard." 

Who the hell can say in straight face DA was intimidating. Or if average "gamer" can say so, then I really don't know what to say. I have a picture though. A picture of big baby being spoonfed.

Example:

Me (a motorcyle enthusiast) : Man who can say riding a motorcyle is intimidating? You just ride it like a bike but use the throttle and clutch and have to shift gears.

A person who was never even ridden a bike: Uhhhh

To a person that has not ever played anything similar to an RPG (I.E. Someone who has only played a game like God of War where you simply have to press buttons in succession to execute combos and go through the linear levels) introducing them to system of attributes, talents, inventory, party management, crafting, skills, yes...will be intimidating for most. Its not that they are dumb (just as someone who has never ridden a bike before isn't dumb) its just that they are limited in their experience.

So please. Get off your RPG high horse. You are no more intelligent for playing RPG's than Joe Console is for playing God of War.

Sure you can try and make rpg's for folks who dont usually play them, the smarter thing to imho is to make rpg's for....folks who likes em and play them. If somebody wants to try a new game gengre its up to them to get into the game, no ? Instead you want to change the gengre to oblige them. Quite strange imho!
Sure thing you can make a game for those but not in a supposed sequal to one of the biggest old school games of all time, thats just not smart.
Ofc there will be an outcry then.

Modifié par Nick Fox, 23 mars 2011 - 08:35 .

[supertouch]

Baelyn wrote...

moilami wrote...

Baelyn wrote...

Abraxas11 wrote...

I've certainly seen a fair amount of feedback that says, "I couldn't play Origins, I thought it was too slow, the story was too plodding, too typical, and Dragon Age II is awesome by comparison!"

I forgot the kubler-ross model...what comes after denial?

Edit: Sorry, didn't link www.eurogamer.net/articles/biowares-mike-laidlaw-a-defence-of-dragon-age-ii-interview

Did you guys miss where the developers took statistics on the amount of people that started DA:O and didn't finish it?

They were clear from the start that this bothered them and they wanted to make a less intimidating game to people who aren't familiar/used to RPG's.

I don't get how people can say "Man I couldn't even finish DA2 because it was so bad/I didn't like it/it wasn't Origins" etc....but then in the next thread..."Man anyone who couldn't finish origins must be a dumb console-playing mouther breathing retard." 

Who the hell can say in straight face DA was intimidating. Or if average "gamer" can say so, then I really don't know what to say. I have a picture though. A picture of big baby being spoonfed.

Example:

Me (a motorcyle enthusiast) : Man who can say riding a motorcyle is intimidating? You just ride it like a bike but use the throttle and clutch and have to shift gears.

A person who was never even ridden a bike: Uhhhh

To a person that has not ever played anything similar to an RPG (I.E. Someone who has only played a game like God of War where you simply have to press buttons in succession to execute combos and go through the linear levels) introducing them to system of attributes, talents, inventory, party management, crafting, skills, yes...will be intimidating for most. Its not that they are dumb (just as someone who has never ridden a bike before isn't dumb) its just that they are limited in their experience.

So please. Get off your RPG high horse. You are no more intelligent for playing RPG's than Joe Console is for playing God of War.

are you suggesting every company make half-baked training wheel rpgs? if a person likes a tried and true rpg formula, then so be it. if not, he can stick to something else. 

[Baelyn]

Nick Fox wrote...

Baelyn wrote...

moilami wrote...

Baelyn wrote...

Abraxas11 wrote...

I've certainly seen a fair amount of feedback that says, "I couldn't play Origins, I thought it was too slow, the story was too plodding, too typical, and Dragon Age II is awesome by comparison!"

I forgot the kubler-ross model...what comes after denial?

Edit: Sorry, didn't link www.eurogamer.net/articles/biowares-mike-laidlaw-a-defence-of-dragon-age-ii-interview

Did you guys miss where the developers took statistics on the amount of people that started DA:O and didn't finish it?

They were clear from the start that this bothered them and they wanted to make a less intimidating game to people who aren't familiar/used to RPG's.

I don't get how people can say "Man I couldn't even finish DA2 because it was so bad/I didn't like it/it wasn't Origins" etc....but then in the next thread..."Man anyone who couldn't finish origins must be a dumb console-playing mouther breathing retard." 

Who the hell can say in straight face DA was intimidating. Or if average "gamer" can say so, then I really don't know what to say. I have a picture though. A picture of big baby being spoonfed.

Example:

Me (a motorcyle enthusiast) : Man who can say riding a motorcyle is intimidating? You just ride it like a bike but use the throttle and clutch and have to shift gears.

A person who was never even ridden a bike: Uhhhh

To a person that has not ever played anything similar to an RPG (I.E. Someone who has only played a game like God of War where you simply have to press buttons in succession to execute combos and go through the linear levels) introducing them to system of attributes, talents, inventory, party management, crafting, skills, yes...will be intimidating for most. Its not that they are dumb (just as someone who has never ridden a bike before isn't dumb) its just that they are limited in their experience.

So please. Get off your RPG high horse. You are no more intelligent for playing RPG's than Joe Console is for playing God of War.

Sure you can try and make rpg's for folks who dont usually play them, the smarter thing to imho is to make rpg's for....folks who likes em and play them. If somebody wants to try a new game gengre its up to them to get into the game, no ? Instead you want to change the gengre to oblige them. Quite strange imho!
Sure thing youi can make a game for those but not in a supposed sequal to one of the biggest old school games of old time, thats just not smart.

Well I think the idea Nick (whether they succeeded or not) was to try to get the best of both world's. It seems like Bioware wanted to have their cake and eat it too so to speak. From my standpoint, they succeeded. I am an avid RPGer almost playing RPG there has been with the exception of EVE (just...couldn't...do it) I enjoy all the features of "hardcore" RPG's and I enjoyed DA2 very much. With the obvious flaws aside (bugs, reused levels, etc) I think they provided a mesh very well. Is it a hardcore RPG like BG? No. Is it exactly what they said it was going to be, an RPG that was accessible to more than just the hardcore RPG fans? I think so.

[Baelyn]

supertouch wrote...

are you suggesting every company make half-baked training wheel rpgs? if a person likes a tried and true rpg formula, then so be it. if not, he can stick to something else. 

I'm not suggesting anything. Just responding to what they said they set out to do with DA2. Never did I once say it was good or bad. Only that I think they succeed in creating an "accessible" RPG. 

I would never suggest every company make the same of any type of game. Diversity makes things interesting. I for one do not want to play games exactly like Dragon Age 2 all the time, and conversely do not want to play games exactly like Baldur's Gate all the time either.

[Gatt9]

TJSolo wrote...
a) I know EA used the EAspybot for DAO, so I know they have some data on something. I do know that the way their data is gathered is prone to error and missing a median.

Of course it is the reason to justify the changes. That has been seen time and time again by the suits from EA Bioware. 


What they really thought is not what I am commenting on. I am saying the data gathered is inconclusive yet still  used to as conclusive support for the changes.

If you read the level designer's interview linked here and currently on the front page,  he specifically comments that DA2 was already designed and being worked on before DAO released,  when these changes were decided upon,  there wasn't any data yet.

Bioware didn't use data to make these decisions,  they made them for some other reason before they even knew how well DAO would sell.

Personally,  my money is on EA.  I strongly suspect EA made it clear they do not make RPGs.

[Nick Fox]

[/quote]

Sure you can try and make rpg's for folks who dont usually play them, the smarter thing to imho is to make rpg's for....folks who likes em and play them. If somebody wants to try a new game gengre its up to them to get into the game, no ? Instead you want to change the gengre to oblige them. Quite strange imho!
Sure thing youi can make a game for those but not in a supposed sequal to one of the biggest old school games of old time, thats just not smart.


[/quote]

Well I think the idea Nick (whether they succeeded or not) was to try to get the best of both world's. It seems like Bioware wanted to have their cake and eat it too so to speak. From my standpoint, they succeeded. I am an avid RPGer almost playing RPG there has been with the exception of EVE (just...couldn't...do it) I enjoy all the features of "hardcore" RPG's and I enjoyed DA2 very much. With the obvious flaws aside (bugs, reused levels, etc) I think they provided a mesh very well. Is it a hardcore RPG like BG? No. Is it exactly what they said it was going to be, an RPG that was accessible to more than just the hardcore RPG fans? I think so.

[/quote]

Glad you liked it, apparantly though it seems many "old schoolers" did not, wich isnt so strange to me at all.
I view DA 2 more like an updated version of Golden Axe rather than anything erlse really.
Dont hate, but not going to finish it either.

To answer your Q if DA 2 is easier to get into for people that havent played rpg's before. Absolutley becouse its not an rpg imo (well it is but extremly light). However that wasnt the game BW annonced, they annonced DA 2 and thats the problem here. They lied and wanted my money (got em too, but not again) and now they are in the middle of a rock and a hard place. Maybe they bring in enough new players to replace their old fanbase, but I highly doubt it. And for what purpose ? change just to change...strange.
Got nothing against inovative devs but this time BW screwed up big time, for me at least.
So you see from my point of view this wasnt a sucess at all, and in the long run BW will see that to. Thats what I think anyway.

[TJSolo]

Gatt9 wrote...

TJSolo wrote...
a) I know EA used the EAspybot for DAO, so I know they have some data on something. I do know that the way their data is gathered is prone to error and missing a median.

Of course it is the reason to justify the changes. That has been seen time and time again by the suits from EA Bioware. 


What they really thought is not what I am commenting on. I am saying the data gathered is inconclusive yet still  used to as conclusive support for the changes.

If you read the level designer's interview linked here and currently on the front page,  he specifically comments that DA2 was already designed and being worked on before DAO released,  when these changes were decided upon,  there wasn't any data yet.

Bioware didn't use data to make these decisions,  they made them for some other reason before they even knew how well DAO would sell.

Personally,  my money is on EA.  I strongly suspect EA made it clear they do not make RPGs.

You sir are correct. Thank you for pointing that out.

[Johnsen1972]

Nothing will change in the Dragon Age license.
After reading the interview Im convinced that Mike doesnt even try to understand what the fans critisize.

Not buying any other dragon age follow ups. BYE MIKE.

[Baelyn]

TJSolo wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

TJSolo wrote...
a) I know EA used the EAspybot for DAO, so I know they have some data on something. I do know that the way their data is gathered is prone to error and missing a median.

Of course it is the reason to justify the changes. That has been seen time and time again by the suits from EA Bioware. 


What they really thought is not what I am commenting on. I am saying the data gathered is inconclusive yet still  used to as conclusive support for the changes.

If you read the level designer's interview linked here and currently on the front page,  he specifically comments that DA2 was already designed and being worked on before DAO released,  when these changes were decided upon,  there wasn't any data yet.

Bioware didn't use data to make these decisions,  they made them for some other reason before they even knew how well DAO would sell.

Personally,  my money is on EA.  I strongly suspect EA made it clear they do not make RPGs.

You sir are correct. Thank you for pointing that out.

Do you have proof that it was during this developmental stage that they instituted these specific changes? Just because they started "story-boarding" the game before DA:O's official launch hardly means they decided the entirety of the changes between the two.

[Merced652]

Rough timeline of events:

EA/Ray says make console gaemz
Brent says fu i'm outz
Laidlaw's like lol bye scrub, time to make mah mastapiece
Gaider and co are like good i didn't want to have write a bunch of cool story anyway
Level designers were like brb afk
DA2 comes out

i left out some very important people in this process for fear of my life.

[truestatic]

I'm who Laidlaw was talking about.

[Baelyn]

truestatic wrote...

I'm who Laidlaw was talking about.

Is it just more or is this a brilliant idea for a t-shirt? 

[fn_outlaw]

Baelyn wrote...


Do you have proof that it was during this developmental stage that they instituted these specific changes? Just because they started "story-boarding" the game before DA:O's official launch hardly means they decided the entirety of the changes between the two.

They really don't "story board" games, per se.  They create what's called a Game Design Document, which IS EVERYTHING about the game.  Less focus on story, more on functionality/the overall piece. RARELY do they design in parts and pieces. They may 'brainstorm', but at any point after the 'Development Process' has begun, generally means that the GDD has already been submitted and the state of the game is already decided. They don't just decide to add things on the fly. The dev team, for the most part, MUST stick to the GDD.

Edit
Should the dev team deviate from the GDD, it creates the possibility of the publisher withdrawing their support.  Basically, Bioware presents EA with a document that outlines DA2 in its entirety.  EA says "Yes, make this game."
Bioware takes EA's investment and creates the game.  Imagine reading a box cover for a DVD that says "top gun", but when you get it home, it's blazing saddles.  EA would be pissed if there was just  batant variations from the GDD.

Modifié par fn_outlaw, 23 mars 2011 - 10:11 .

[CRISIS1717]

Baelyn wrote...

truestatic wrote...

I'm who Laidlaw was talking about.

Is it just more or is this a brilliant idea for a t-shirt? 

How about "press a button, something awesome happens" with a picture of Sandal underneath? 

[dheer]

CRISIS1717 wrote...

Baelyn wrote...

truestatic wrote...
I'm who Laidlaw was talking about.

Is it just more or is this a brilliant idea for a t-shirt? 

How about "press a button, something awesome happens" with a picture of Sandal underneath? 

"Press a button, something awesome happens" with Sten's face saying "No" would work too.

[Baelyn]

fn_outlaw wrote...

Baelyn wrote...


Do you have proof that it was during this developmental stage that they instituted these specific changes? Just because they started "story-boarding" the game before DA:O's official launch hardly means they decided the entirety of the changes between the two.

They really don't "story board" games, per se.  They create what's called a Game Design Document, which IS EVERYTHING about the game.  Less focus on story, more on functionality/the overall piece. RARELY do they design in parts and pieces. They may 'brainstorm', but at any point after the 'Development Process' has begun, generally means that the GDD has already been submitted and the state of the game is already decided. They don't just decide to add things on the fly. The dev team, for the most part, MUST stick to the GDD.

Edit
Should the dev team deviate from the GDD, it creates the possibility of the publisher withdrawing their support.  Basically, Bioware presents EA with a document that outlines DA2 in its entirety.  EA says "Yes, make this game."
Bioware takes EA's investment and creates the game.  Imagine reading a box cover for a DVD that says "top gun", but when you get it home, it's blazing saddles.  EA would be pissed if there was just  batant variations from the GDD.

I realize this (hence why story boarding was in quotes there.) This still doesn't confirm that they came up with the GDD before getting data back from origins. Whenever you hear them mention the work on DA2 before Origin's launch its very clear it was VERY basic concepts (I.E. Where do we want to take the story....who will be the player character etc) 

Since the GDD is what is pitched to the publisher, we have no confirmation that EA "green-lit" DA2 before Origins release and its highly unlikely Bioware would have pitched it until more time had passed since Origins release further causing me to lean toward these design changes coming AFTER getting feedback from Origins (makes much more of an impact on a pitch when you can say "Here is what it is and here is our reasons for making these changes based on what we are hearing from the Origin's feedback)

Modifié par Baelyn, 23 mars 2011 - 10:25 .

[WilliamShatner]

Pr3ying M4nt15 360 wrote...


But everything else is just blatant whining. So crafting has been dumbed down. Cry me a river... everything in the game has been streamlined to be more fun and the story breaks the mold of a traditional RPG storyline which also made people mad. You can't win. Bioware needs to ignore this minority and focus on the people who will make money... the mainstream the people who really enjoyed Dragon Age 2 more than Origins.

But DA:O is way more fun than DA2.

[billy the squid]

Lord_Valandil wrote...

BeljoraDien wrote...
It's actually from DA3. There are going to be a lot of improvements like that.

I swear it...
If they announce multiplayer for DA3 I'm going to pick up a torch and march to their headquarters.
Who's with me?

I'll get the pitch forks

[Cuthlan]

billy the squid wrote...

Lord_Valandil wrote...

BeljoraDien wrote...
It's actually from DA3. There are going to be a lot of improvements like that.

I swear it...
If they announce multiplayer for DA3 I'm going to pick up a torch and march to their headquarters.
Who's with me?

I'll get the pitch forks

Because multiplayer absolutely RUINED Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate 2, and NWN.

[Merced652]

Cuthlan wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Lord_Valandil wrote...

BeljoraDien wrote...
It's actually from DA3. There are going to be a lot of improvements like that.

I swear it...
If they announce multiplayer for DA3 I'm going to pick up a torch and march to their headquarters.
Who's with me?

I'll get the pitch forks

Because multiplayer absolutely RUINED Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate 2, and NWN.

True, but the respective DnD systems at the time limited rather severely how powerful any one player could be. DA2 that is certainly not the case. Can you imagine 4 2h warriors running around? All you'd see is a cloud of red mist, hell thats all i saw in 90% of the battles and i only ran with my own warrior.

Modifié par Merced652, 23 mars 2011 - 11:11 .

[Cuthlan]

Merced652 wrote...

Cuthlan wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Lord_Valandil wrote...

BeljoraDien wrote...
It's actually from DA3. There are going to be a lot of improvements like that.

I swear it...
If they announce multiplayer for DA3 I'm going to pick up a torch and march to their headquarters.
Who's with me?

I'll get the pitch forks

Because multiplayer absolutely RUINED Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate 2, and NWN.

True, but the respective DnD systems at the time limited rather severely how powerful any one player could be. DA2 that is certainly not the case. Can you imagine 4 2h warriors running around? All you'd see is a cloud of red mist, hell thats all i saw and in 90% of the battles and i only ran with my own warrior.

DnD certainly didn't limit that.

It just made it take a little longer... timestop, wait a few seconds, then everything dies.

[Few87]

What feedback is he reading or listening too!?!?!?!? What the accountants and board members say at their champagne parties!?!?!? I give up.....

[fn_outlaw]

Meh, it happens more than you'd think. Publishers are about money. Not so much on opinion. Which is why Bioware is so concerned about Metacritic and so forth. Bioware could have presented them with the Mario Bros. GDD when DA:O was released and they would have probably approved it based on sales of the original. In fact, my guess is, that EA pushed for that document, given their reputation for 'pressing'. The sales numbers for Origins at launch were outstanding. I doubt they anticipated the amount of revenue that particular IP would generate. Which is my particular reason for supporting the theory that they had DA2 all setup before any of the initial data was processed.