518 réponses à ce sujet

[Chaos_1001]

[quote]Ronin2006 wrote...

[quote]Chaos_1001 wrote...

[quote]AtreiyaN7 wrote...

[quote]Chaos_1001 wrote...

[quote]RohanD wrote...

Careful, you may get banned for this[/quote]

THIS ^
[/quote]

If you seriously think people get banned over disliking the game or being critical, there wouldn't be threads like this, would there? If someone likes the game, then there's really nothing to "discuss." Since the game was enjoyable overall for me, I think he did a good job - even though I'm critical about a few things.
[/quote]

That wasnt my point , this is a personal attack plain and simple..[/quote]

Please read the thread topic.  I have addressed this concern that some of you have.[/quote]

ok...

READ WHAT I POSTED AGAIN !

[Maria Caliban]

Ronin2006 wrote...

The fact is, Mike Laidlaw as the lead designer of the game has been seen to be in charge of it's overall direction, it's policies, and even to an extent it's marketing.

Mike Laidlaw is the lead designer. Mark Darrah is the executive producer. Some of the things you're attributing to Mike is probably Mark's responsibility. Marketing, for example, is unlikely to have anything to do with the lead designer. The head of marketing is David Silverman.

Savber100 wrote...

If Laidlaw proves that he can't do DA justice (ironically despite being one of the original lead designer) then I would prefer Brent Knowles and Chris Avellone from Obsidian to take over.

Brent Knowles is currently a full time writer.

Chris Avellone was the lead on Alpha Protocol. A game with no party-based combat, a pre-defined protagonist, and a conversation wheel based around mood. While I like the game, this is like suggesting the lead designer of the Witcher or Deus Ex make a Dragon Age game.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 25 mars 2011 - 03:04 .

[Ronin2006]

[quote]Chaos_1001 wrote...

[quote]Ronin2006 wrote...

[quote]Chaos_1001 wrote...

[quote]AtreiyaN7 wrote...

[quote]Chaos_1001 wrote...

[quote]RohanD wrote...

Careful, you may get banned for this[/quote]

THIS ^
[/quote]

If you seriously think people get banned over disliking the game or being critical, there wouldn't be threads like this, would there? If someone likes the game, then there's really nothing to "discuss." Since the game was enjoyable overall for me, I think he did a good job - even though I'm critical about a few things.
[/quote]

That wasnt my point , this is a personal attack plain and simple..[/quote]

Please read the thread topic.  I have addressed this concern that some of you have.[/quote]

ok...

READ WHAT I POSTED AGAIN !
[/quote]

I can see that this thread has hit a personal nerve for you, and that's unfortunate.  I'm not sure if you were referring to the other person or myself in your post regarding the personal attack, however the post you left is a little ambiguous, so if I misunderstood, I apologise.

I would however like to keep my edited topic as some people seem to be taking my thread as a personal attack on Mike Laidlaw.

PS you don't need to type in big capitals to get your point across.  It just makes you look childish and stupid and doesn't help you at all.

[B3taMaxxx]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Ronin2006 wrote...

The fact is, Mike Laidlaw as the lead designer of the game has been seen to be in charge of it's overall direction, it's policies, and even to an extent it's marketing.

Mike Laidlaw is the lead designer. Mark Darrah is the executive producer. Some of the things you're attributing to Mike is probably Mark's responsibility. Marketing, for example, is unlikely to have anything to do with the lead designer. The head of marketing is David Silverman.

 
 Ouch Ronin, that's gotta hurt..............................

[Ronin2006]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Ronin2006 wrote...

The fact is, Mike Laidlaw as the lead designer of the game has been seen to be in charge of it's overall direction, it's policies, and even to an extent it's marketing.

Mike Laidlaw is the lead designer. Mark Darrah is the executive producer. Some of the things you're attributing to Mike is probably Mark's responsibility. Marketing, for example, is unlikely to have anything to do with the lead designer. The head of marketing is David Silverman.

Yeah, this is what I wasn't sure of, and something I referred to in my edited original post.  Thanks for pointing this out. 

I mentioned Mike Laidlaw because he is the one all over the media for this product and I'm not sure how much responsibility he has over it, but it does 'seem' as though he has a lot, and that the success/failures of the game will rest on his shoulders.  If Mark Darrah is the 'head' of Dragon Age 2, perhaps he is the one that questions should be raised over.

[RohanD]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Ronin2006 wrote...

The fact is, Mike Laidlaw as the lead designer of the game has been seen to be in charge of it's overall direction, it's policies, and even to an extent it's marketing.

Mike Laidlaw is the lead designer. Mark Darrah is the executive producer. Some of the things you're attributing to Mike is probably Mark's responsibility. Marketing, for example, is unlikely to have anything to do with the lead designer. The head of marketing is David Silverman.

Savber100 wrote...

If Laidlaw proves that he can't do DA justice (ironically despite being one of the original lead designer) then I would prefer Brent Knowles and Chris Avellone from Obsidian to take over.

Brent Knowles is currently a full time writer.

Chris Avellone was the lead on Alpha Protocol. A game with no party-based combat, a pre-defined protagonist, and a conversation wheel based around mood. While I like the game, this is like suggesting the lead designer of the Witcher or Deus Ex make a Dragon Age game.

Obsidian are the devs to watch from now. They've had some rocky games, but I guarantee they are going to be hitting their full stride pretty soon.

I think Laidlaw needs to go, maybe not out of the franchise entirely, but definitely from Lead designer. Silverman...that guy needs to just go full stop.

[Talladarr]

As I have mentioned in about 3 or 4 other threads now, The REAL issue here, was EA. They had an AMAZINGLY short timetable, and were in fact TOLD that people would be dissatisfied with the results unless they had more production time. Those people were ignored, so they did hte best they could with waht little time they had. This game sould have taken at LEAST 3 years to be developed, and they didn't even have CLOSE to that amount of time.

IT IS MY OPINION that EA should go back to doing ****ty sports games and let Bioware do their jobs and make the real games.

Modifié par Talladarr, 25 mars 2011 - 03:08 .

[maegi46]

Mike is doing a good job, he took some chances knowing some people would not like the direction the game has gone, but overall I see a huge improvement in combat, inventory, lack of having to craft or waste points in useless skills like persuasion etc. Is there room for improvement? Certainly, more maps , more fleshed out character backstories perhaps. More loot that is centered on Hawkes class so he or she can actually use it based on what class he or she is playing this time would be nice as well. Should Mike get fired or replaced? No , I think he deserves a raise. I still think Bioware would benefit from hiring the guys that made Warden's Fall however.

[Ronin2006]

B3taMaxxx wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Ronin2006 wrote...

The fact is, Mike Laidlaw as the lead designer of the game has been seen to be in charge of it's overall direction, it's policies, and even to an extent it's marketing.

Mike Laidlaw is the lead designer. Mark Darrah is the executive producer. Some of the things you're attributing to Mike is probably Mark's responsibility. Marketing, for example, is unlikely to have anything to do with the lead designer. The head of marketing is David Silverman.

 
 Ouch Ronin, that's gotta hurt..............................

Hardly.  I'm quite glad this has been pointed out.  I don't want to have people criticising the wrong person.  I simply wanted to talk about whoever it was that is responsible overall for the product, because this is the person that will ultimately get the blame/praise for the success/failures of the game.  I'm actually now not sure who that person is.  I assumed it was Mike Laidlaw, and that public appearances suggest it was.

Perhaps I should change the thread topic? - although I doubt it would garner as much attention/interest/discussion if I called it "Mark Durrah ...." because not many have heard of him.  It would also render most of the replies a little stupid.  Hmmm... Not sure what to do on this, or if it would actually be more accurate to change the topic to Mark Darrah anyway.

Does anybody actually know a little more about who is ultimately 'responsible' for the changes/direction in the franchise?

Modifié par Ronin2006, 25 mars 2011 - 03:16 .

[B3taMaxxx]

RohanD wrote...
Obsidian are the devs to watch from now. They've had some rocky games, but I guarantee they are going to be hitting their full stride pretty soon.

 In about a months time perhaps we'll see, but that's a hefty claim considering their recent endeavours.

[halO bendeR]

Ronin2006 wrote...

You may think it's not sensible to call for Mike Laidlaw to be sacked for his role in DA 2.  But when a business fails to meet expectations, this kind of thing happens.  Not rarely, but often.

Yes, but last I checked 'lead designer on Dragon Age 2' was not a democratically elected position. These types of desisions are made by EA/Bioware and not by 'fans' of the franchise who feel like they've been slighted. For you or anyone else to suggest such actions be taken is tactless to the extreme.   

[B3taMaxxx]

Ronin2006 wrote...
Hardly.  I'm quite glad this has been pointed out.  I don't want to have people criticising the wrong person.  I simply wanted to talk about whoever it was that is responsible overall for the product, because this is the person that will ultimately get the blame/praise for the success/failures of the game.

 You rushed to judgement before analysing the circumstances. This is something I do often, as well as most people as passionate about such.

 However, I don't think the blame can be found within the DA2 department, but from a higher one. Laidlaw, Darrah and the others probably didn't want to lose thier jobs by taking a stand. Now that the product is out, only in the next year will we see the fallout, if any. The rush to bring the game to market, in my opinion was ochestrated from the top down, not vise versa.

[Cody211282]

halO bendeR wrote...

Ronin2006 wrote...

You may think it's not sensible to call for Mike Laidlaw to be sacked for his role in DA 2.  But when a business fails to meet expectations, this kind of thing happens.  Not rarely, but often.

Yes, but last I checked 'lead designer on Dragon Age 2' was not a democratically elected position. These types of desisions are made by EA/Bioware and not by 'fans' of the franchise who feel like they've been slighted. For you or anyone else to suggest such actions be taken is tactless to the extreme.   

I agree that calling for him to be sacked is going overbaord, but i will say I am very wairy to buy another game that he is lead dev on. And honestly all the interveiws he is doing is making it worse, not better.

[Chaos_1001]

[quote]Ronin2006 wrote...

[quote]Chaos_1001 wrote...

[quote]Ronin2006 wrote...

[quote]Chaos_1001 wrote...

[quote]AtreiyaN7 wrote...

[quote]Chaos_1001 wrote...

[quote]RohanD wrote...

Careful, you may get banned for this[/quote]

THIS ^
[/quote]

If you seriously think people get banned over disliking the game or being critical, there wouldn't be threads like this, would there? If someone likes the game, then there's really nothing to "discuss." Since the game was enjoyable overall for me, I think he did a good job - even though I'm critical about a few things.
[/quote]

That wasnt my point , this is a personal attack plain and simple..[/quote]

Please read the thread topic.  I have addressed this concern that some of you have.[/quote]

ok...

READ WHAT I POSTED AGAIN !
[/quote]

I can see that this thread has hit a personal nerve for you, and that's unfortunate.  I'm not sure if you were referring to the other person or myself in your post regarding the personal attack, however the post you left is a little ambiguous, so if I misunderstood, I apologise.

I would however like to keep my edited topic as some people seem to be taking my thread as a personal attack on Mike Laidlaw.

PS you don't need to type in big capitals to get your point across.  It just makes you look childish and stupid and doesn't help you at all.[/quote]

Perhaps you are right, I probably should've used a well thought out response to this thread's intentions as it were.. For the record though... The only one being childish and stupid here in this post between you and I is you . Just because the internet gives you a voice to speak your will, does not give you the right to personally attack another person based on your opinion ! If this Mike Laidlaw did you wrong personally I could see / understand a retort . This post however, is utter complete bullsquat to the 50th degree ! You are in fact most likely will get at the very least moderated for this possibly more. I very seldom get angry or upset over opinions and ideas. Your childish and stupid actions shame all of us in the Dragon Age community ! So .. was that professional enough for you to understand ?

[Ariella]

B3taMaxxx wrote...

RohanD wrote...
Obsidian are the devs to watch from now. They've had some rocky games, but I guarantee they are going to be hitting their full stride pretty soon.

 In about a months time perhaps we'll see, but that's a hefty claim considering their recent endeavours.

Considering that Obsidian has yet to make an independant IP that was a marketplace success (I really enjoyed AP and find it sad that SEGA decided not to continue with the frachise as it was a great idea) making the claim they are the devs to watch seems a little hyperbolic to me. The next game they have coming out is Dungeon Siege 3 with Square Enix, and from the little I've seen it looks like DS3 has even LESS character definition ability than AP did.

I'd like Obsidian to do well, but I doubt in the next several months they're going to come out with anything truly innovative.

[Dragoonlordz]

Maria Caliban wrote...

This is like suggesting the lead designer of the Witcher make a Dragon Age game.

I vote for this option.

[Maria Caliban]

Ronin2006 wrote...

Yeah, this is what I wasn't sure of, and something I referred to in my edited original post.  Thanks for pointing this out. 

I mentioned Mike Laidlaw because he is the one all over the media for this product and I'm not sure how much responsibility he has over it, but it does 'seem' as though he has a lot, and that the success/failures of the game will rest on his shoulders.  If Mark Darrah is the 'head' of Dragon Age 2, perhaps he is the one that questions should be raised over.

Obviously as outsiders, it's difficult to know how things turned out like they do. Even if they did fire Mike, I assume that if Mark liked the way DA II turned out, he would hire/promote someone with a similar vision.

I think that BioWare, company wide, is attempting to create RPGs that appeal to a wide audience and I think they'll continue to do so.

The Witcher has a single, predefined protagonist and click-to-attack combat, but did just as well on PC. Fallout: NV is a first-person shooter RPG with no party and an open world, and it sold *better* than DA:O.

'BioWare-style' games less profitable than RPGs that are less costly to develop.

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

This is like suggesting the lead designer of the Witcher make a Dragon Age game.

I vote for this option.

I'd have no problem with Dragon Age game that had a single, predefined protagonist, voice-over, three changes of clothing, no party, and click-to-attack.

The people who'd like a game more like DA:O would be just as unhappy, however.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 25 mars 2011 - 03:32 .

[Ariella]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

This is like suggesting the lead designer of the Witcher make a Dragon Age game.

I vote for this option.

Really? Why? A lot of the complaints I've seen about DA2 can be applied to the Witcher: recycling (all the atmospheric npcs looked exactly the same), button pushing combat system, appealing to the lowest common denominator (sex cards?), lousy writing...

It's the same stuff different Dev.

[Cody211282]

Ariella wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

This is like suggesting the lead designer of the Witcher make a Dragon Age game.

I vote for this option.

Really? Why? A lot of the complaints I've seen about DA2 can be applied to the Witcher: recycling (all the atmospheric npcs looked exactly the same), button pushing combat system, appealing to the lowest common denominator (sex cards?), lousy writing...

It's the same stuff different Dev.

I don't know why people here like that game so much, there are load screens ever 30 seconds, the load times are long as hell, and the main guy is so monotone it's borderline offencive to other VAs.

[RohanD]

Ariella wrote...

B3taMaxxx wrote...

RohanD wrote...
Obsidian are the devs to watch from now. They've had some rocky games, but I guarantee they are going to be hitting their full stride pretty soon.

 In about a months time perhaps we'll see, but that's a hefty claim considering their recent endeavours.

Considering that Obsidian has yet to make an independant IP that was a marketplace success (I really enjoyed AP and find it sad that SEGA decided not to continue with the frachise as it was a great idea) making the claim they are the devs to watch seems a little hyperbolic to me. The next game they have coming out is Dungeon Siege 3 with Square Enix, and from the little I've seen it looks like DS3 has even LESS character definition ability than AP did.

I'd like Obsidian to do well, but I doubt in the next several months they're going to come out with anything truly innovative.

Dungeon Siege 3 is going to be a fantastic game. It is a reboot, but it is a very well considered, no holds barred reboot. If you look at the gameplay footage you'll see that they've put a LOT of time and money into the development of the game and its engine. 

The point is, it is not trying to be something that it isn't. They've said from the get go, this is dungeon crawler, co op hack and slash with rpg elements. They aren't trying to reinvent the wheel which almost always fails, they are sticking to their guns and just making a really great, solid experience. Approching things this way I believe gives their team more focus and more drive to complete the task properly. 

Now if only that Aliens RPG didn't get canned....sigh

[Dragoonlordz]

Because I actually had more enjoyment from it, no grand secrets or deep specific reasons other than a feeling, nothing more and nothing less than had more fun than I did with DA2. Alternatively I had more fun with DA:O than Witcher, so in that regards bring back the lead guy who made DA:O it was Brent wasn't it? SO I vote bring Brent back as lead just based on the fact he made a game I enjoyed more than DA2.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 25 mars 2011 - 03:49 .

[Ronin2006]

B3taMaxxx wrote...

Ronin2006 wrote...
Hardly.  I'm quite glad this has been pointed out.  I don't want to have people criticising the wrong person.  I simply wanted to talk about whoever it was that is responsible overall for the product, because this is the person that will ultimately get the blame/praise for the success/failures of the game.

 You rushed to judgement before analysing the circumstances. This is something I do often, as well as most people as passionate about such.

 However, I don't think the blame can be found within the DA2 department, but from a higher one. Laidlaw, Darrah and the others probably didn't want to lose thier jobs by taking a stand. Now that the product is out, only in the next year will we see the fallout, if any. The rush to bring the game to market, in my opinion was ochestrated from the top down, not vise versa.

I actually haven't judged Laidlaw at all, just openly asked for discussion on him.

But I do see where you're coming from.  Ultimately, want I want to discuss is the person who is responsible for Dragon Age 2.  In the media it was always portrayed as Laidlaw.  If it's someone else then so be it, we should be discussing their role.

What is clear is that ever since Laidlaw took his position, there have been drastic changes to the direction of the franchise whether you consider them good or bad.  Now, the question is whether he had a say in those changes.  The person who had a say and decided on this change is the person we should be discussing.

I understand it may not be just one person who made all these changes to the franchise, but there is always a single person at the top of the organisation who oversees everything and guides the direction of that organisation.  That is the person I am trying to refer to.  People keep saying it's EA, but EA is a producer.  They are not actually involved in that process as heavily as some people like to believe.  They may have put pressure on Bioware to do things that they wouldn't want, but ultimately Bioware still has their own creative license to use within their budget and time constraints that EA has set out for them.

[nijnij]

@Cody211282 The load screens are actually one of the smartest things about the game. When it comes to big games, loading screens are a necessary fatality. The fact that they made them all different, cool-looking and quest or location related actually reinforces immersion (for most ofthe game anyway) instead of breaking it. That's like making a good thing out of a bad thing. If you look back to Origins, the perpetual bloodstained Denerim artwork loadscreen was much more annoying. How quickly we forget ^^.

[Cody211282]

nijnij wrote...

@Cody211282 The load screens are actually one of the smartest things about the game. When it comes to big games, loading screens are a necessary fatality. The fact that they made them all different, cool-looking and quest or location related actually reinforces immersion (for most ofthe game anyway) instead of breaking it. That's like making a good thing out of a bad thing. If you look back to Origins, the perpetual bloodstained Denerim artwork loadscreen was much more annoying. How quickly we forget ^^.

Oh I remember the loading screens in DA:O, and their problem with getting longer the more of your soul they sucked out of you. But they didn't feel as ferquent as the Witchers did, that game has a lot of going into and out of houses(I stoped playing when you got to the merchent quarter and I kept having to go fro house to house) and to me I felt liek the time I spent in loading screens was more then I spent actauly playing, and again the voice acting was rather bad(now I don't know if in the books he is that way or they just did it for the game but I just couldn't stand it).

[B3taMaxxx]

Ronin2006 wrote...
I understand it may not be just one person who made all these changes to the franchise, but there is always a single person at the top of the organisation who oversees everything and guides the direction of that organisation.  That is the person I am trying to refer to.  People keep saying it's EA, but EA is a producer.  They are not actually involved in that process as heavily as some people like to believe.  They may have put pressure on Bioware to do things that they wouldn't want, but ultimately Bioware still has their own creative license to use within their budget and time constraints that EA has set out for them.

 But this is where we differ. I liked the direction they went with the franchise, but NOT at the fact it was pushed out the door. I like the new character models (female dwarves don't exist!), the combat in my opinion is  better (although the lack of a tactical view is bad, but I blame this on the games engine) and the overall story was good, it just wasn't fully fleshed out.

 As I've said, the problems assosiated with the game (for me) are the time constraints it was developed.

 And while EA is just a producer, they purchased BioWare, therefor the ultimate decisions rest upon them. However, I do not fully lay the blame upon them, but perhaps the people that allowed them to think magic (developing a RPG in such a time frame) could happen.

 Where does this leave us? Well, I can answer that question for myself, but not immediately. I will wait and hold my ultimate judgement until I hear about the future installment, and in what direction they'll take it, under what time constraints.

 It's just to soon to understand the fallout, for me atleast.