131 réponses à ce sujet

[TheRaj]

I was thinking about my views on DA2. I was wondering how much of it is because of my attachment to games like Baldurs Gate I and II, which I felt DA:O was closer to in terms of feel. Am I just one of those who are going through, as Gaider suggested, some stage of grief over a gaming era long gone? Does that make DA2 a bad game?

Not at all! In my view it was a step down in terms of my enjoyment but still decent, but I don't represent everyone.

I didn' t like the 'awesomeness' (sorry Laidlaw , its become the forum catchphrase mate) the new, spiky aesthetic, or the jumping around and exploding enemies in a shower of blood. I like games that give me a sense of freedom and a sense of immersion while maintaining an interesting story. DA2 wasn't terrible but a step backward in that respect, in my opinion.

All games make sacrifices, and if you work on a tight deadline, I bet you have to make hard choices. I didn't like how many levels were reused, but I understand that they couldn't build thousands of areas. I think they should have spent more time and money here, and less changing the combat engine. I also prefer to have fewer quests but make them more interesting (I wasn't a fan of 'I think you dropped this'), even if it means you get 20 hrs of game instead of 40. Its all about choices. They made them, I didn't like (many of) them. Could they have made a game just for me? No.

So if we accept that not everyone can like everything in every game, was DA2's mistake to try to cater to everyone? Did they conciously try to target a wider audience and risk alienating their fans? I think so. Is it better to have fewer people 'love' the game than have many more 'like' it? Is it economically viable (could they charge more per head for those niche players who would 'love' the game? I'd pay more...) Heck, I would have paid twice as much for them to just take the DA:O engine, and spent 100% of your time doing artwork, building areas and designing quests and NPCs.

Build for the niche or build for the masses?

[Lord_Saulot]

I don't think all games can cater to all players, and I do think DA2 was too many things at once. Good post, original poster. Every design choice will have tradeoffs that will make it more appealing to some gamers and less appealing to others.

[AkiKishi]

Adding a lot of option sliders helps.

[Rockpopple]

EA's a business. The mandate of every business is to maximize profits. If they could do so by catering to a small, niche crowd, they'd do it and do it hard. But they can't. The best way to maximize profits is to get as many different people using their product as they can.

BioWare's job is to try to balance EA's needs with maximizing profits with their artistic vision of making a revered product. It's bound to have mixed results every time, but they can only do their best.

[TJSolo]

A small,niche crowd my arse. The crowd I believe you trying to refer to has put many a RPG in the top 50 category over the years. Spouting out empty business 101 rules is not justification for EA's business decisions to focus on turning out action titles with RPG elements.

Modifié par TJSolo, 07 avril 2011 - 03:38 .

[Dark83]

You make a game that you would want to play. That's all that's necessary. Enthusiasm and dedication will come naturally. Quality will follow. Google works on this philosophy.

[Lord_Saulot]

TJSolo wrote...

A small,niche crowd my arse. The crowd I believe you trying to refer to has put many a RPG in the top 50 category over the years. Spouting out empty business 101 rules is not justification for EA's business decisions to focus on turning out action titles with RPG elements.

Isn't it odd how some treat multiplatinum DA:Origins, released less than two years ago, as a small niche title?

[Rockpopple]

You mean like the OP, whom you agreed with?

The OP was the one who brought up the niche market. I was posting relating to what he wrote. Don't get your dander up for no reason.

[Dark83]

Addendum: The problem is treating games as business instead of as a creative art like any novel or movie.

[AkiKishi]

The problem is that the RPG market is not just one "niche" just like any market. Take FPS; put Halo and Killzone fans in the same room and they will try to kill each other, yet both games are FPS.
RPG players are very picky about what features of an RPG make it worthwhile. If everyone who actually liked RPGs did in fact buy every RPG game, then this would be a total non issue as you would be looking at around 8-10 million sales per game.

Maybe if people were less "tribal" about what Hardcore RPG was worthy, then things would not be like they are.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 07 avril 2011 - 03:48 .

[Horus Blackheart]

Short answer no. Longer answer: Going in to developmert thinking you can create the ' univercely apealing game is doomed. We as humans arnt borg its the same as attempting to define scientificly what art is. A computer can't be programed to make abstract choices. So any atempts boil down to 'lets drop in as many 'popular elements' as posable (including a nitting mini game for grandmothers) Its cheap and shows the over dependence on meta data not to mention misreading what its indcating.

[barryl89]

Good OP.

Makes a valid point.

I'm of a similiar mind on this. I absolutely loathe some of the over the top childish responses to the game, but I do recognise the lowering of quality from the original.
I actually think your idea of making the game more expensive and making it much better is awesome. We got spoiled by Origins, the majority of games out there represent less value for money than DA2, yet people go overboard because it is not as good as its predecessor.

[Rockpopple]

@ Dark83... I would argue that most movies are treated like a business. Look at the crap that's shovelled out for the masses. It's a rarity when a mainstream movie has any bit of artistic integrity, not the norm.

And what makes games and movies differ from books is that it takes a lot of money to create them. It's easier for an artist to create a work of art when they're not depending on piles of cash that's funded to them by businesses who don't care about art - they only care about a return on investment, and the next time a GREATER return on investment. This is the way of the world.

If EA believes that it'll be worth it in the short and long term to invest heavily in a game that'll take 5 years and millions of dollars to create, they'll do it in a heartbeat. But it's their call as to whether it's worth it or not, regardless of what we the fans think.

[Rockpopple]

BobSmith101 wrote...

The problem is that the RPG market is not just one "niche" just like any market. Take FPS; put Halo and Killzone fans in the same room and they will try to kill each other, yet both games are FPS.
RPG players are very picky about what features of an RPG make it worthwhile. If everyone who actually liked RPGs did in fact buy every RPG game, then this would be a total non issue as you would be looking at around 8-10 million sales per game.

Maybe if people were less "tribal" about what Hardcore RPG was worthy, then things would not be like they are.

We don't always see eye-to-eye, but in this case I can only agree with you 100%.

[AkiKishi]

Horus Blackheart wrote...

Short answer no. Longer answer: Going in to developmert thinking you can create the ' univercely apealing game is doomed. We as humans arnt borg its the same as attempting to define scientificly what art is. A computer can't be programed to make abstract choices. So any atempts boil down to 'lets drop in as many 'popular elements' as posable (including a nitting mini game for grandmothers) Its cheap and shows the over dependence on meta data not to mention misreading what its indcating.

I don't wholly agree with that.

Adding a speed slider to combat in DA2 and having FF as a toggle option would have removed a lot of peoples objections at a stroke.

[neubourn]

I dont think they tried to cater to everyone, just a different group of gamers this time around...i.e. those who were more keen on Mass Effect then say Baldur's Gate.

To be honest...i love ME series way more then DA...dont get me wrong, i enjoy playing both, but ME just appeals to my Sci-fi nature. DA:O is a great game, but it isnt anything new...it rehashes the same classic Fantasy RPG stories, the same RPG characters (Dwarves are grumpy beared miners, Elves are lanky pointy ear forest dwellers, etc), so yeah...it appeals to a certain group of people, and theres nothing wrong with that.

However, when they go to make a sequel to that game...the fans that liked the original are expecting something similar...which is not what they got, and of course are disappointed about it. But not everyone is THAT disappointed with DA2, personally, i like some of the changes, i like the quicker combat mechanics, the Dialogue wheel (im an ME fan, remember), the framed narrative, the streamlined inventory system and skill trees...all of these things appealed to me.

Thats not to say DA2 is great, it also has its faults..glitches and bugs, reused maps, short length, etc. But in the end, i dont think its a BAD game, just a DIFFERENT one then DA:O, and that is what is upsetting everyone...they dont like change when they expect something similar to what they are used to.

[Horus Blackheart]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Horus Blackheart wrote...

Short answer no. Longer answer: Going in to developmert thinking you can create the ' univercely apealing game is doomed. We as humans arnt borg its the same as attempting to define scientificly what art is. A computer can't be programed to make abstract choices. So any atempts boil down to 'lets drop in as many 'popular elements' as posable (including a nitting mini game for grandmothers) Its cheap and shows the over dependence on meta data not to mention misreading what its indcating.

I don't wholly agree with that.

Adding a speed slider to combat in DA2 and having FF as a toggle option would have removed a lot of peoples objections at a stroke.

A slider in a game is not going to make it apealing to jack thompson for example hence imposable for univercal apeal

[Galad22]

You can't cater to everyone and you should not try to either, as DA2 so brilliantly demonstrates.

[Taura-Tierno]

It's not possible to cater to everyone in one single game. There are too many genres of games for that. Some can be mixed successfully, some can be blended, and some cannot be mixed at all.

[TheRaj]

Rockpopple wrote...

@ Dark83... I would argue that most movies are treated like a business. Look at the crap that's shovelled out for the masses. It's a rarity when a mainstream movie has any bit of artistic integrity, not the norm.

And what makes games and movies differ from books is that it takes a lot of money to create them. It's easier for an artist to create a work of art when they're not depending on piles of cash that's funded to them by businesses who don't care about art - they only care about a return on investment, and the next time a GREATER return on investment. This is the way of the world.

If EA believes that it'll be worth it in the short and long term to invest heavily in a game that'll take 5 years and millions of dollars to create, they'll do it in a heartbeat. But it's their call as to whether it's worth it or not, regardless of what we the fans think.

RockPopple, I wouldn't make the assumption that just because EA/Bioware have done it, it means it was by definition the best business decision. They are human beings who make mistakes. Big clever companies make mistakes and bad judgement calls all the time.
As for how big the crowd is who might agree with me? No idea. Is it a tiny niche or a vast sea of muttering malcontents? No idea.

[Rockpopple]

To be fair to myself, I never said it was the best business decision. I just said it was a business decision and their call, regardless of what we think. Maybe I'm wrong. I just think that to businesses, sales numbers mean a lot more than fans' mutterings on an online forum.

[AkiKishi]

Sports games seem to manage it rather well. Which is ironic since EA makes most of them.

[Horus Blackheart]

"Sports games seem to manage it rather well. Which is ironic since EA makes most of them."

I hate sports games personaly i'd rather play them for real. I( hate wathing most sport for the same reason

[wright1978]

I think you can cater for a wider audience but obviously not every type of user out there. I really enjoyed DA2 and think it made some good strides forward in making a more accesible RPG. I think there maybe a modicum of pendulum swing back in the next installment to appease some people.

[MingWolf]

Rockpopple wrote...

EA's a business. The mandate of every business is to maximize profits. If they could do so by catering to a small, niche crowd, they'd do it and do it hard. But they can't. The best way to maximize profits is to get as many different people using their product as they can.

BioWare's job is to try to balance EA's needs with maximizing profits with their artistic vision of making a revered product. It's bound to have mixed results every time, but they can only do their best.

For one who has studied in business, and one who fell in love with pc gaming almost from the beginning, I worry a bit about the balance between artistic vision and maximizing profits.  "Do their best," doesn't seem to have the same definition as it did many years back.  Yes, there is the importance of making a profit, but there are plenty of examples out there where the art of game design had been sacrificed on the altar for the money making god. 

I've purchased most of Bioware's hot titles, and part of the reason for that is because of their concern for quality and because, compared to a lot of companies out there, these guys actually put their hearts into the games they make.  That is also why they have collected such a fan base over the years and how they grew (both financially and qualitatively), I would assume. 

They may be bound to have mixed results, but I hope that they can keep their priorities straight.  In this business world, the customer should be just as important as the profits.  Their money is our money.