131 réponses à ce sujet

[Galad22]

wright1978 wrote...

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.

You can't make rpgs more accessible without alienating lots of genres actual fans.

And anyway I doubt anyone who doesn't like rpgs cares to try them even if they are made more accessible.

So there is no rational reason for streamlining rpgs so badly that DA2 did.

[islander91]

Can you cater for gamers itne same game? short answer no! as DA2 has shown to be so polarizing to its own fan base. trying to be a action/adventure/hack&slash/RPG hybrid didn't seem to go over real well.

[Dark83]

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.

Much like the game industry.

Most movies are crap, precisely because they are treated as a business. The good movies, the ones that are archived and studied - those are art.

[wright1978]

Most movies are bad because they follow boring formulaic structures. Long ago i got bored of watching most horror movies as from the opening sequence you knew who would die and who would live. The ones that are good try to be different but actually surprise the viewer. Artistic integrity i find often just a cover for indulgent and bad movie making. I applaud that DA2 tried to change things and accept that some of those changes could have come off better. Equally i understand fully that DA3 if it happens will try and be different from both predesssors. Change will always upset some people but it is essential to keep any business fresh.

[Horus Blackheart]

wright1978 wrote...

Most movies are bad because they follow boring formulaic structures. Long ago i got bored of watching most horror movies as from the opening sequence you knew who would die and who would live. The ones that are good try to be different but actually surprise the viewer. Artistic integrity i find often just a cover for indulgent and bad movie making. I applaud that DA2 tried to change things and accept that some of those changes could have come off better. Equally i understand fully that DA3 if it happens will try and be different from both predesssors. Change will always upset some people but it is essential to keep any business fresh.

I would add that I have seen the fraimed naritive and a whole heap of other concepts bolted on to DA" done a hell of alot better in another rpg. This rpg got undeservdily paned by hostile us reviewers but high prase else whare.

hint was made by obcidian 

[AkiKishi]

Horus Blackheart wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Most movies are bad because they follow boring formulaic structures. Long ago i got bored of watching most horror movies as from the opening sequence you knew who would die and who would live. The ones that are good try to be different but actually surprise the viewer. Artistic integrity i find often just a cover for indulgent and bad movie making. I applaud that DA2 tried to change things and accept that some of those changes could have come off better. Equally i understand fully that DA3 if it happens will try and be different from both predesssors. Change will always upset some people but it is essential to keep any business fresh.

I would add that I have seen the fraimed naritive and a whole heap of other concepts bolted on to DA" done a hell of alot better in another rpg. This rpg got undeservdily paned by hostile us reviewers but high prase else whare.

hint was made by obcidian 

If you are talking about Alpha Protocol it deserved what it got. Yes there were some very very good concepts there. But overall it was poor. You can't rate something high just because it has some good ideas.

[Horus Blackheart]

If you are talking about Alpha Protocol it deserved what it got. Yes there were some very very good concepts there. But overall it was poor. You can't rate something high just because it has some good ideas.


LOL do you relise how ironic that statement is sore ap had flaws but the story concept and exacution for the most part was tight. unlike another rpg that should have known better.

[AkiKishi]

Horus Blackheart wrote...

If you are talking about Alpha Protocol it deserved what it got. Yes there were some very very good concepts there. But overall it was poor. You can't rate something high just because it has some good ideas.


LOL do you relise how ironic that statement is sore ap had flaws but the story concept and exacution for the most part was tight. unlike another rpg that should have known better.

And If I were one of those people giving DA2 9 or 10 you would be perfectly justified in that statement. But I only rate it at a 4.

[Horus Blackheart]

And If I were one of those people giving DA2 9 or 10 you would be perfectly justified in that statement. But I only rate it at a 4.



I was comenting that yourstatment should be required reading for some on these boards ie agreeing with you not bashing.

Ap is still a better game in the story exacution department steath kills are the true def of awesome. no exploding bodies ether

[tfive24]

no, u can not serve 2 masters. Anytime you try to cater to different groups in a product, you will alienate people from that product. Look at all the crappy movies that are coming out today. I can't stand most of them because they follow the same formula.

[Dark83]

Pokemon's a great RPG that's very accessible.

[Galad22]

Dark83 wrote...

Pokemon's a great RPG that's very accessible.

But it is. No need to pe sarcastic here.

Perhaps you should try it.:happy:

[1varangian]

No you can't.

I fear DA2 will be forgotten very quickly by both RPG and Action gamers. It offers a half assed rendition of both genres and as such can't compete with either AAA action titles or RPG's. DA2 seems like a big dent in BioWare's reputation.

I hope I'm wrong.

edited to add: Mass Effect 1&2 did succeed where DA2 failed. They are good action games with a well written story and interesting characters. Graphics are also better and the setting is not cartoony which enhances the emotional impact of the story. DA2 tries to do action/rpg 50/50 which is why it falls flat. That said, I don't want to see future DA games go full action but rather rediscover their identity as tactical party based RPG's.

Modifié par 1varangian, 07 avril 2011 - 09:47 .

[Brockololly]

Question: Can you cater to  all gamers in the same game?

Answer: Sure, and you end up with DA2:pinched:

TheRaj wrote...
So if we accept that not everyone can like
everything in every game, was DA2's mistake to try to cater to everyone?

I definitely think thats part of it. Its not "action-y" enough to play as a robust action game which could hold its own against a God of War or Arkham Asylum. And its not as robust a party based tactical RPG as Origins...which is really the only tactical party based RPG to have been made in a while. PArt of DA2's problem is that IMO, its not unlike ME1 where it waffled in terms of what it was trying to do: does it want to be an action game or a stat heavy RPG? DA2 tried to find a middle ground but I don't think it found that point. So quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised to see DA3 pushed into a simpler, more action focus, not unlike how ME1-->ME2 went into a pure third person shooter.

TheRaj wrote...
Did they conciously try to target a wider audience and risk alienating
their fans?

Absolutely they did.
I mean, I think at this point, BioWare is not necessarily interested in making traditional RPGs. They're primarily interested in making games as "interactive stories" that can be as easily accessable to as wide of an audience as possible. So if that means neutering any perceived features which may be perceived as too complex or complicated, they'll be streamlined into nothing.

TheRaj wrote...
Build for the niche or build for the masses?

I think the big question is what are they aiming for? At what point, given their budget per title, is their return good enough- both in terms of revenue and copies sold? Sure, you want to sell as many as possible, but at what cost? Having a devoted "niche" audience or "hardcore" base is not something you should ****** away in trying to make an RPG for people that don't like RPGs. Are those more fairweather fans going to be interested in the DLC or expansion packs? Or will they have moved on to some other title by then? 

Its like politics and any presidential election: When you're starting out in the party primaries, you need to appeal to your partisan base. If you don't do that, you won't get the nomination. Only after you have the nomination do you start moderating and appeal to the general electorate. Now maybe thats what they did with DA2- appeal to the "hardcore" RPG fan with DAO and then moderate with DA2? Problem is, if you consider a hypothetical DA3 or DA2's DLC  as another election, what is DA2's effect on the various fanbases? Would a fan of DAO be likely to buy DA3 or DA2 DLC if they didn't like DA2?

[MorrigansLove]

http://www.gamecriti...tate-of-bioware

[Dridengx]

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.

Your RPGs don't sell anymore least not at the level needed for today's game costs. Your RPG Devs are out of business. What happened to Nihilistic? they stopped making rpgs. What happened to Troika? Black Isle where the trash left over was making hand me downs from Bioware as Obsidian who now can't make a good game to save their life like Alpha Protocol. Truth is, you guys are living in the past, Gothic changed, Dvine Divinity changed, Witcher is even changing combat. Bioware has changed with games like Jade Empire, Kotor, Mass Effect, but oh noes! don't change Dragon Age! lol


example? look at Awakening's Sales which was exactly like Origins compare those sales with DA2? nah, you guys rather compare it to DAO which was during a drought of RPGs and afterall it was Bioware's first break from D&D rules. fact is, everyone loves Bioware, they bought Origins for the trailers and Bioware's name. many didn't like it, especially console gamers, which happen to be #1 consumer for games now

Modifié par Dridengx, 07 avril 2011 - 10:21 .

[Maconbar]

If they wanted to cater to all gamers, they should have used more pie.

[Ieolus]

What really doesn't make sense is the fact that DA:O sold so well, and they decided to mess with a winning formula anyway. That makes NO business sense.
A true business out to "maximize profits" would have been risk averse and not made radical changes to the sequel. This was just bad business all around.

[TheRaj]

Dridengx wrote...

Bioware has changed with games like Jade Empire, Kotor, Mass Effect, but oh noes! don't change Dragon Age! lol

Personally, I would say Kotor I and II felt much more in the spirit of old style RPGs like BG I and II. And Kotor II didn't start to cross genres compared to Kotor I, it was a refinement in the same style. Likewise for BG II vs BG I.

Same with the action-rpg genre - Diablo II didn't become a pause and play tactical combat game, it kept the same basic formula of Diablo I and built on its success.

I don't think anyone is saying Bioware should stay stuck in the past. If Bioware wants to make an action-rpg series more power to them. I think the question is whether you can mix 'traditional' rpg games and action rpg games and get the best of both worlds, of whether you get a diluted mix that doesn't sit as well in either fan base.

I actually sit in both fanbases personally... I like action rpgs like Diablo, and I like 'traditional' rpgs like BG or DA:O. I liked DA2, but not nearly as much as either game.

[Melca36]

I want to know why did they think trying to appeal to a bunch of gamers who don't play rpgs to begin with was a good idea.

[Icinix]

Short: No.

Long: No matter how hard you try to make a game accessible and enjoyable to multiple groups, you're going to have to sacrifice some elements for another group. In most cases, the majority, which are arguable the more casual of the gamers. The majority seem to like to be able to jump on a game for ten minutes at a time and not get too heavily invested, then trade it in when finished for a new game.

Game companies have been trying to get a piece of the trade in / re sale pie for a while now...I think they should just be trying to make games that people don't want to sell..this means aiming at the niche, rather than the majority....but maybe that's just me. Besides, that's a whole different kettle of chickens.

[Lord_Saulot]

Dridengx wrote...

example? look at Awakening's Sales which was exactly like Origins compare those sales with DA2? nah, you guys rather compare it to DAO which was during a drought of RPGs and afterall it was Bioware's first break from D&D rules. fact is, everyone loves Bioware, they bought Origins for the trailers and Bioware's name. many didn't like it, especially console gamers, which happen to be #1 consumer for games now

Nice rationalization.  Origins to DA2 is a game to game comparison.  Awakening is an expansion.  Expansions always sell less.  And as for people buying Origins and not liking it, why doesn't that apply to DA2?  If you've read this forum, you know that it is even more true about DA2.  Dragon Age Origins got fewer user complaints on the forum, and received better critical reviews than DA2.  DA2's high sales were mostly based on the popularity of Origins.

Modifié par Lord_Saulot, 07 avril 2011 - 10:53 .

[TJSolo]

Dridengx wrote...

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.

Your RPGs don't sell anymore least not at the level needed for today's game costs. Your RPG Devs are out of business. What happened to Nihilistic? they stopped making rpgs. What happened to Troika? Black Isle where the trash left over was making hand me downs from Bioware as Obsidian who now can't make a good game to save their life like Alpha Protocol. Truth is, you guys are living in the past, Gothic changed, Dvine Divinity changed, Witcher is even changing combat. Bioware has changed with games like Jade Empire, Kotor, Mass Effect, but oh noes! don't change Dragon Age! lol


example? look at Awakening's Sales which was exactly like Origins compare those sales with DA2? nah, you guys rather compare it to DAO which was during a drought of RPGs and afterall it was Bioware's first break from D&D rules. fact is, everyone loves Bioware, they bought Origins for the trailers and Bioware's name. many didn't like it, especially console gamers, which happen to be #1 consumer for games now

What are you blabblering about? There have been studios that have done primarily RPGs that have closed and studios that have done other types of genres to close. All sort of new studios continue to open and take their place.

Obsidian has always been plagued by taking other companies assests/tools and churning out 2nd hand programming. Nothing new here and it is not because those games tend to be RPGs. 

I don't know why you are listing games like JE or KOTOR as combat that has changed, you do KOTOR uses dice rolls?

You can look at Awakenings sales all you like it is an expansion that does not even expand the base game. Expansions/DLC don't sell nearly the same quantity as full retail games, attempting such a comparison is doomed from the start. 

everyone loves Bioware, they bought Origins for the trailers and
Bioware's name. many didn't like it, especially console gamers, which
happen to be #1 consumer for games now

What an absurd assumption. Many bought the game and many didn't like it? Riiiight.
Why are you trying to go into console gaming vs PC gaming in a reply to me? It is also odd that one of EA's biggest selling games this generation is a PC game and EA thinks that PC gaming is the future. Personally I think consoles, handhelds, and PCs fill particular needs various gamers have.

Modifié par TJSolo, 08 avril 2011 - 01:27 .

[Rockpopple]

I think if games didn't have such beefy system requirements in order to run nice and smoothly, and if it wasn't so expensive to get a pc to run them, most console players would be pc gamers. After-all, nearly everyone owns a pc of some kind.

[Caralampio]

No. You end up pleasing no one. DAO was liked by one kind of player. DA2 was created to cater to another kind of player. The player who liked DAO is disappointed, the other kind of player is happy. One crowd says, "I don't like the new Dragon Age". The other crowd responds, "I don't understand how you can't like it. It's the best thing since the invention of diaper pins!" Neither side will convince the other. A DA3 that tries to be a middle ground between DAO and DA2 will please neither. The DAO'ers will say it's not enough, the DA2'ers will say "hey DA2 was perfect why ruin it!" And then, only then, they will begin to understand how DAO fans feel today..