518 réponses à ce sujet

[Jaron Oberyn]

maegi46 wrote...

Don't buy another Bioware game and stop making threads, if you truly believe the game is that bad. Honestly there are too many of these threads. DA3 needs to listen to SOME of these complaints and perhaps address a few key areas. There's too many threads asking for Mike Laidlaw to be fired or saying how bad the game is, yet you all keep playing it. Has anyone of you that bash it constantly ever made a better game yourselves? Didn't think so.

I've actually worked on non profit games and total conversion mods before. I know the value of taking your time. It's a form of art, and any art that is rushed is never done well. If the guy is going to completely alienate and insult the consumer base who supported him and put him in the position he's in today, then yes he needs to go. Bring back Brent Knowles. 

-Polite

[Darthbill52]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Obviously they lied. 16 months development time compared to 5-6 years for Origins. DA2 could have been so much better if it had a longer development cycle, and Brent Knowles at the top of the chain. But we get this guy who's sippin' EA's koolaid and loving it.

-Polite

Thing is too, before video games really became "mainstream" it wasnt unheard of to have a sequel to christen a new leap in technology.  Most new leaps in technology did take 4-5 years even with the advent of source codes and basing things of existant engines and just adding your brand to a engine.  16 months ...I mean how long did Awakening take?? I bet that took longer or equal time. That is just for a expansion pack, this is a full release sequel.  It should take longer than a expansion, the main thing I think were arguing here is if only this turkey was left in the oven for a bit longer it wouldnt be underdone and making everyone sick *does Horatio caine pause* with anger and be something worthy of a label.

Bioware is a Label, being honest I didnt play dragon age: Orgins  till I saw it was a Bioware game, mostly because I knew the quality of the label.  Were not asking for much, just the ability to put our 50-70 bones on something that is worth the cost and worthy of a name.  Something these devs keep forgeting...yes I am looking at you EA. 

[Cybermortis]

maegi46 wrote...

Don't buy another Bioware game and stop making threads, if you truly believe the game is that bad. Honestly there are too many of these threads. DA3 needs to listen to SOME of these complaints and perhaps address a few key areas. There's too many threads asking for Mike Laidlaw to be fired or saying how bad the game is, yet you all keep playing it. Has anyone of you that bash it constantly ever made a better game yourselves? Didn't think so.

1; I don't 'keep playing it'. I haven't touched it in over a week and have no desire to do so. The only reason it is stil on my harddrive is out of a passing curiousity to see if they can improve it though patches. I'm not holding my breath, and I fully expect to end up uninstalling it regardless as soon as I feel I need the disk space.

2; Your 'don't complain if you can't do better' doesn't hold up. I can't cut hair, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't complain if the barber does a bad job of cutting mine. I can't program computer games, but that doesn't mean I can't pass judgement on the quality of games I've bought - such as DA2.

[maegi46]

What is with people thinking a game HAS to be in development for 4-5 years to be good? Seriously? Technology has come a long way. Bioware didn't have to write a game engine from scratch like they did with DAO, so of course development time is much less. More time to develop the story, the characters, the quests and tweak the combat and inventory and dialog options. Which is what they did. Not to mention if it takes 6 programmer 4 years to make a game, hire 6 more and do it in 2. People backing games like EA are not going to wait around for 4-5 years each time a developer makes a new game. When you start from scratch and need to build the engine and come up with all the game elements for a brand new game then yes, it might take years to complete and polish. Having done that successfully, you then want to make money from sequel games if your fanbase is sufficient to warrant a sequel and make more money to justify that initial investment and the time the first game took to make. Make sense?

[Darthbill52]

maegi46 wrote...

What is with people thinking a game HAS to be in development for 4-5 years to be good? Seriously? Technology has come a long way. Bioware didn't have to write a game engine from scratch like they did with DAO, so of course development time is much less. More time to develop the story, the characters, the quests and tweak the combat and inventory and dialog options. Which is what they did. Not to mention if it takes 6 programmer 4 years to make a game, hire 6 more and do it in 2. People backing games like EA are not going to wait around for 4-5 years each time a developer makes a new game. When you start from scratch and need to build the engine and come up with all the game elements for a brand new game then yes, it might take years to complete and polish. Having done that successfully, you then want to make money from sequel games if your fanbase is sufficient to warrant a sequel and make more money to justify that initial investment and the time the first game took to make. Make sense?

Its this type of Mclogic that fuels the current business model at EA,

tell me good sir of madam.  What did you think of DA II then and did you think it was a true sequel or a warmed over adventure??

[Cybermortis]

maegi46 wrote...

What is with people thinking a game HAS to be in development for 4-5 years to be good? Seriously? Technology has come a long way. Bioware didn't have to write a game engine from scratch like they did with DAO, so of course development time is much less. More time to develop the story, the characters, the quests and tweak the combat and inventory and dialog options. Which is what they did.

Not according to at least half the people who've played it. Your list of 'improvements' reads like the list of problems most people have had with the game (bugs aside). The only one missing is unchanging and repetative enviroments/maps. Just look at the constructive citicism thread at the top of the page.

In all honesty do you consider the 'find random item and instantly know who will pay money for it and where they are' quests to be well developed? Are you really going to sit there and try and defend the decision to make 1/3rd of the main storyline revolve around doing grinding quests for money?

Is only being able to talk to companions when they have some mission for you character development? Is being hit on by characters five minutes after meeting them anything but a pathetic attempt to cater to the crowd who wanted to see the sex scenes but who didn't want to, you know, do too much talking or thinking about how to romance anyone?

How is going from 4-5 dialog options to three - which are helpfully colour coded in case you can't handle having to think which of the three options is which - improving the dialog? 

[Jaron Oberyn]

Um... Have you not played DA2? Have you not seen the amount of bugs that plague the game? Plot breaking bugs. Have you not seen the recycled, boring environments, and linear environments they used for the game? Making a game from an engine that is already developed doesn't mean it will have a shorter development time. Your argument would be valid if the story/characters/quests/dialogue/inventory didn't suffer from the 16 month development cycle DA2 underwent. A game needs at least 2.5-3 years to be done well, depending on the size. And for an "RPG" that's supposed to have a variety of options, it shouldn't take a year and 4 months. Stop defending Bioware's failure. Have you seen Arkham City? The game was completed back in september, yet they spent another 6 months just polishing up the game so that it wouldn't have bugs, and ensure that it would be a great experience. Now that's the proper way to handle a sequel.

They didn't rush the game out last year with plot breaking bugs that make it impossible to continue plot relevant quests. Defending Bioware only makes your position weak because they are in the wrong. You're on the wrong side of the line my friend.

-Polite

[Jaron Oberyn]

Cybermortis wrote...

How is going from 4-5 dialog options to three - which are helpfully colour coded in case you can't handle having to think which of the three options is which - improving the dialog? 

Lets not forget the  amount of automatic dialogue treatment Hawke received, just like Shepard in ME2. 

Darthbill52 wrote...

Its this type of Mclogic that fuels the current business model at EA,

tell me good sir of madam.  What did you think of DA II then and did you think it was a true sequel or a warmed over adventure??

Well, after seeing a Bioware employee infiltrate (obviously he wasn't a geth), the metacritic site and post a review about the game, maybe this guy IS an EA employee and that's the reason he knows EA's philosophy so well. 



-Polite

Modifié par PoliteAssasin, 26 mars 2011 - 03:28 .

[Darthbill52]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Darthbill52 wrote...

Its this type of Mclogic that fuels the current business model at EA,

tell me good sir of madam.  What did you think of DA II then and did you think it was a true sequel or a warmed over adventure??

Well, after seeing a Bioware employee infiltrate (obviously he wasn't a geth), the metacritic site and post a review about the game, maybe this guy IS an EA employee and that's the reason he knows EA's philosophy so well. 



-Polite

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Touche` good Sir Touche`

[Cybermortis]

I don't mind the automatic dialog if it adds to the impression you are part of a 'real' conversation. (And since it does vary somewhat depending on how you've been talking to people it isn't quite out of character). In this case I rather liked this in DA2...yes see, there was something about the game I liked and thought was fairly well done.

Damn, errm, sorry about the sudden and unexpected shock there. You need anything, smelling salts for example? Oops, can't find them...errm. I know I'll wave my socks under your nose, should be as effective....

I do object if automatic dialog takes away the ability to direct a conversation yourself, when you should be calling the shots, but I can't think of any occasion where it really seemed out of place - I think I would most likely have had Hawke say much the same thing given the option.

Modifié par Cybermortis, 26 mars 2011 - 03:36 .

[Jaron Oberyn]

I won't lie, the auto dialogue was more bearable in DA2 than ME2, but I'm getting the sense that they're going to be heading the ME2 route. Especially DLC wise, if you've played LoTSB. It's inevitable since Bioware seems to be making the transition from RPG to Shooter/Action oriented games. Most CoD players don't want to go through dialogue, and just want more shooting galleries.

-Polite

[Omika_Pearl]

Dragon Age: Origins had to be one of the most boring games I've ever played. I could barely stand a single playthrough. And I'm a big RPG fan - Fallout is one of my favorites. Never saw why everyone thought Baldur's Gate 2 was so awesome, though. I thought it was boring as all hell.

Dragon Age 2 entertained me a LOT more than DA:O. It's even getting a second playthrough. It's not perfect by a longshot, but while DA:O had a, what, 6 year or so development cycle, and DA2 had less than 18 months? I'd say Mike Laidlaw just proved himself to be not only a miracle worker, but someone who knows how to address the major critical issues of a game when making a sequel.

The biggest thing people slammed in DA:O was how effing boring the actual gameplay was. DA2's gameplay is a blast.

You can safely bet, I'm sure, that Mike is just as pissed off as everyone else that he didn't get to give DA2 as much breadth as he'd like to have. So he focused on core gameplay elements and aesthetics, rather than just creating another bland snorefest.

The man turned a bland-looking and bland-playing, bloated "spiritual successor" to a completely overhyped cult classic, and made it into dynamite. He made it into something that stands out and demands attention, and plays very well.

I don't know what the hell you people want. Why don't you all go just start making indie, 2D isometic CRPGs for eachother and stop attacking people's livelihood?

People are getting shot in foreign countries for organizing for human rights, and you guys choose to spend your mental energy on organizing to fight... what? Someone refusing to coddle your nostalgia?

tl;dr version: Mike Laidlaw was handed crap, and he turned it into gold. You people are delusional.

Modifié par Omika_Pearl, 26 mars 2011 - 04:36 .

[DariusKalera]

Omika_Pearl wrote...

Dragon Age: Origins had to be one of the most boring games I've ever played. I could barely stand a single playthrough. And I'm a big RPG fan - Fallout is one of my favorites. Never saw why everyone thought Baldur's Gate 2 was so awesome, though. I thought it was boring as all hell.

Dragon Age 2 entertained me a LOT more than DA:O. It's even getting a second playthrough. It's not perfect by a longshot, but while DA:O had a, what, 6 year or so development cycle, and DA2 had less than 18 months? I'd say Mike Laidlaw just proved himself to be not only a miracle worker, but someone who knows how to address the major critical issues of a game when making a sequel.

The biggest thing people slammed in DA:O was how effing boring the actual gameplay was. DA2's gameplay is a blast.

You can safely bet, I'm sure, that Mike is just as pissed off as everyone else that he didn't get to give DA2 as much breadth as he'd like to have. So he focused on core gameplay elements and aesthetics, rather than just creating another bland snorefest.

The man turned a bland-looking and bland-playing, bloated "spiritual successor" to a completely overhyped cult classic, and made it into dynamite. He made it into something that stands out and demands attention, and plays very well.

I don't know what the hell you people want. Why don't you all go just start making indie, 2D isometic CRPGs for eachother and stop attacking people's livelihood?

People are getting shot in foreign countries for organizing for human rights, and you guys choose to spend your mental energy on organizing to fight... what? Someone refusing to coddle your nostalgia?

tl;dr version: Mike Laidlaw was handed crap, and he turned it into gold. You people are delusional.

Difference between them simply is that BGII and DA:O had story driven combat while DA2 has a combat driven story.

In the former, the drive isn't to make the combat the selling point of the game.  So while yes, the combat in them might be slower, it had more of a point to it.  There was a reason for it. 

In DA2, the selling point is the combat and as such, it is going to be faster, with a lot more of it, with far less reason for it. 

[Omika_Pearl]

DariusKalera wrote...

Omika_Pearl wrote...

Dragon Age: Origins had to be one of the most boring games I've ever played. I could barely stand a single playthrough. And I'm a big RPG fan - Fallout is one of my favorites. Never saw why everyone thought Baldur's Gate 2 was so awesome, though. I thought it was boring as all hell.

Dragon Age 2 entertained me a LOT more than DA:O. It's even getting a second playthrough. It's not perfect by a longshot, but while DA:O had a, what, 6 year or so development cycle, and DA2 had less than 18 months? I'd say Mike Laidlaw just proved himself to be not only a miracle worker, but someone who knows how to address the major critical issues of a game when making a sequel.

The biggest thing people slammed in DA:O was how effing boring the actual gameplay was. DA2's gameplay is a blast.

You can safely bet, I'm sure, that Mike is just as pissed off as everyone else that he didn't get to give DA2 as much breadth as he'd like to have. So he focused on core gameplay elements and aesthetics, rather than just creating another bland snorefest.

The man turned a bland-looking and bland-playing, bloated "spiritual successor" to a completely overhyped cult classic, and made it into dynamite. He made it into something that stands out and demands attention, and plays very well.

I don't know what the hell you people want. Why don't you all go just start making indie, 2D isometic CRPGs for eachother and stop attacking people's livelihood?

People are getting shot in foreign countries for organizing for human rights, and you guys choose to spend your mental energy on organizing to fight... what? Someone refusing to coddle your nostalgia?

tl;dr version: Mike Laidlaw was handed crap, and he turned it into gold. You people are delusional.

Difference between them simply is that BGII and DA:O had story driven combat while DA2 has a combat driven story.

In the former, the drive isn't to make the combat the selling point of the game.  So while yes, the combat in them might be slower, it had more of a point to it.  There was a reason for it. 

In DA2, the selling point is the combat and as such, it is going to be faster, with a lot more of it, with far less reason for it. 

I rate a game based on how much actual fun I'm having throughout the playing of it.  DA:O was occassional amusement at something, and most of it was "Oh my god, when will this awful combat be over.  Oh my god, I don't want another fight, please kill me now."

Only time I was bored in DA2 was for the very last hour or so of the first part of the game, when gathering the gold, but that's only because I refused to pay that dwarf the 50 sovereigns.  Every last second of my 45 hours was a blast, beyond that.

So this just comes down to a matter of what's fun to whom.  To me, Fallout was infinitely more entertaining than BG2 ever was.  DA:O was about as fun as slogging through a mire (a mire infested with an ugly **** of a Mary-Sue postergirl that godmodded me in the end, and that I could never slap or stab - GO TO HELL MORRIGAN).  

DA2 was a blast, and had way better characters.  A sexpot I thought I would hate, but ended up loving, a stern matronly woman who personified fortitude and femininity all at once, and the single greatest dwarf in the history of RPGs.  And a neurotic elf girl I liked to flirt with, and some dude who was a cross between Sephiroth and a young John Lennon.

Oh, and Gay Anders.  Who doesn't love Gay Anders?  His feather boa - I mean shoulderpads, are so awesome.

tl;dr version:  As it always goes with arts and entertainment - one person's single-minded obsession is another person's awkward "I couldn't get into it" conversation.

[Mad-Max90]

Working under the EA pressure hammer, I think Mike did a great job, it's not his fault he was given 18 months to piece together a AAA game, what the op doesn't comprehend is how hard it is to come up with the story then changing mechanics of combat and work on upgrading their system add all the animations and every other detail, that does not excuse the fact that there was a lack of actual choices which kind of takes away from the rpg in rpg but that does, on the other hand, prove that Mike did an outstanding job, now if he would just take come constructive criticism from concerned fans instead of just the complements that would cement him as one of the greatest leads in the industry

[DariusKalera]

Mad-Max90 wrote...

Working under the EA pressure hammer, I think Mike did a great job, it's not his fault he was given 18 months to piece together a AAA game, what the op doesn't comprehend is how hard it is to come up with the story then changing mechanics of combat and work on upgrading their system add all the animations and every other detail, that does not excuse the fact that there was a lack of actual choices which kind of takes away from the rpg in rpg but that does, on the other hand, prove that Mike did an outstanding job, now if he would just take come constructive criticism from concerned fans instead of just the complements that would cement him as one of the greatest leads in the industry

You brought up a point I was wondering about.

Why, if they are under such a time crunch, did they try to change as much as they did?

As you pointed out, it takes alot of time to come up with the story, mechanics change, and everythign else. 

Would it not have made more sense, in order to free up more time, to just change fewer things?

[Mad-Max90]

Cybermortis wrote...

maegi46 wrote...

What is with people thinking a game HAS to be in development for 4-5 years to be good? Seriously? Technology has come a long way. Bioware didn't have to write a game engine from scratch like they did with DAO, so of course development time is much less. More time to develop the story, the characters, the quests and tweak the combat and inventory and dialog options. Which is what they did.

Not according to at least half the people who've played it. Your list of 'improvements' reads like the list of problems most people have had with the game (bugs aside). The only one missing is unchanging and repetative enviroments/maps. Just look at the constructive citicism thread at the top of the page.

In all honesty do you consider the 'find random item and instantly know who will pay money for it and where they are' quests to be well developed? Are you really going to sit there and try and defend the decision to make 1/3rd of the main storyline revolve around doing grinding quests for money?

Is only being able to talk to companions when they have some mission for you character development? Is being hit on by characters five minutes after meeting them anything but a pathetic attempt to cater to the crowd who wanted to see the sex scenes but who didn't want to, you know, do too much talking or thinking about how to romance anyone?

How is going from 4-5 dialog options to three - which are helpfully colour coded in case you can't handle having to think which of the three options is which - improving the dialog? 

I agree with you, the game itself was a let down to the demographic that origins was presented to, and the romances in the game where done horrably, let me reiterate I AM BI, that does not mean that everybody should  cater to me, I prefer the way they did it in origins there were bi characters and hetero characters, the only people defending the new move are the erotic fan-fiction group the ones that felt hurt because they couldn't romance every walking character in DAO. The characters only talking to you because they want something is a little bit strange, if I had friends that only talked to me when they wanted something from me or me to help them with dangerous tasks, I just wouldn't have friends, If they could just give us origins with the new combat system and graphics I will be pleased

[Mad-Max90]

DariusKalera wrote...

Mad-Max90 wrote...

Working under the EA pressure hammer, I think Mike did a great job, it's not his fault he was given 18 months to piece together a AAA game, what the op doesn't comprehend is how hard it is to come up with the story then changing mechanics of combat and work on upgrading their system add all the animations and every other detail, that does not excuse the fact that there was a lack of actual choices which kind of takes away from the rpg in rpg but that does, on the other hand, prove that Mike did an outstanding job, now if he would just take come constructive criticism from concerned fans instead of just the complements that would cement him as one of the greatest leads in the industry

You brought up a point I was wondering about.

Why, if they are under such a time crunch, did they try to change as much as they did?

As you pointed out, it takes alot of time to come up with the story, mechanics change, and everythign else. 

Would it not have made more sense, in order to free up more time, to just change fewer things?

Yes it would have been easier but remember EA wants bioware to get out of their niche to produce games for everybody at the cost of their established fanbase, they want sales not to cater to a specific group so if overhauling the game opens it up to the majority of gamers which is good if done right, EA already has a nest egg in bioware its called Mass Effect, a series that appeals to a broader audience than DA so if they can test out how their new development team does, on a game that does not appeal to the larger gaming community, when under pressure they can do that to see if they can get away with at least one AAA title a year from bioware, what they failed to realise was the success of DA and the effects it had on rpg gamers. Lets face it, we do not get many good rpgs with actual choices anymore, with the exception of Mass Effect which is even limited to be nice or a jerk who saves the galaxy, In Dragon Age 2 however your not given any choices that have an effect on the world which is sad because that's the only reason they said you stay in kirkwall was to see the effects of your actions, there are no effects other than you get a note in the mail from somebody who is either mad or happy with you, lets face it kirkwall has no physical effect over the course of ten years and you can not even play over half of the decade the game takes place in. No matter who you side with in this game the end result is the same, it feels cheap compared to others in bioware's roster, even though they added some good qualities to the franchise they also took two steps back in overall depth and story.  They should know why people like games where there is somewhat of a resoloution, its good story telling and nobody wants to front 60 bucks for a story without an ending.  Mass Effect got away with it because we knew how the arc was going, therefore it didn't leave you hanging we knew what shepard was about to do, we don't even know where hawke is, it's not fair to the protagonist of the story and it is definetly not fair to the player.

[Saboera]

Omika_Pearl wrote...

Dragon Age: Origins had to be one of the most boring games I've ever played. I could barely stand a single playthrough. And I'm a big RPG fan - Fallout is one of my favorites. Never saw why everyone thought Baldur's Gate 2 was so awesome, though. I thought it was boring as all hell.

Dragon Age 2 entertained me a LOT more than DA:O. It's even getting a second playthrough. It's not perfect by a longshot, but while DA:O had a, what, 6 year or so development cycle, and DA2 had less than 18 months? I'd say Mike Laidlaw just proved himself to be not only a miracle worker, but someone who knows how to address the major critical issues of a game when making a sequel.

The biggest thing people slammed in DA:O was how effing boring the actual gameplay was. DA2's gameplay is a blast.

You can safely bet, I'm sure, that Mike is just as pissed off as everyone else that he didn't get to give DA2 as much breadth as he'd like to have. So he focused on core gameplay elements and aesthetics, rather than just creating another bland snorefest.

The man turned a bland-looking and bland-playing, bloated "spiritual successor" to a completely overhyped cult classic, and made it into dynamite. He made it into something that stands out and demands attention, and plays very well.

I don't know what the hell you people want. Why don't you all go just start making indie, 2D isometic CRPGs for eachother and stop attacking people's livelihood?

People are getting shot in foreign countries for organizing for human rights, and you guys choose to spend your mental energy on organizing to fight... what? Someone refusing to coddle your nostalgia?

tl;dr version: Mike Laidlaw was handed crap, and he turned it into gold. You people are delusional.

So basically you bought a game that was meant to be a spiritual successor of a game you didn't even like in the first place?

The fact you didn't like DA:O is your opinion, just like mine that DA2 was weak as hell. The difference between you and those who disliked the game like me, is that you went ahead and bought it while fully knowing what it was gonna be. It was advertised as the spiritual sucessor of BG, you are the one that made the mistake of buying something based on a formula you didn't even like in the first place.

The rest of us who loved the old school formula of DA:O a lot got burnt hadcore on false advertising to a sequel that took a 180 degree spin around in a totally different direction cattering to an entirely different demographic. The worse is that in the words of Mike, it remained majorly the same and i bought into that crap based on a trust relationship with Bioware like many others. The best part is where it was 60 bucks, coming along a day 1 DLC for 7 bucks for a rushed game.

There's no way in hell a lot of us can be pissed about that, clearly.

Btw, lots of us also like the more relaxed slow, strategical gameplay over the hyperactive action that plagues game designed for the ''i can't focus on games without explosions and heads blowing up'' crowd (which is fine, i'm not one to judge). But no, instead we're just delusional for liking something else and being promised something that turned out to be entirely different. The problem is that while faster pace games are available in hundreds, slower ones are a disappearing breed. This franchise reanimated the flame in many of us with DA:O and it was killed with DA2.

Modifié par Saboera, 26 mars 2011 - 10:00 .

[Cutlasskiwi]

Fran-kiki wrote...

I want Brent Knowles back, he had a clear vision and understood Bioware's fans. I felt like Laidlaw did in fact, just put his middle finger up at us.
You always have to be aware of what the fans want. Dragon Age 2 didn't.

And a lot of fans wanted what DA2 has to offer. 

[MrTijger]

Yellow Words wrote...

Fran-kiki wrote...

I want Brent Knowles back, he had a clear vision and understood Bioware's fans. I felt like Laidlaw did in fact, just put his middle finger up at us.
You always have to be aware of what the fans want. Dragon Age 2 didn't.

And a lot of fans wanted what DA2 has to offer. 

Yes but you have to give everyone exactly what they wanted...not what you've told them you were making for the last year...no...it has to be what they imagined it would be and if you do not then they are 'betrayed', 'defrauded' and call for people to be fired. Welcome to the interwebs.

[Nedereus]

You can't expect Mr. Laidlaw to have a deep understanding of what a full-fleshed party-based complex RPG is about. At least not from his infamous interviews or the non-insider information we can dig. He started in Bioware as a Lead Writer on Jade Empire also doing some minor work on Mass Effect and Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood. Mr. Laidlaw clearly has an alternative view of what RPGs are about and what they should be.

I have no idea how did he manage to get to a Lead Designer position on DA:O in early 2009 (thank God the game was finished by that time, as far as we know he only supervised the porting that game to consoles and added the awful *board quests*). Quite a fast rise in ranks I should say. My guess would be that Bioware had its resources spread thin by that time, having part of the core team move to Austin aka the SW:TOR studio while some of the most prominent figures like Kevin Martens and Brent Knowles left the company.

With that being I doubt that he's the person taking major project decisions just by himself. Within the limits of his profession sure, but not at the global level. You obviously cannot blame him alone for the direction DA franchise (and well, Bioware as a whole sadly too) has taken. I've seen plenty of complaints about EA spoiling Bioware and DA2 in particular but from what I see that's not really the case or at least just a part of the mosaic. If you read closely interviews with Mr. Zeschuk and Mr. Muzyka throughout the last 5-6 years you'll see that they're absolutely aware of where the company is going. Moreover they are consciously leading it there. Mr. Laidlaw seems to fully share their new philosophy so he's hardly going anywhere. Maybe adjusting a thing or two but not changing the direction definetly.

Taking that in mind I really doubt that there's a person in Bioware who could stand up for a direction towards more complex RPGs with a fullscale development cycle. Well, maybe James Ohlen (LD on BG, Director of Writing and Design on BG2, LD on SW: KOTOR, LD on NWN, LD on DA:O before Brent Knowles) if he'd move back from SW:TOR still has enough influence and authority IF he'd actually supported doing more complex and deep games. Can't imagine of anyone else that could pull it off. In an ideal world would be great to see Kevin Martins or Brent Knowles coming back but that's highly unlikely.

I guess we'll just have to live with the reality we have on our hands: Bioware is a different company doing different games. If you ask me though there's no evolution in the direction Bioware's taking, it's the opposite - devolution - from more complex games to more simplified if not primitive forms. 5-7 years ago I was extremely excited to see what would the games advance to. New technologies, new opportunities to bring more dimensions, broaden and deepen the mechanics, add serious, mature themes while improving on visuals and cinematic experience. How naive to think we could have it all. Now, I just constantly hope that with next iteration or a new project developers won't cut out too much, won't dumb it down too hard so I could at least enjoy the game a little bit. Hope dies last.

Modifié par Nedereus, 26 mars 2011 - 12:50 .

[Zanderat]

Yellow Words wrote...

Fran-kiki wrote...

I want Brent Knowles back, he had a clear vision and understood Bioware's fans. I felt like Laidlaw did in fact, just put his middle finger up at us.
You always have to be aware of what the fans want. Dragon Age 2 didn't.

And a lot of fans wanted what DA2 has to offer. 

The evidence (reviews, forum posts metacritc scores, etc.) would seem to indicate otherwise.

[wildcard4542000]

Ramtaku wrote...

Goldrock wrote...

Dunno im loving this game sure only downfall ive seen and dont like is the repetative maps but i can almost guaranteed bioware will prolly use that too their advantage for more money and put out a map pack or something in the near future.maybe add more loot and add a random dungeon generator for people who beat the game.

Does anyone else have a major problem with the underlying concept of this statement?

Yeah I do. Probably for all of the reason's that you do.

[_Aine_]

I think that *if* they decide to fix some of the more glaring criticisms of the game, they would be wise to release it in the same manner that Witcher did for their enhanced edition: pro bono for people who already bought the game. It would do a world of good, imho. Of course, that is a big *if*.

And release a toolset so fans can get on it.  We work cheap.  

Modifié par shantisands, 26 mars 2011 - 02:59 .