373 réponses à ce sujet

[TheKnave69]

"To be quite frank, that's a story we told before, and while there's nothing wrong with it, we really wanted to challenge ourselves to not have you end up in the Jedi Order..."

This gave me a bit of a chuckle. Probably not the wisest thing to say months before your company's tentpole game, you know, STAR WARS is going to be released.

My second thought was, When you're digging yourself into a hole, throw away the shovel.

[Mousers]

I have to agree Wyndham. And I'm not surprised the Origins fanbase is starting to pull away. It is like we have all been standing at the Customer Service desk and no one has come to help us. So some start leaving, then a sign goes up.. this is what the future of the series will be... live with it or there's the door. The room is now empty. I just feel sorry for all those employees that worked so hard on Origins, lived it, breathed life into it, loved it and now see it turned into ... something else.

[Kendaric Varkellen]

ink07 wrote...
Well, the problem is Laidlaw is not "sorry", in fact he is convinced he's made the right decisions. This:

We wanted to make RPGs, especially fantasy RPGs, accessible, cool, and interesting to people who have been playing RPGs for the last seven years and not realizing that every time they ate food or went for a long run in Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, they were essentially grinding constitution.

To me, that represents a huge audience that may have disregarded RPGs, especially fantasy, as being too hardcore or too confusing. And making certain changes to make the game palatable without ripping out the mechanics that make RPGs so fascinating to a stats guy or what have you. It keeps this genre evolving into something that's fresh and not stagnating.

is not: "I know we effed up, but we will fix it". He is putting down Origins as what the franchise is not, and elevating DA2 as the way it should go. You don't do that publicly unless that is your discourse internally.

He is basically saying: I know DA:O was our most successful game ever, nevermind those "hardcore suckers that made it so" we already have them locked down on it cus they love our RPGS,  now we will go for the other guys, the ones that play GTA and Call of Duty. I mean those games have "stats" right, and you "level up" totally the same, give this totally awesome badass fantasy franchise a chance.

He's out of touch, they are out for a quick buck, transforming their games into anualized console based series. To me it is unacceptable and a little bit too scary when it's coming from a developer like Bioware from whom I've bought every game they have ever made (expect Sonic, LOL, I don't like portables.)

He also misses the point that those GTA players may simply not like fantasy/medieval games. I suspect you have a greater chance drawing them into ME than DA, simply due to ME having a modern/sci-fi setting. Setting can play a huge part in whether people will look at games or dismiss them outright.

[Merced652]

Really debating if i should godwin this thread, it'd be perfect.....

[Merced652]

Kendaric Varkellen wrote...

ink07 wrote...
Well, the problem is Laidlaw is not "sorry", in fact he is convinced he's made the right decisions. This:

We wanted to make RPGs, especially fantasy RPGs, accessible, cool, and interesting to people who have been playing RPGs for the last seven years and not realizing that every time they ate food or went for a long run in Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, they were essentially grinding constitution.

To me, that represents a huge audience that may have disregarded RPGs, especially fantasy, as being too hardcore or too confusing. And making certain changes to make the game palatable without ripping out the mechanics that make RPGs so fascinating to a stats guy or what have you. It keeps this genre evolving into something that's fresh and not stagnating.

is not: "I know we effed up, but we will fix it". He is putting down Origins as what the franchise is not, and elevating DA2 as the way it should go. You don't do that publicly unless that is your discourse internally.

He is basically saying: I know DA:O was our most successful game ever, nevermind those "hardcore suckers that made it so" we already have them locked down on it cus they love our RPGS,  now we will go for the other guys, the ones that play GTA and Call of Duty. I mean those games have "stats" right, and you "level up" totally the same, give this totally awesome badass fantasy franchise a chance.

He's out of touch, they are out for a quick buck, transforming their games into anualized console based series. To me it is unacceptable and a little bit too scary when it's coming from a developer like Bioware from whom I've bought every game they have ever made (expect Sonic, LOL, I don't like portables.)

He also misses the point that those GTA players may simply not like fantasy/medieval games. I suspect you have a greater chance drawing them into ME than DA, simply due to ME having a modern/sci-fi setting. Setting can play a huge part in whether people will look at games or dismiss them outright.

Whats not to love about exploding bodies, flashes of light, twirly **** with a stick, electro slideeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, and dry humping?

[AlanC9]

Go for it, Merced.

[Mousers]

Solica wrote...

Mousers wrote...

But what really bothers me is those above Mike are allowing him to completely change this franchise into a new direction. I can see it if Origins was a flop, we all know it wasn't. Wondering how long they will let ML bring the franchise down.

In all fairness to Laidlaw, he apparently wasn't the only one to make the big, sweeping decisions about DA2. This was made before. And they (the decisions) was the reason Origin's lead designer refused the job and left Bioware. So Laidlaw could be just the poor replacement guy that had to somehow save something from the ashes. Or he could be one of the guys behind driving for changes. Just don't make him the head villain just yet. We already know he wasn't responsible for the budget or shedule.

I would put my money on him being part of the change decisions because of his interview choice of using the singular "I" regarding the choice of direction. But I do understand your post and thank you for the response. There are more important people than him that have to approve this kind of a decision before he has the green light.

[matty_s]

Wyndham711 wrote...

DA2 is by far the most shockingly awful disappointment I've ever had with any game. And this is the case even taking into account my lowered expectations due to obviously limited dev time. And this in turn is the worst of all the horrid interviews I've read regarding the game post-release.

Apparently this is it - this defunct piece of software is the foundation the team has decided to choose for the series going forward. This, instead of the nigh universally acclaimed Origins. I am having trouble understanding how any reasonable person with basic integrity could make that decision. Hopefully all this is in the end just pathetic PR talk and the reality of the situation will end up being something completely different. Though at this point I will not bet on it.

pretty much this:(

[Merced652]

I'm too lazy to quote him directly, but Laidlaw basically said "i am the savoir of RPGs," and there is some kind of doubt in you that he was responsible for da2's direction?

[Gatt9]

tez19 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Blastback wrote...

Laidlaw understands the concept of writing.  And characters.  And story.

Bay sees such things as mere excuses for explosions.

He really should just go work at Bethseda.  I'll never forget the E3 interview where a reviewer tried to ask Todd about roleplaying elements,  he hemmed around for a second,  and then said "Now you've gotta see this explosion!"

He'd fit in perfectly over there,  where they don't actually believe in RPGs,  just FPS/TPS for everything.  Like the art guy at Bethseda who bemoaned Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 not being FPP.

You bashing Bethesda and Todd for not making RPG's how you want them?
Skyrim will sell more than 3times what DA2 sold, and it seems the majority of RPG consumer's rate freedom to explore much higher than other things and Bethesda's open worlds are incredibly well done.
Let us just wait for Skyrim to mop up ALL the awards this year including best RPG and then I would be intrigued to hear you say how bad they are..

Four points.

1.  Bethseda doesn't make RPGs.  Fallout 3 was a shooter,  you could take out the whole leveling system and the game plays just fine.  Oblivion is an Adventure game,  you can take out the whole leveling system and the game works just fine.  Skyrim will be an Adventure game,  it did take out the whole leveling system.

2.  You're forgetting Bethseda's tendency to ban anyone who isn't a fan.  The "Majority" aren't necessarily on Bethseda's bandwagon,  and *alot* of people were upset with Oblivion and Fallout 3.

3.  Bethseda's open worlds are incredibly poorly done.  Miles upon miles of nothing,  landscapes with ruins to explore that contain nothing worth exploring for.  But they made sure I can pick up every single paintbrush and spoon,  no matter how incredibly useless they are.  Contrast this to Saint's Row,  GTA,  or any given MMO,  where the open world concepts are actually well done with a variety of things to do.

4.  I doubt *very* highly Skyrim will do well at all.  I fully expect RPG of the year to go to either Witcher 2 or Dead State,  although ME3 is a possibility.  You apparently haven't been watching Bethseda very closely.  Bethseda is owned by Zenimax,  who now owns 7 studios IIRC.  One that is making an MMO,  one that makes games no one has ever played,  Bethseda,  ID who hasn't released a game in 6 years,  and three others with a middling record.  In order to get these last 4 studios Zenimax has taken on huge debt.  The only studio releasing games is Bethseda,  and Fallout 3 didn't even sell half of it's initial shipment before dropping off the NPD top 10.  So Bethseda isn't releasing Skyrim because it's ready,  they're releasing Skyrim because Zenimax is up to it's ears in debt with no one but Bethseda actually releasing games.  It'll be rushed and poorly done because of it.  I'd venture these forums will look tame in comparison to what you'll see with Bethseda later this year.  Especially considering that TES's one saving grace was it's infrequently seen "Level by use" method of advancement,  which they've now just removed,  along with pretty much anything else that threatened to even remotely resemble an RPG mechanic.

I'm too lazy to quote him directly, but Laidlaw basically said "i am the savoir of RPGs," and there is some kind of doubt in you that he was responsible for da2's direction?

Eh...I read that interview and that declaration when Ken Karl made it with Asheron's Call 2,  and when Todd made it with Fallout 3.  Never did see the genre "Saved". 

But yeah,  I doubt he was responsible.  IMO EA said "Make it fast,  and make it more twitchy".  EA just doesn't do complex,  or anything not "Mass market".  Plus,  all of the signs are there that this is what happened.

Modifié par Gatt9, 25 mars 2011 - 09:11 .

[BiowarEA]

A quick adaptation of the Scotish play as homage to DA2

Troubled Bioware Lead Designer

Yet here's a spot.

RPG Fan

Hark! he speaks. I will set down what comes
from him, to satisfy my remembrance the more
strongly.

Troubled Bioware Lead Designer

Out,damned spot! out, I say!—One: two: why,
then, 'tis time to do't.—Hell is murky!—Fie, my
lord, fie! a lead designer, and afeard? What need we
fear who knows it, when none can call our power
to account?—Yet who would have thought Dragons Age Origins had so much blood in
it?

And Inon Zur's music; where is it now?—
What, will these hands ne'er be clean?—No more o'
that, my lord, no more o' that: you mar all with
this starting.

Here's the smell of the blood still. All the
perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this
little hand. O, O, O!

RPG Fan

What a sigh is there! The heart is sorely
charg'd.

Troubled Bioware Lead Designer

Wash your hands, put on your DA2 hoody;
look not so pale.—I tell you yet again, Brent Knowles is
buried; he cannot come out his grave.

To copy and paste, to copy and paste! There's fresh reviewers at the gate:
come, come, come, Gaider, give me your hand. What's
done cannot be undone.—to DA3, to DA3, to DA3!

[aries1001]

DA: Origins was announced, I think, in 2004, but work was started way back when Jade Empire was being made e.g. 2002-2003. David Gaider, the Lead Writer was asked to spend a year or two developing the world, and the story line. And for DA: Origins, they did have a Human Commoner: Origin made, now fleshed out to be Hawke, maybe?

DA: Origins did take at least 5-7 years to make and may only perhaps have had a rto (return of investment) of 2:1 e.g for every dollar spent EA, and Bioware, only got two in return and not the 5:1 ratio or maybe even 10:1 ratio of Call of Duty or Red Dead Redemption. If by cutting the game's developmemt time more than in half (from 5 years to 2½-3 years), the tro goes up to 4:1 meaing EA and Bioware get 4 dollars back for every dollar invested, you bet this is the way Bioware and EA are going to do business from now on.

As for the game, I'm waiting for a tax return og my nex paycheck before i buy it. However, based on the (short) demo, I'll say that I love the new skill trees, much more logical than those in DA: Origins. I also quite like the fast paced combat, except that silly rogue ninja thing. I mean, a roque is supposed to sneak behind the enemies, not ninja-jumping like in a movie about how samurais and ninja are totally awesome (I almost could see the invisible strings.....)

As for Bioware going wanting the GTA and Call of Duty audience, I just have one question? Why? To expand your playerbase....DA2's combat seems (although I like it) to be aimed at the 16-25 year old gamer that likes to watch things explode in their games. However, those 16-25 year old gamers have now just become 10 years older.....and they (we) want more depth in our (rpg) games, not just to watch things explode or to press a button, and then something awesome happens. We want a story, along with good rpg combat, and, yes, the ability to customize our npcs. Maybe only with certain armour only certain e.g. each indiviudal npc can wear, but we still want to be able to do this.

And I'm not sure that the Call of Duty players will want to play an rpg like DA2; maybe for the combat yes, I can see why they would want that. However, the quests/missions, the story are not like what they are in Call of Duty. I even play Call of Duty from time to time. I certainly can understand why Bioware and EA would want like 1% or 5% of CoD players, however, I'm not sure, if this can be done. Only time will tell...

[Merced652]

Gatt9 wrote...

tez19 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Blastback wrote...

Laidlaw understands the concept of writing.  And characters.  And story.

Bay sees such things as mere excuses for explosions.

He really should just go work at Bethseda.  I'll never forget the E3 interview where a reviewer tried to ask Todd about roleplaying elements,  he hemmed around for a second,  and then said "Now you've gotta see this explosion!"

He'd fit in perfectly over there,  where they don't actually believe in RPGs,  just FPS/TPS for everything.  Like the art guy at Bethseda who bemoaned Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 not being FPP.

You bashing Bethesda and Todd for not making RPG's how you want them?
Skyrim will sell more than 3times what DA2 sold, and it seems the majority of RPG consumer's rate freedom to explore much higher than other things and Bethesda's open worlds are incredibly well done.
Let us just wait for Skyrim to mop up ALL the awards this year including best RPG and then I would be intrigued to hear you say how bad they are..

Four points.

1.  Bethseda doesn't make RPGs.  Fallout 3 was a shooter,  you could take out the whole leveling system and the game plays just fine.  Oblivion is an Adventure game,  you can take out the whole leveling system and the game works just fine.  Skyrim will be an Adventure game,  it did take out the whole leveling system.

Yet you forgot you could ignore the abilities in me2 and beat the game, i damn sure did. So me2 isn't a rpg(duh) but it won rpg of the year, so your case for why skyrim won't is rather.... odd. 

[scpulley]

Gatt9 wrote...

tez19 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Blastback wrote...

Laidlaw understands the concept of writing.  And characters.  And story.

Bay sees such things as mere excuses for explosions.

He really should just go work at Bethseda.  I'll never forget the E3 interview where a reviewer tried to ask Todd about roleplaying elements,  he hemmed around for a second,  and then said "Now you've gotta see this explosion!"

He'd fit in perfectly over there,  where they don't actually believe in RPGs,  just FPS/TPS for everything.  Like the art guy at Bethseda who bemoaned Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 not being FPP.

You bashing Bethesda and Todd for not making RPG's how you want them?
Skyrim will sell more than 3times what DA2 sold, and it seems the majority of RPG consumer's rate freedom to explore much higher than other things and Bethesda's open worlds are incredibly well done.
Let us just wait for Skyrim to mop up ALL the awards this year including best RPG and then I would be intrigued to hear you say how bad they are..

Four points.

1.  Bethseda doesn't make RPGs.  Fallout 3 was a shooter,  you could take out the whole leveling system and the game plays just fine.  Oblivion is an Adventure game,  you can take out the whole leveling system and the game works just fine.  Skyrim will be an Adventure game,  it did take out the whole leveling system.

2.  You're forgetting Bethseda's tendency to ban anyone who isn't a fan.  The "Majority" aren't necessarily on Bethseda's bandwagon,  and *alot* of people were upset with Oblivion and Fallout 3.

3.  Bethseda's open worlds are incredibly poorly done.  Miles upon miles of nothing,  landscapes with ruins to explore that contain nothing worth exploring for.  But they made sure I can pick up every single paintbrush and spoon,  no matter how incredibly useless they are.  Contrast this to Saint's Row,  GTA,  or any given MMO,  where the open world concepts are actually well done with a variety of things to do.

4.  I doubt *very* highly Skyrim will do well at all.  I fully expect RPG of the year to go to either Witcher 2 or Dead State,  although ME3 is a possibility.  You apparently haven't been watching Bethseda very closely.  Bethseda is owned by Zenimax,  who now owns 7 studios IIRC.  One that is making an MMO,  one that makes games no one has ever played,  Bethseda,  ID who hasn't released a game in 6 years,  and three others with a middling record.  In order to get these last 4 studios Zenimax has taken on huge debt.  The only studio releasing games is Bethseda,  and Fallout 3 didn't even sell half of it's initial shipment before dropping off the NPD top 10.  So Bethseda isn't releasing Skyrim because it's ready,  they're releasing Skyrim because Zenimax is up to it's ears in debt with no one but Bethseda actually releasing games.  It'll be rushed and poorly done because of it.  I'd venture these forums will look tame in comparison to what you'll see with Bethseda later this year.  Especially considering that TES's one saving grace was it's infrequently seen "Level by use" method of advancement,  which they've now just removed,  along with pretty much anything else that threatened to even remotely resemble an RPG mechanic.

I'd have to agree here, I do think Witcher 2 or Me 3 if it makes it before the end of the year. ME seems to have a much better handle on going in a direction the customers want and more successfully combined an action game with RPG qualities because it actually was planned for from the begining. Witcher 2 could be the little game that could, they showed they loved their game by constantly adding to it and doing everything they could to please the customer rather than telling everyone 'it's our way or you must not get the greatness of our new direction and be the people responsible for killing the RPG'.

[dheer]

Wyndham711 wrote...
DA2 is by far the most shockingly awful disappointment I've ever had with any game. And this is the case even taking into account my lowered expectations due to obviously limited dev time.

Well, to me, it's not as bad as the release of Deus Ex: Invisible War, but it's up there.
 
I've never seen a company willingly betray the goals of a new series so quickly.

[TheKnave69]

aries1001 wrote...
DA: Origins did take at least 5-7 years to make and may only perhaps have had a rto (return of investment) of 2:1 e.g for every dollar spent EA, and Bioware, only got two in return and not the 5:1 ratio or maybe even 10:1 ratio of Call of Duty or Red Dead Redemption. If by cutting the game's developmemt time more than in half (from 5 years to 2½-3 years), the tro goes up to 4:1 meaing EA and Bioware get 4 dollars back for every dollar invested, you bet this is the way Bioware and EA are going to do business from now on.

This implies that sales numbers will be consistent with DA:O numbers.  In the first week across all platforms DA 2 sold about 700K (X360: 392,508, PS3: 163,410, PC: 143,830)units.  In week 2, it sold about 228K (X360: 128,897, PS3: 61,210, PC: 38002) for a second week loss of about 67%, according to vgchartz http://gamrreview.vg.../dragon-age-ii/ If it loses drops by 75% in week 3, then sales will be about 115K. Let's assume that sales go flat in week 5 at 12K units.  By week 13, you're looking at 1.1M units sold, which is less than half (48%) of the sales numbers for DA:O.  Given the polarization of the consumers, I don't think it will be much higher.

This also doesn't account for DLC, which sold pretty well for DA:O (I understand), we'll probably see less content for DA 2 if the sales numbers are moderate.  So as an overall "product," I think that the numbers for DA 2 will show less net revenue than DA:O.  Just my thoughts.   

Modifié par TheKnave69, 25 mars 2011 - 10:06 .

[MonkeyLungs]

Gatt9 wrote...

[Four points.

1.  Bethseda doesn't make RPGs.  Fallout 3 was a shooter,  you could take out the whole leveling system and the game plays just fine.  Oblivion is an Adventure game,  you can take out the whole leveling system and the game works just fine.  Skyrim will be an Adventure game,  it did take out the whole leveling system.

2.  You're forgetting Bethseda's tendency to ban anyone who isn't a fan.  The "Majority" aren't necessarily on Bethseda's bandwagon,  and *alot* of people were upset with Oblivion and Fallout 3.

3.  Bethseda's open worlds are incredibly poorly done.  Miles upon miles of nothing,  landscapes with ruins to explore that contain nothing worth exploring for.  But they made sure I can pick up every single paintbrush and spoon,  no matter how incredibly useless they are.  Contrast this to Saint's Row,  GTA,  or any given MMO,  where the open world concepts are actually well done with a variety of things to do.

4.  I doubt *very* highly Skyrim will do well at all.  I fully expect RPG of the year to go to either Witcher 2 or Dead State,  although ME3 is a possibility.  You apparently haven't been watching Bethseda very closely.  Bethseda is owned by Zenimax,  who now owns 7 studios IIRC.  One that is making an MMO,  one that makes games no one has ever played,  Bethseda,  ID who hasn't released a game in 6 years,  and three others with a middling record.  In order to get these last 4 studios Zenimax has taken on huge debt.  The only studio releasing games is Bethseda,  and Fallout 3 didn't even sell half of it's initial shipment before dropping off the NPD top 10.  So Bethseda isn't releasing Skyrim because it's ready,  they're releasing Skyrim because Zenimax is up to it's ears in debt with no one but Bethseda actually releasing games.  It'll be rushed and poorly done because of it.  I'd venture these forums will look tame in comparison to what you'll see with Bethseda later this year.  Especially considering that TES's one saving grace was it's infrequently seen "Level by use" method of advancement,  which they've now just removed,  along with pretty much anything else that threatened to even remotely resemble an RPG mechanic.

1. The RPG debate. This one just goes in circles and circles. Fallout 3 is just as much an RPG as any BIoware game I've ever played. If you took out the levelling system, yes the game can be played, but it's not as fun. To assume that levelling up and gaining perks and improving skills in Fallout has NO effect on gameplay is not an opinion many would agree with.

2. I don't know if they ban people alot or not. No comment.

3. Disagree. Some of the empty space in their big open worlds ENHANCES the exploration and overall feel of the world to me. Their worlds are already abstractions where things are packed very tightly together in comparison to the real world.  Crossing a vast expanse and then finding something to explore is much more satisfying to me becuase it adds to the sense of exploration. Some people call Beth games great 'Hiking Simulators' and I would agree, they also have alot of other stuff to do as well.

4. You are just plain wrong here. Skyrim is going to sell big. Even Fallout:NV sold over 5 million.
Also you still level by use in Skyrim. You no longer pick Major and Minor Skills ... you use what skills you like and a certain amount of 'skill ups' = 'level ups'. Zenimax is actually set to release of horde of pretty cool sounding games very soon. ID's Rage even has a set date.

[Otterwarden]

this isnt my name wrote...

I think he is more like the Turian counciler "Ah yes *insert criticism* we have dissmissed those claims".

BINGO!  It's exactly like that.

[Thalorin1919]

I'm one usually to support Laidlaw, as I one of the minority it seems, like the direction he has taken the game and the franchise in.

That doesn't dismiss the criticisms, however. The bland enviroments and the constantly reused dungeons break the immersion of the game and get boring - no matter how 'artfully' you try to reuse them again.

In this interview, he doesn't really seem to acknowledge the criticisms that much. But also, I think alot of the criticisms result from the fact the game was rushed. I'm sure they would've crafted more dungeons, and worked on the enviroments and such if they had more time/money.

I think the only thing we can hope for is that Laidlaw will heed the criticisms, and try to work with them as best as he can in the next game. Hopefully, EA will give them more time/money this time so we can get a more polished game. As some have stated, I'm glad this game as a LD that is enthuisastic and such, but hopefully he will take the advice.

Also, I really hope they work on the textures/graphics or whatever. I just noticed the armor of a particular cameo just looks like...crap.

[BeefoTheBold]

Long, LOONG time fan of Bioware who, in general, feels they have been going in the wrong direction with recent releases (ME2, DA2 and Awakenings.)

I felt that the answers given were way too dismissive of the things people are complaining about. They came across as "we're right and you people (and all the critics) just don't get how genius our changes were."

Don't get me wrong. Dragon Age 2 is still, overall, a great game. It just continues a growing (and to this mind alarming) trend of catering not to the loyal fanbase that has stood behind them and treated their games like a new Picasso painting every time a new one comes out but rather to the same "casual" gaming crowd that pretty much every developer out there is courting right now.

There are things about Dragon Age 2 that I liked a great deal. I thought that the political dynamics of the city of Kirkwall were very interesting and fun to be involved in. I enjoyed the gradual rise from nowhere to importance. I liked the characters and the interactions between them. I REALLY liked the flashbacks to Varric telling your story.

Like I said, it was a great game. However it was several significant steps back from Dragon Age: Origins in many of the exact same areas that ME2 was several steps back.

1. Less customization options for gear on your companions. - Some of us liked trying on ten different suits of armor on, say, Leliana until I found the perfect mix of pleasing aesthetics and functionality
2. Shopkeepers were largely useless, bland and non-distinquished from one another. Aside from the companion armor upgrades, I didn't buy a single thing from them all game long. I ended up with close to 300 gold left over when I beat the game. 
3. Recycled environments evidence of a rushed title. (And reminded me of the things like sound clip recycling in Awakenings. Hearing Sigrun shout out "Brilliant!" in Leliana's voice was a jarring experience.
4. Combat was "consolized" vs. the PC version of DA1.
5. Less focused and less cohesive story. Felt at times like I was playing a Grand Theft Auto sandbox title with all the running around back and forth in sidequests that I did.
6. Boring choices for equipment even among the stuff you found, particularly vs. DAO. As an example, in DAO you had to make real choices between say, a sword and an axe, because they were good for different things. Now they both just do damage per second and armor that your opponants is wearing is irrelevant.
7. A shocking lack of tie-ins to the previous game other than occassional throwaway lines of dialog. Just like Awakenings.

I could go on.

Basically the interview answers that I read didn't strike me as ones that are taking the feedback that people are giving Bioware very seriously. They felt way too glib and "we know what we're doing". This makes me fear that ME3 and DA3 will be even further down the "streamlined/simplified/get it out the door in a hurry" path.

[Eterna]

I liked his answers.

I think some of you are just looking for justification to yell at him because you're disapointed.

Modifié par Eterna5, 25 mars 2011 - 11:05 .

[Perles75]

aphelion002 wrote...

So he feels that Origins skills were a little to 'vestigial', .

Well, Origins skills are a little vestigial, but I think the solution would be to create a new (and enlarged) set of skills that have more meaning for the story, instead of removing them and leave only combat effects...

I don't consider DAO the greatest RPG of the decade, I'm not a DA2 basher and I think I'll enjoy the game when I'll buy it, but the whole interview sounded like a gigantic self-pat on the back.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Perles75 wrote...

aphelion002 wrote...

So he feels that Origins skills were a little to 'vestigial', .

Well, Origins skills are a little vestigial, but I think the solution would be to create a new (and enlarged) set of skills that have more meaning for the story, instead of removing them and leave only combat effects...

I don't really see why Skills and Talents are different things.  Why not put them all in one big group and let the player choose among them?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 25 mars 2011 - 11:16 .

[Delixe]

Thalorin1919 wrote...
In this interview, he doesn't really seem to acknowledge the criticisms that much. But also, I think alot of the criticisms result from the fact the game was rushed. I'm sure they would've crafted more dungeons, and worked on the enviroments and such if they had more time/money.

The question has to be raised though, with Origins selling as well as it did why exactly didn't Dragon Age 2 have the money needed to produce the game it should have been? I'm unwilling to blame EA for everything here because even a complete fool can see if you make a large amount of money on a title you have to re-invest some of that money in the sequel to expect the same kind of return. As for the time issue, i'm sure EA started sweating at the idea of Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age 2 being launched close to one another but if they really demanded Dragon Age 2 pushed out the door as fast as possible to make way for Mass Effect 3 then we get back to the money thing again. Not enough hours in the day then you hire more staff.

Dragon Age 2 should have been provided with as much money as it needed given the excellent performance of Origins. If this wasn't the case then either EA have been taken over by the Goof Troop or someone at Bioware decided to funnel the money into another project such as Mass Effect 3 or TOR. I fear we will never know the truth, we can only speculate. But one has to wonder why the design team took so long re-designing hurlocks, elves and making all new Brown textures when that time would have been better spent making more diverse maps. Or even maps plural.

[fikl]

I am rather amused by the intense loathing Dragon Age 2 seems to inspire in some who loved in Dragon Age: Origins. I've read countless diatribes, but find I can't understand them. They read like jeremiads decrying the loss of the one true faith without any understanding of the actual religion.

Having spent a great deal of time playing both games, they feel almost exactly the same. Besides polish, the main difference is the faster and more satisfying combat in Dragon Age 2.