263 réponses à ce sujet

[neppakyo]

erynnar wrote...

Yeah I feel the same way you do. And isn't it interesting that ME3 is taking a step forward to it's roots. I hope that bodes well for DA3 (eventhough there are different design groups working on them).

Im just glad the DA2 team is no where near ME3. Glad to hear about more rpg elements back in, I did enjoy ME2 though.

Well, as long as Mr Mike "Awesome -Button" Laidlaw is in charge, expect more like DA2 for DA3, but awesomer!

Modifié par neppakyo, 12 avril 2011 - 01:18 .

[Johnsen1972]

That was a well spotted post, I hope Mike Laidlaw reads this. To have almost no impact on the story is one of the worst things that can happend in a CRPG. I mean I rather watch a good movie then playing a gamemovie where you can just react but not act.

[erynnar]

neppakyo wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Yeah I feel the same way you do. And isn't it interesting that ME3 is taking a step forward to it's roots. I hope that bodes well for DA3 (eventhough there are different design groups working on them).

Im just glad the DA2 team is no where near ME3. Glad to hear about more rpg elements back in, I did enjoy ME2 though.

Well, as long as Mr Mike "Awesome -Button" Laidlaw is in charge, expect more like DA2 for DA3, but awesomer!

I don't know whether to laugh or cry...

[jds1bio]

erynnar wrote...

Cybermortis wrote...

Bioware
fans have not dug themselves into a corner as a whole. The complaints about the game are frighteningly consistent in both tone and details regardless of how many Bioware games, or how into RPG's the poster is.

 

And this!

The complaints about the game - some are consistent in detail, and some are frightening yes - but they're not consistent in tone at all.  The review scores run a broad spectrum, and the tones of critic reviews run from over-praised to over-lambasted.  The board postings this month have run the gamut from worldly praise to despicable hate.

If more of the disgruntled fans would articulate their views like you guys do, rationally and sensibly, then I don't think they'd be in a corner for much longer.  Instead, they abruptly blame their dislike for the game on their favorite game company and its strategic partner, taking no responsibility themselves for their changing tastes, or their rose-colored glasses looking at past games, or even considering role-playing vs. combat..  Stuck in a corner.

Modifié par jds1bio, 12 avril 2011 - 01:43 .

[rcollins1701]

I frankly don't understand all of this grumbling about choice having no effect or relevance in DA2. Choice is much more than who lives and who dies, who rules and who goes to jail. As one who has been role-playing since we rolled dice on wooden planks and elf was a class, the choices in role-playing deal primarily in how one plays their character. In DA2, the player had more control over how they played their respective Hawkes than any other video game RPG I've ever seen (in part because of the emoticons in the [dreaded] convo-wheel). I realize that because of glitches this isn't the case for some, but all of the choices I made in DA:O carried through when relevant as well.

Throughout DA2 you're provided with all kinds of choice. You choose not only the who lives and who dies, but also how you interact with everyone you encounter. And for those wanting big choices, deciding the future of Thedas at the end seems pretty relevant to me. The fact that you have to fight certain fights regardless of Hawke's choices doesn't mean your choices don't matter. If you're boiling down the relevancy of choice to who you combat, that cheapens the whole notion of choice in RPGs. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought role-playing was more about playing a character than, "Do I fight the demon or the dragon? I have to fight both no matter what button I push? Zounds, I feel slighted! Let's blame EA!"

Let's put choice as we mean in Role-Playing Games into perspective, shall we?

[neppakyo]

rcollins1701 wrote...

I frankly don't understand all of this grumbling about choice having no effect or relevance in DA2. Choice is much more than who lives and who dies, who rules and who goes to jail. As one who has been role-playing since we rolled dice on wooden planks and elf was a class, the choices in role-playing deal primarily in how one plays their character. In DA2, the player had more control over how they played their respective Hawkes than any other video game RPG I've ever seen (in part because of the emoticons in the [dreaded] convo-wheel). I realize that because of glitches this isn't the case for some, but all of the choices I made in DA:O carried through when relevant as well.

Throughout DA2 you're provided with all kinds of choice. You choose not only the who lives and who dies, but also how you interact with everyone you encounter. And for those wanting big choices, deciding the future of Thedas at the end seems pretty relevant to me. The fact that you have to fight certain fights regardless of Hawke's choices doesn't mean your choices don't matter. If you're boiling down the relevancy of choice to who you combat, that cheapens the whole notion of choice in RPGs. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought role-playing was more about playing a character than, "Do I fight the demon or the dragon? I have to fight both no matter what button I push? Zounds, I feel slighted! Let's blame EA!"

Let's put choice as we mean in Role-Playing Games into perspective, shall we?

How about choosing not to support either faction in DA2 and ending the hostilities?

I'd really like it if they stop portraying mages as emo's who cut themselves everytime some one destroy's their cure cd's.

[erynnar]

jds1bio wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Cybermortis wrote...

Bioware
fans have not dug themselves into a corner as a whole. The complaints about the game are frighteningly consistent in both tone and details regardless of how many Bioware games, or how into RPG's the poster is.

 

And this!

The complaints about the game - some are consistent in detail, and some are frightening yes - but they're not consistent in tone at all.  The review scores run a broad spectrum, and the tones of critic reviews run from over-praised to over-lambasted.  The board postings this month have run the gamut from worldly praise to despicable hate.

If more of the disgruntled fans would articulate their views like you guys do, rationally and sensibly, then I don't think they'd be in a corner for much longer.  Instead, they abruptly blame their dislike for the game on their favorite game company and its strategic partner, taking no responsibility themselves for their changing tastes, or their rose-colored glasses looking at past games, or even considering role-playing vs. combat..  Stuck in a corner.

Thanks OP for calling me articulate despite my digruntledness (is that even a word, LOL).  I think yours was very articulate too. There are some pretty, um... excited people from both sides of the aisle?  I however, don't hate it, just disappointed on many levels. And I figure a reasonable well thought out response is a better one for having BioWare read it, and I prefer reasonable, with snark thrown in.  I can't help it! I like the little theater mask icon!

[Ariella]

jds1bio wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Bioware didn't paint themselves in a corner with what kind of story they told. In fact, this is the story they wanted to tell, thing is Bioware knows what comes next and we don't , which is irritating for some people.

I agree, the story itself is a good one and Hawke is a legit character.  But telling a story you want to tell doesn't jive 100% with role-playing, which typically pits one or more characters in a scenario, and the stories are supposed to emerge from the played-out roles. 

That's easier said than done in a single player cRPG however, where the partnership between the player and the devevlopement team is different. As much as I'd love to have a game night with Dave Gaider running as GM, that's not going to happen. The code can't think on the fly the way a human can, and the developement team knows that, so they build in as many senerios as they can without breaking a budget (another thing table top gamers and LARPs don't have to worry about as much except when it's time to pay the pizza delivery person). I'd say with the possible exception of the original Ultima series, Bioware was really the pioneer when it came to reactive NPCs who had personality rather than just filled a tactical role in the party. I've seen variations of the same comment more than once: "I just took (fill in the blank) along because s/he was just too darn funny".

Role has become more than just character class. It's personhood, history, likes and dislikes. The more the characters that surround the PC feel like real people, the higher the suspension of disbelief goes and the player really begins to feel like the character they're playing.

The story is always alreayd going to be set in a cRPG going back to the old Bard's Tales and Ultimas and Gold Box games. The thing is, technology has given developers like Bioware more tools to make the game feel less about numbers and more about people. They'll never be able to match the on the fly adaptation of a GM at a table, but they aren't trying to either. They're striking for a middle ground between that cooperative story telling of a GM and her players and the more rigid demands of set code and technology that's not as creative or reliable as a human brain.

So in this game, BioWare found ways for the story to stick no matter what Hawke says or does, but did set up sub-scenarios via side quests and companions that allowed for some variations separate from the main story.  But to use the excuse for the story ending and single shape that "Bioware knows what comes next and we don't" IS irritating because it sounds more like the developer expects us to pay out in episodic content fashion over time, when the games are not being structured, promoted, or released that way.

The trouble is, once you know that certain variations won't bear fruit as far as the stories or companions go, you no longer desire to use them.  Much like in combat, when you realize that certain abilities end up being too weak vs. other combinations, you're less apt to select them again.  We'd typically call such a game as being unbalanced in combat.  I think it's fair to say that DA2 is unbalanced in role-playing vs. the main story.

It's funny you say this, because my absolute favorite RPG series of the eightes was Quest for Glory. Three character classes, not a lot of varation between the three of them in the first couple of games, and these days I can finish QfG1 the VGA remake in maybe an hour of play because I know the game so well. Do I still play it and enjoy it? Heck yeah! Of course, you're talking to someone who saw Batman Begins maybe 12 times or more, even after the big reveal. I love stories, I love listening to commentary to see where it all comes from, so maybe I'm seeing this from a different perspective.

As for abilities, that's something that'll be done in any an every game. I've played DAO God alone knows how many times and never finished it as anything but a female Cousland who takes the dark way out and marries the King, I have yet not to enjoy a playthrough of that, And there will always be characters who appeal to some players more than others, having them along and dealing with them changes the story from someone who doesn't deal with them.

Also, there's one other thing, that I honestly believe about the DA universe. The players aren't the shmucky level one adventurers, who have Elminster or D'rizzt kicking around to fix things for us. With the exception of Flemeth, the player is bringing to life the DA versions of those heroes, the core canon of legend for the Dragon Age, which is why it makes sense to end this one on a cliff hanger. I don't see it as an attempt to coerse buying future product any more than cliffhangers in novels, television shows or movies (Empire Strikes Back or Wrath of Khan anyone?) are coersion. Speaking of which, I have a Castle to keep up with, so I'll go on about this more if you like later. Please, feel free to reply, this is one of the better converations I've had in a while, at least on the net, -Ariella

[Zanallen]

Honestly, perhaps the issue here is the import feature? Bioware doesn't want to have the story to differ too drastically based on player choices because they plan on having those choices be (somewhat) reflected in future games. Radically different playthroughs make that incredibly difficult to do. Which, honestly, is one of the things I fear for ME3. With all the companions in ME2 slayable, how in depth will Bioware make their roles in 3?

[erynnar]

neppakyo wrote...

rcollins1701 wrote...

I frankly don't understand all of this grumbling about choice having no effect or relevance in DA2. Choice is much more than who lives and who dies, who rules and who goes to jail. As one who has been role-playing since we rolled dice on wooden planks and elf was a class, the choices in role-playing deal primarily in how one plays their character. In DA2, the player had more control over how they played their respective Hawkes than any other video game RPG I've ever seen (in part because of the emoticons in the [dreaded] convo-wheel). I realize that because of glitches this isn't the case for some, but all of the choices I made in DA:O carried through when relevant as well.

Throughout DA2 you're provided with all kinds of choice. You choose not only the who lives and who dies, but also how you interact with everyone you encounter. And for those wanting big choices, deciding the future of Thedas at the end seems pretty relevant to me. The fact that you have to fight certain fights regardless of Hawke's choices doesn't mean your choices don't matter. If you're boiling down the relevancy of choice to who you combat, that cheapens the whole notion of choice in RPGs. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought role-playing was more about playing a character than, "Do I fight the demon or the dragon? I have to fight both no matter what button I push? Zounds, I feel slighted! Let's blame EA!"

Let's put choice as we mean in Role-Playing Games into perspective, shall we?

How about choosing not to support either faction in DA2 and ending the hostilities?

I'd really like it if they stop portraying mages as emo's who cut themselves everytime some one destroy's their cure cd's.

If DAO's choices had only been about who I tried to get to bed me, friend me, or hate me and leave or kill, in between fighing endless waves of darkspawn marshmallow men, I would have been just as disappointed (maybe more so as DAO took over a hundred hours instead of about thirty to fifty) followed by my hand being forced to choose Loghain and have Alistair walk out regardless of how I had played or the illusion of choices I had made up until that point. That would have ticked me off more than DA2 has managed to do. 

That is pretty weak tea for an epic story. And the Hawke story was sold as epic even as the character is a rags to riches story, and by epic I don't mean two archdemons stapled together for a super Blight. So basically I get to piddle around with endless quests, few whose choices make an impact except in the smallest of ways, while the big huge one they blugeoned you over the head with repeatedly and really ratchet up at the end, makes no difference at all, none?  Um DAO had the illusion of choice too, but they did it classier, in a less ham fisted way...and as a bonus, they told me what those small illusions of choice did to the world they made me fall in love with. I would prefer the great and powerful Oz go back behind the curtain and give me the illusion of choice again, so that I can lose myself in their epic creativity.

[jds1bio]

neppakyo wrote...

Ronin2006 wrote...
Third, I honestly doubt the assertion that traditional RPGers are unhappy that Bioware are trying to bring their game to a wider audience.  DA O sold what? 4 million copies or so?  (not sure on the exact figure).  I doubt too many traditional RPGers were concerned that the title was relatively mainstream anyway.  While I can speak only for myself, I could care less if someone who plays COD likes DA.  The fact is, I like DA O, and nothing affects that.  People are more unhappy that their tastes were neglected in favour of another audience, when they had been the ones supporting Bioware for years and not the other audience that they were trying to capture.

This paragraph sums it up nicely, especially the bolded part.

Customers don't know anything about the inner financial workings of the company, which means they have no idea how much or how little their customer loyalty is really supporting the company.  Something tells me that with BioWare partnering with EA, and making games to try and reach wider audiences, that the old-school loyalists (of which I am one) haven't been enough to support them.

[Cybermortis]

erynnar wrote...

jds1bio wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Cybermortis wrote...

Bioware
fans have not dug themselves into a corner as a whole. The complaints about the game are frighteningly consistent in both tone and details regardless of how many Bioware games, or how into RPG's the poster is.

 

And this!

The complaints about the game - some are consistent in detail, and some are frightening yes - but they're not consistent in tone at all.  The review scores run a broad spectrum, and the tones of critic reviews run from over-praised to over-lambasted.  The board postings this month have run the gamut from worldly praise to despicable hate.

If more of the disgruntled fans would articulate their views like you guys do, rationally and sensibly, then I don't think they'd be in a corner for much longer.  Instead, they abruptly blame their dislike for the game on their favorite game company and its strategic partner, taking no responsibility themselves for their changing tastes, or their rose-colored glasses looking at past games, or even considering role-playing vs. combat..  Stuck in a corner.

Thanks OP for calling me articulate despite my digruntledness (is that even a word, LOL).  I think yours was very articulate too. There are some pretty, um... excited people from both sides of the aisle?  I however, don't hate it, just disappointed on many levels. And I figure a reasonable well thought out response is a better one for having BioWare read it, and I prefer reasonable, with snark thrown in.  I can't help it! I like the little theater mask icon!

If you look through the posts made on this part of the board you'll quickly realise that you can group players into three catagories;

Those who hated it and would be quite happy to hear that certain members of the development team had been fired, ideally out of a large cannon.

Those who loved the game to the point that they refuse to accept anything is wrong with it.

Everyone else.

The first two groups are by far the most vocal, but it is fairly clear that they are also a small minority of all players. The last group is the more interesting one.

This group got some enjoyment out of the game, at least for a while. Some have played and finished it three or four times. Others just couldn't bring themselves to finish - or had to force themselves to do so. While most seem to have finished one or two playthroughs. Most importantly it is this group than has tended to be the ones who are making the more thoughtful posts about the game, and they are listing the same problems. Their attitude has been one of 'I sort of enjoyed it for a whilebut...' (Taking into account some variation for personal preference, such as some people just not liking a voiced protaganist).

If you take a good look though the 74+ stickied thread at the top of this board you'll notice that players today are saying the exact same things today as players were saying two days after the game was released. It is also worrying (or should be) that each and every major complaint, from bugs to the inventory screen through combat and ending with the story are, without exception, all problems that could and should have been addressed. IF the game had been given more time, or rather if the development team had been given more time.

All this, plus all the interviews, marketing and the way they had DLC ready for sale as soon as the game came out. Can only be explained by a game that was rushed through development, and that was intended to use the reputation of Dragon Age; Origins and Bioware to sell regardless of the original intentions of the development team for the game.

The problem is that we know this (apart from the fanatical 'Bioware can do no bad' peeps anyway), we can see it and feel this in the game...And we are not impressed.


Mass Effect 2 is usually brought up as a 'change doesn't mean bad' example. But this is unhelpful since the ME games are a different setting and by their nature a totally different pace to DA. In ME you could get away with, for example, getting rid of the inventory entirely as it was needlessly complex and eye swimmingly slow-paced. You could also (at least in ME itself) get away with things like reused maps since not only was there an attempt to move objects inside different locations around to some degree. But within the setting you can justify such a thing by assuming that an advanced culture would used pre-fabricated and therefore standard layouts for small colony buildings and research facilities.

Trying to do this in the DA world neither works or makes sense, any more than having men wearing full plate armour being able to jump 40 feet off a roof onto flagstones with the same ease as a cat hopping off a chair.

[neppakyo]

erynnar wrote...

neppakyo wrote...

rcollins1701 wrote...

I frankly don't understand all of this grumbling about choice having no effect or relevance in DA2. Choice is much more than who lives and who dies, who rules and who goes to jail. As one who has been role-playing since we rolled dice on wooden planks and elf was a class, the choices in role-playing deal primarily in how one plays their character. In DA2, the player had more control over how they played their respective Hawkes than any other video game RPG I've ever seen (in part because of the emoticons in the [dreaded] convo-wheel). I realize that because of glitches this isn't the case for some, but all of the choices I made in DA:O carried through when relevant as well.

Throughout DA2 you're provided with all kinds of choice. You choose not only the who lives and who dies, but also how you interact with everyone you encounter. And for those wanting big choices, deciding the future of Thedas at the end seems pretty relevant to me. The fact that you have to fight certain fights regardless of Hawke's choices doesn't mean your choices don't matter. If you're boiling down the relevancy of choice to who you combat, that cheapens the whole notion of choice in RPGs. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought role-playing was more about playing a character than, "Do I fight the demon or the dragon? I have to fight both no matter what button I push? Zounds, I feel slighted! Let's blame EA!"

Let's put choice as we mean in Role-Playing Games into perspective, shall we?

How about choosing not to support either faction in DA2 and ending the hostilities?

I'd really like it if they stop portraying mages as emo's who cut themselves everytime some one destroy's their cure cd's.

If DAO's choices had only been about who I tried to get to bed me, friend me, or hate me and leave or kill, in between fighing endless waves of darkspawn marshmallow men, I would have been just as disappointed (maybe more so as DAO took over a hundred hours instead of about thirty to fifty) followed by my hand being forced to choose Loghain and have Alistair walk out regardless of how I had played or the illusion of choices I had made up until that point. That would have ticked me off more than DA2 has managed to do. 

That is pretty weak tea for an epic story. And the Hawke story was sold as epic even as the character is a rags to riches story, and by epic I don't mean two archdemons stapled together for a super Blight. So basically I get to piddle around with endless quests, few whose choices make an impact except in the smallest of ways, while the big huge one they blugeoned you over the head with repeatedly and really ratchet up at the end, makes no difference at all, none?  Um DAO had the illusion of choice too, but they did it classier, in a less ham fisted way...and as a bonus, they told me what those small illusions of choice did to the world they made me fall in love with. I would prefer the great and powerful Oz go back behind the curtain and give me the illusion of choice again, so that I can lose myself in their epic creativity.

You forgot to add onto the piddle comment. "Piddle around gobbing off your handsome friend" 

Just sayin', dear!

[jds1bio]

Zanallen wrote...

Honestly, perhaps the issue here is the import feature? Bioware doesn't want to have the story to differ too drastically based on player choices because they plan on having those choices be (somewhat) reflected in future games. Radically different playthroughs make that incredibly difficult to do. Which, honestly, is one of the things I fear for ME3. With all the companions in ME2 slayable, how in depth will Bioware make their roles in 3?

Good question.  For some people, Shepard is already dead.

I understand the difficulty involved in keeping branching outcomes afloat.  But if you're going to have an import feature, I think it should represent 100% coverage of a player's possible prior-game outcomes.

[jds1bio]

Ariella wrote...

As much as I'd love to have a game night with Dave Gaider running as GM, that's not going to happen.

I'm not sure I share the love there...as far as this game goes, he had a story and he stuck to it, no matter how my 20d rolled.

Ariella wrote...

It's funny you say this, because my absolute favorite RPG series of the eightes was Quest for Glory.

Yep, I played those too, good times!  Those games, like DA2, were also an attempt at making RPGs more accessible to a different crowd.

Ariella wrote...

Also, there's one other thing, that I honestly believe about the DA universe. The players aren't the shmucky level one adventurers, who have Elminster or D'rizzt kicking around to fix things for us. With the exception of Flemeth, the player is bringing to life the DA versions of those heroes, the core canon of legend for the Dragon Age, which is why it makes sense to end this one on a cliff hanger. I don't see it as an attempt to coerse buying future product any more than cliffhangers in novels, television shows or movies (Empire Strikes Back or Wrath of Khan anyone?) are coersion.

You just reminded me of the one really important thing Hawke did during this game that may actually impact Thedas in future sagas - deliver the amulet to Sundermount.  For those who have already done this, you know why it's important. 

Now that I think about it, had you spent all the time in DA2 becoming Champion, getting through the story, seeing the ending everyone sees, and then as the VERY LAST thing in the game, brought the amulet to Sundermount, the game would have had a better ending.  And a cliffhanger that would be more intriguing.

[Dragoonlordz]

jds1bio wrote...

Customers don't know anything about the inner financial workings of the company, which means they have no idea how much or how little their customer loyalty is really supporting the company.  Something tells me that with BioWare partnering with EA, and making games to try and reach wider audiences, that the old-school loyalists (of which I am one) haven't been enough to support them.

Customers don't need to know the inner workings of a company, the company needs to make things that the customers wish to buy. The DA IP was not a loss making IP it paid for the development and then some with fair to good profit I believe so really it comes down to greed, the desire for more money. While this can be sometimes appreciated in the sense more money would bring in more talent and quality sometimes, in this case it just didn't work and we got a rushed and less quality product. We ended up with a lead telling the fans what it is they wanted not what the fans actually wanted, he took it in the direction of what he want's in an RPG not what the fans of the IP wanted. His direction and ideals seemed to not be the same as what brought the original fanbase into the IP and supported the IP instead hoping for bringing in a new audience while keeping just enough to subdue the original fanbase.

There are two trains of thought about why a) the ones who say if nothing changes it stagnates using the fear of what might be, could become, the what if's and maybe's (those who could be called the nay sayers preach the end of the world or series if nothing changes or if don't change their ways based of data that is fictional and just a possiblity). OR the realists, the ones who say if it's not broke don't fix it from the fact DAO was a great success for the genre the IP was made for, so much so that if anything needed fixing you go by ways of baby steps tweaks and changes not a complete change in direction. They don't rely on magic 8 balls and know that when you don't fiddle around with something too much it won't break, its the actual fiddling that breaks something whether that is computers, electronics or even IPs.

From everything I have read they wanted to try something new and different, I have mentioned this before but if your going to try something new you do so with a new IP not one that's success was built on a previous title that was aimed at a different player base. Brent the lead on DAO had a specific player in mind when created DAO. If DA2 was not based/set in the DA universe for this testing of a new idea switching from grand epic scale story where choices mattered in the sense of affecting the world around you (aswell as many gameplay mechanics) into a epic story but only in the sense of a fly on the wall story where your choices have no effect on the world around you only your companions and a few NPCs (to use the term they like 'personal story').

My issue is DAO was about a grand epic story that focuses on the style of 'choose you own adventure' the kind which a story is affected by decisions you make, routes you take much like the old "You put hand in hole and felt something inside... If you pull on it go to page 430 if you leave it alone go to page 210", that is what DAO to a small degree was about to me and was done in the context of something story wise that was huge and grand. There is nothing like that in DA2, it is about how you react to things you cannot change and how you speak to people... That isn't what DAO was designed as at the most basic of levels so it really is a whole new approach in DA2. IF they was going to try this whole new approach I think they shouldn't of trampled over the DAO fanbase to do it and instead had created a new IP to test this new way of telling a story.

Someone summed up te problem better than anyone else I have seen ever written on here for me.

iakus wrote...

DA2 did well in allowing you to shape Hawke.  You could really decide what kind of "Champion" you end up being.  There's plenty of rpgs out there that can't even do this well.

However, what the game really didn't do was allow this Champion to have any real effect on Kirkwall.  Events were pretty much locked in, all you could do was react to them.  If, somehow during the endgame, the player's chocies had some sort of dramatic effect, there'd be much less disappointment.

This sums up what I think and hit the nail right on the head for me as to why I don't like DA2 amongst other things mentioned in my review http://social.biowar...5/index/6880054. They changed the most basic principle which attracted me to the DA universe in the first place. If and it's a big 'if' DA2 was just a test of a new model, method for telling a story but they go back to what attracted the fanbase in the first place for the DA3 then there is hope but if not then I can't stress this enough.. I'm not interested and would rather not buy it because it's not what I like and not what made me a fan of the IP in the first place. The reason why DAO was so big is people had been waiting many years for that niché RPG type they love or brought forward and now they tell us they wan't someone else 'a new audience', I guess we aren't good enough for them.  In the long run you always cater to your fanbase first and new audience second but with DA2 it feels to me the applied the opposite because it isn't what DAO was about as they have as much admitted in changing the method of the story approach itself.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 12 avril 2011 - 04:22 .

[jds1bio]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

In the long run you always cater to
your fanbase first and new audience second but with DA2 it feels to me
the applied the opposite because it isn't what DAO was about as they
have as much admitted in changing the method of the story approach
itself.

Thanks for your feedback and contributing to the thread.  I agree that some of the marketing interviews did not sit well with the fanbase.  I remember watching one of the doctors on a recent PS3 Qore episode say the "button=awesome" phrase.  My reaction: "you've got to be kidding me."  The sad thing is that the rest of the Qore piece made the game look really good, and it didn't need the catchphrase hype at all.  They could have marketed the game to both the fanbase and new people at the same time, in a much different but more effective way.

Still, catering to your fanbase first is not always the best business sense.  Sometimes you have to strike while
the iron is hot, when you have a creative and technical window open to try to widen your audience with something that seems to take chances.  The Star Trek franchise did this with Deep Space Nine.  The James Bond franchise did this with Moonraker, to capitalize on the space craze of the late 1970's.  Law & Order did this with SVU.  Nintendo did this with the Wii, but it took them a few years to finally circle back with the "fanbase" to release new Donkey Kong and Kirby games.  Any part of these fanbases that felt hurt by this can still go and play any of the Super Mario Games, or watch old Star Trek episodes, or go watch other James Bond movies, or old Law & Order episodes.

Well, it's the same here. Any part of the fanbase hurt by DA2 can go and play DA:O again, or KOTOR, or the BG games, or whatever.  But instead of slashing the boards with cries of "rush job" and "betrayal" and "I've lost faith", how about letting BioWare know that fanbase is still there.  Let them know just how many people will translate into how many dollars that are on the line for the next game.  It's hard to take feedback seriously when it's made melodramatically.

Modifié par jds1bio, 12 avril 2011 - 04:51 .

[Cody211282]

Damn good read man, good to see someone hitting both sides.

[Jorrkit]

I actually liked the story, thought it paced really well, leading up to a satisfying crescendo... until the ending kicked me right in the balls. Boy, did that ending suck. I am not allowed to post spoilers here, obviously, but I can hardly begin to express my dissatisfaction with it.

Modifié par Jorrkit, 12 avril 2011 - 05:10 .

[Dagiz]

Very interesting read and responses.  Two things have kind of lept out at me while reading this thread.  The first is what constitutes an RPG and what "traditionalist" RPGers like.  I don't think this can be answered at all, since there is a such a large and vast difference in what people think of when talking about RPG.  The most basic is that you are playing a role in a game.  Using that basic definition every single computer game ever made can be considered a RPG.  In fact any game can be considered a RPG, from Monopoly to good old PnP D&D.  I think one of the main issue is that there really is no common consensus on what constitutes a RPG.   And that I think is the real beauty of RPG's in general, there is no way to fit one definition to them.  All of them share characteristics to a certain degree, as does DAII  with DA:O.  There are common characteristics between the two, there are some similiarities and there are also huge differences.  But that is in essence the history of the RPG.  Steven Jackson's games had some commonalities with what Gary Gygax did...but there are also a ton of differences.  And yet both systems that were designed are considered RPG's.  I  know people who prefer one to the other...are they both wrong for claiming their system the way they play are right ?    I don't think so.  I see the same thing with DAII.

Now what makes DAII really intriguing is I think there are and were some misconceptions about what this game was going to be like.  It's sorta like when Lucas decided to do the first three "chapters" of Star Wars.  The ultimate star war fan and lucas saw the words STAR  WARS and it was the bestest ever.  Others who were staunch Chatper 4, 5, and 6 watchers saw it wasn't the same thing and complained...loudly.  And still others like myself I imagine were disappointed in some aspects of the new direction, impressed with some other things, but overall were meh, it was decent enough to go watch the next two.  I  see the same thing here.  

One of the things that hit me while reading was the two polar opposite sides on choices.  What I  think is different about DAII, and I did see this mentioned and would like to give my thoughts on the subject, is that the illusion of having a choice is no where to be seen.  As a matter of fact, no opinion or anything else, but real fact, no video game or computer game has ever given the player real choice.  What they did do was give the illusion of choice.  I'll use Sandal as an example.  Now I  loved his character...very different and unique..an idiot savant, who woulda ever thunk it.  But, if I wanted to play someone who dislike those who were different from me (we all know the y types in RL) and wanted to berate, smash, hit or beat on Sandal, why couldn't I?  I  didn't have that choice.  I  had to keep that little idiot savant with me.  End game with DA:O, no matter what option you were going to have, you had to fight the archdemon.  Why wasn't there an option to turn on all of Thedas and relinquish control to the Archdemon?    No matter what I did, no matter which path I took, someone had to fight the Archdemon.  I mean, how sweet would it have been if you succombed to the taint and fought Allistair so you don't betray all of Thedas to the Archdemon.  That would have been a great twist.  However that is not the story that we were being told in DA:O.  
Even in BG and BGII there were no "real" choices.  What if, in my world and my story in that setting, after Gorion is killed I decided I did not want to go to the Inn, but to go find a farm, become a rutabaga farmer and just wait till someone offered to make me king?  I didn't have that option.  I had to follow a certain direction and get to an end point.  It was linear and not so linear at the same time, because of the illusion of choice.  I  really believe that if the illusion was created better in  DAII, a lot of "traditional" RPGers would not complain.  I count myself among that group.  Still have my D12's, one of the most under appreciated dice out there.    To me the combat is secondary to the story.  And I liked the story.  Now the presentation could have used some polishing up, but the story itself was a good one.

The other thing that I  saw mentioned briefly was that of fanbases.  And to be completely honest, no company ever listens to the most diehard fanbases.  If they did, most would loose money.  Now, there are some good ideas that are being thrown around.  But I  liken it to Firefly.  Very passionate fan base.  Very vocal fan base.  Yet Fox still canceled the series.   Bioware is not going to cancel the series.  Nor are they going to cater to the whims of a vocal minority (and yes 5,000 compared to 1,000,000 is vocal minority) no matter which side you happen to stand on.  They'll see what both sides have to say and than move in a third direction that may or may not address any or all of the concerns that were raised on internet forums.  And really, what is Bioware's fanbase?    How do you describe it?    Is it the people who were there and bought BG?  Or NWN?  or KoTOR? or JE? or Sonic?    or Shattered Steel?  That's such a hard thing to answer.  I  know for me, I started buying Bio games back with BG.  Does that make me a fanboy or part of the fanbase?  I really believe that all depends on what I say on the forums and who likes or dislikes what I  say.  It's all perception.

Modifié par Dagiz, 12 avril 2011 - 05:24 .

[Sabriana]

Nice post OP. I am glad that posts like this exist, they can spark a serious debate without things spiraling out of control, resulting in the usual "I'm right - you're wrong" shouting match.

Personally, I am very disappointed in DA 2. It may be that my expectations were too high, it might also be because the changes were far too drastic, or a combination of both.

Combat, per se, doesn't matter to me all that much, unless it degenerates into mobwaves, bosses without finess but an unreal amount of hitpoints, and features that make me throw any strategy out of the window in favor of teleporting mages/rogues/bosses. Other might like it that way, your mileage may vary.

To me, it never felt like an RPG. I never had the feeling that Hawke was *my* Hawke, it felt like I was playing with someone elses toy, or watching an interactive movie. Nothing mattered, there was not even the illusion of impact for Hawke. She was just along for the ride, cleaning up after the NPC's who did make choices. No matter who she supported, they turned on her at one point or another, not only in the end-game.

There were plot-holes so huge, you could drive a Mako through. It was jarring to me, to say the least. It always felt like someone in design and creation suddenly said, "Oh, hey, let's stick that in there somewhere" without regard to fluidity or cohesion. They played fast and lose with their own lore, to a point where I simply abandoned role-playing and just plodded along.

They took away my choices for customization, interaction with companions, customizing the companions, and even choosing what Hawke was saying by paraphrases that had little to do with what actually came out of her mouth.

All of this is not even a complete list of what I, personally, thought was wrong with DA 2. I don't 'hate' the game, but I hate the fact that I paid a lot of money for something that was not worth it in my eyes. It was a 'meh' game to me. Playable once or twice and then uninstall it.

What it boils down to for me mainly is that they fixed what wasn't broken, broke what was running well and smoothly, and took away too many things that made me fall in love with the IP in the first place.

I don't feel like I'm in a corner at all. The fan-base for a non-action RPG is still there, and it always will be there. It is up the game companies that are around to pick said fan-base up. I will always be a fan of the traditional RPG, but if one company can't provide what I am looking for, I move on. Eventually someone will pick up the slack, and realize that the money from a hardcore, or niche fanbase is just as good as half the money from one and half the money from the other.

[Ieolus]

jds1bio wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Cybermortis wrote...

Bioware
fans have not dug themselves into a corner as a whole. The complaints about the game are frighteningly consistent in both tone and details regardless of how many Bioware games, or how into RPG's the poster is.

 

And this!

The complaints about the game - some are consistent in detail, and some are frightening yes - but they're not consistent in tone at all.  The review scores run a broad spectrum, and the tones of critic reviews run from over-praised to over-lambasted.  The board postings this month have run the gamut from worldly praise to despicable hate.

If more of the disgruntled fans would articulate their views like you guys do, rationally and sensibly, then I don't think they'd be in a corner for much longer.  Instead, they abruptly blame their dislike for the game on their favorite game company and its strategic partner, taking no responsibility themselves for their changing tastes, or their rose-colored glasses looking at past games, or even considering role-playing vs. combat..  Stuck in a corner.

I'm sorry but I just can't agree with this.  Why did they *have* to make changes from Origins?  Obviously fix any major complains (ppl said combat was slow, so speed it up a *little*), but the formula worked.  How many copies did Origins sell again?

They took a HUGE risk in making so many changes, and especially with the rushed timeline, and it didn't work out for them.

Yet you blame the RPG gamer for changing tastes or rose-colored glasses looking at past games?  How about the immediate prequal to DA2 as a "past game"?

[erynnar]

Jorrkit wrote...

I actually liked the story, thought it paced really well, leading up to a satisfying crescendo... until the ending kicked me right in the balls. Boy, did that ending suck. I am not allowed to post spoilers here, obviously, but I can hardly begin to express my dissatisfaction with it.

It was wasn't it? I mean it would be if I had balls, which I don't...and no I don't mean that in an spineless sense you dirty birds, but an "I have ovaries" sense.  ROFL!  

What made me the maddest? They hit you over the head with this "big decision" ratched it up when a certain <spoiler> went <spoiler> and they bludgeon you with CHOOOSE!!! CHOOSE NOW!!!!  So you do, thinking, "well hells bells Mabel, they have been making this morally gray, or trying to....I guess I better choose." You do and...yeah...well no spoilers, we know what happens. A good swift kick into our sensitive parts.

[Dagiz]

erynnar wrote...

Jorrkit wrote...

I actually liked the story, thought it paced really well, leading up to a satisfying crescendo... until the ending kicked me right in the balls. Boy, did that ending suck. I am not allowed to post spoilers here, obviously, but I can hardly begin to express my dissatisfaction with it.

It was wasn't it? I mean it would be if I had balls, which I don't...and no I don't mean that in an spineless sense you dirty birds, but an "I have ovaries" sense.  ROFL!  

What made me the maddest? They hit you over the head with this "big decision" ratched it up when a certain <spoiler> went <spoiler> and they bludgeon you with CHOOOSE!!! CHOOSE NOW!!!!  So you do, thinking, "well hells bells Mabel, they have been making this morally gray, or trying to....I guess I better choose." You do and...yeah...well no spoilers, we know what happens. A good swift kick into our sensitive parts.

okay that response made me laugh.  really loudly.  to the detriment of my sleeping child...who is now awake thanks to really crappy thin walls.  still worth the laught though.

[erynnar]

Sabriana wrote...

Nice post OP. I am glad that posts like this exist, they can spark a serious debate without things spiraling out of control, resulting in the usual "I'm right - you're wrong" shouting match.

Personally, I am very disappointed in DA 2. It may be that my expectations were too high, it might also be because the changes were far too drastic, or a combination of both.

Combat, per se, doesn't matter to me all that much, unless it degenerates into mobwaves, bosses without finess but an unreal amount of hitpoints, and features that make me throw any strategy out of the window in favor of teleporting mages/rogues/bosses. Other might like it that way, your mileage may vary.

To me, it never felt like an RPG. I never had the feeling that Hawke was *my* Hawke, it felt like I was playing with someone elses toy, or watching an interactive movie. Nothing mattered, there was not even the illusion of impact for Hawke. She was just along for the ride, cleaning up after the NPC's who did make choices. No matter who she supported, they turned on her at one point or another, not only in the end-game.

There were plot-holes so huge, you could drive a Mako through. It was jarring to me, to say the least. It always felt like someone in design and creation suddenly said, "Oh, hey, let's stick that in there somewhere" without regard to fluidity or cohesion. They played fast and lose with their own lore, to a point where I simply abandoned role-playing and just plodded along.

They took away my choices for customization, interaction with companions, customizing the companions, and even choosing what Hawke was saying by paraphrases that had little to do with what actually came out of her mouth.

All of this is not even a complete list of what I, personally, thought was wrong with DA 2. I don't 'hate' the game, but I hate the fact that I paid a lot of money for something that was not worth it in my eyes. It was a 'meh' game to me. Playable once or twice and then uninstall it.

What it boils down to for me mainly is that they fixed what wasn't broken, broke what was running well and smoothly, and took away too many things that made me fall in love with the IP in the first place.

I don't feel like I'm in a corner at all. The fan-base for a non-action RPG is still there, and it always will be there. It is up the game companies that are around to pick said fan-base up. I will always be a fan of the traditional RPG, but if one company can't provide what I am looking for, I move on. Eventually someone will pick up the slack, and realize that the money from a hardcore, or niche fanbase is just as good as half the money from one and half the money from the other.

Finally someone else who mentions the plot holes. I keep saying there were more holes in the story than the Blooming Rose. Big enough to drive a Mako through works too I suppose (damn I was channeling Merrill for a moment).