263 réponses à ce sujet

[TUHD]

Albeit you make a few good points, IMHO some of your points are a bit flawed due to overgeneralization

[jds1bio]

Cybermortis wrote...

Just take a hard look at the stickied thread at the top of the board where people have been posting what they think DA2 got right or wrong. You'll notice that the problems listed are consistant with each other, regardless of if the poster liked the game or not. There is some variation in areas - such as having a voiced protaganist - where individual taste comes into play. But on the whole people are saying the exact same things.

Well, I don't think they are ALL saying the exact same things, or ultimately want to read the exact same comments that someone else wrote before.  That's why I created this thread, so we can discuss things from a different angle.  I'm glad that people have thanked me and have enjoyed reading it, whether they agree with my postulations or not.

[jds1bio]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Considering that what determines whether or not something is good or bad is collective opinion , the more people who share the opinion, the stronger the claim.

Stronger in belief, but not in validity.  Otherwise, at one time in history, there really was a man in the moon.

[jds1bio]

TUHD wrote...

Albeit you make a few good points, IMHO some of your points are a bit flawed due to overgeneralization

Thanks for reading.  I'm glad you think there is overgeneralization, which tells me that perhaps you don't see yourself as part of the people I mention in my post.  I'd like to know more about what you think is flawed and what the corrections might be.

[AkiKishi]

jds1bio wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Considering that what determines whether or not something is good or bad is collective opinion , the more people who share the opinion, the stronger the claim.

Stronger in belief, but not in validity.  Otherwise, at one time in history, there really was a man in the moon.

When there is no absolute. That's the best you get. By any of the many observable standards DA2 is not as good as DA. But some people still think it's better.

[Dragoonlordz]

A cRPG to me at it's MOST basic level is one that follows the same route as the old choose your own adventure books.

"Your in a room, it's dark and stumbling around you find a hole in the wall. If you put your hand in the hole go to page 214. If you leave the hole alone and continue to search go to page 371."

Page 214 "You feel a metalic object inside and try to grab it, the room becomes lit with torches and you see snakes on the ground and where the exit is of which you slowly make your escape avioding the snakes as you go."

Page 371 "You stumble around some more and feel a nasty bite on your lower leg, within a few minutes you fall down in agony and pass out never to awake again."

It simply comes down to being able to make choices and those choices having an affect, DAO/Kotor/ME2 did this just enough to make it a great games. DA2 did not. It's quite simple really and by no means rocket science or brain surgery. My desire in an RPG is simple. Bioware has always managed to pull off that (until DA2) which dropped the ball so hard it's still sinking on it's way to the core of the planet of which will pass and go right through to china. 

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 13 avril 2011 - 03:41 .

[jds1bio]

BobSmith101 wrote...

jds1bio wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Considering that what determines whether or not something is good or bad is collective opinion , the more people who share the opinion, the stronger the claim.

Stronger in belief, but not in validity.  Otherwise, at one time in history, there really was a man in the moon.

When there is no absolute. That's the best you get. By any of the many observable standards DA2 is not as good as DA. But some people still think it's better.

So for instance, after the feedback collected on DA2, do I think BioWare is going to create another game with the same cave/interior layout system?  Unless ME3 has it and it's "too late" to do anything about it, no I don't think so.

Do I think that BioWare/EA will market another BioWare game with the "button=awesome" types of marketing again?  Unless they create a 2D shooter called "Dragon Age: 'Splosions", no I don't think so.

So does that mean that the collective opinion was "right" about what is wrong with DA2?  Maybe, but I think that in these cases the collective opinion would actually be more powerful than just being "right", because the "size" of their opinion among the populace will influence the next product more than the opinion's validity will.

[TUHD]

jds1bio wrote...

TUHD wrote...

Albeit you make a few good points, IMHO some of your points are a bit flawed due to overgeneralization

Thanks for reading.  I'm glad you think there is overgeneralization, which tells me that perhaps you don't see yourself as part of the people I mention in my post.  I'd like to know more about what you think is flawed and what the corrections might be.

This will likely be a rather long post, so please bear with me....
First of all, the 'DA2 is a good game' is just your opinion. I won't make further remarks on it since it is exactly that. But in case you make an analysis, please try to minimize such statements (unless all reviews and other gamers would say so too - which they don't).

Now, disgruntled BioWare RPG fans are in their own corner because a)
they've decided that companies bringing "their" games to a wider
audience is bad, and they can't decide what is really more important
to them in RPGs - the combat or the role-playing.  So much of their RPG
experience in the last decade has been with games built around
increasingly-accessible battle systems, with tacked-on "skills" or
"good/bad scales" that have less to do with the roleplaying and more to
do with being a "good-natured" combatant or an "agressive-evil"
combatant, or more to do with completing only very specific quests.  So
when the player is disappointed by the limited role-playing options in a
game that may also overrule their prior decisions, they tend to seek
solace in the combat experience.

Your A) may be true for a small part of part of the disgruntled fans, but it isn't itself that disappoints the fans in general, but the outcome of it. As for , I cannot say anything about the general opinion of it, but I guess RPG-fans are there for the RPGing - but in case the combat is breaking the game, they'll notice.

Now all the games mentioned do have something in common, RPG elements
aside - they are all great games.  But as gamers become increasingly
jaded, and combat in games trends towards greater generalization of
features, there has to be something that both RPG gamers and devs can
look to and say, "Yes, this can make these games stand out above all
others."  And that something, I believe, is great role-playing that can
shape the overall main story into a satisfying topology for both gamer
and developer.  But until the disgruntled fans are willing to move
beyond combat features to seek out role-playing, and BioWare is willing
to move beyond an immutable story shape, they will remain huddled up in
their respective corners without being able to meet.

As for this, I believe the disgruntled fans are looking past the graphics and the combat, and are looking at the role-playing, but there is an trend of even cutting that down in Dragon Age 2. Sure, there are some great characters, but some are.... well, not calling up an reaction either way.
As for Bioware, they prove with Mass Effect they are able and willing to get past an immutable story shape - and the first concepts of DA2 sounded promising at first too - but it's up to the project leaders. And there lies the problem IMHO when it comes to Bioware.

[Cybermortis]

jds1bio wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Considering that what determines whether or not something is good or bad is collective opinion , the more people who share the opinion, the stronger the claim.

Stronger in belief, but not in validity.  Otherwise, at one time in history, there really was a man in the moon.

In this context you are wrong.

We are talking about a game here, and the measure of how good a game is, is the degree to which people enjoy playing it and how often they do so.

For DA2 it is clear that this isn't the worlds worse game since the overall comments could be summed up as 'I enjoyed this for a while'*. But it is also clear that this isn't a good game either - its sort of OK, maybe good in parts but certainly not great.

To some degree it could be argued that we, as players, hold some responsibility for this in so far that our expectations were too high. But if so this is because we know that Bioware is more than capable of producing very good solid games. They haven't done so here, but they tried and still try to convince everyone they did.

'Fault' here lies with Bioware for rushing the game and producing something well below what they are capable of. As well, arguably, of trying to make too many changes too quickly at the same time. Certainly they are guilty of promising things that they did not deliver - the infamous 'Button Awesome' being a prime example. (Although that is down to the marketing departments rather than the poor people who made the game).

The good news is that neither Bioware or the players have 'backed themselves into a corner' here. As players it is clear we will still buy Bioware games IF they are good games - although a lot of people will no longer be buying them off the Bioware name alone. For Bioware they are not stuck after DA2, there is nothing about the game that stops them from making changes - heck they could go back to making DA3 almost exactly the same as DA:O in style, play and design and just claim that DA2 looked different because that is how Varric was discribing the world rather than what it really looked like. The only way Bioware would be stuck is if they have committed themselves to rush-producing games who's main function is to sell DLC and the next game.

[jds1bio]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

A cRPG to me at it's MOST basic level is one that follows the same route as the old choose your own adventure books.

"Your in a room, it's dark and stumbling around you find a hole in the wall. If you put your hand in the hole go to page 214. If you leave the hole alone and continue to search go to page 371."

Page 214 "You feel a metalic object inside and try to grab it, the room becomes lit with torches and you see snakes on the ground and where the exit is of which you slowly make your escape avioding the snakes as you go."

Page 371 "You stumble around some more and feel a nasty bite on your lower leg, within a few minutes you fall down in agony and pass out never to awake again."

It simply comes down to being able to make choices and those choices having an affect, DAO/Kotor/ME2 did this just enough to make it a great games. DA2 did not. It's quite simple really and by no means rocket science or brain surgery. My desire in an RPG is sijmple.

Once you figure out that too many pages lead to page 371, the magic of the choose your own adventure books is gone.  That's the one flaw in writing an RPG story first without role-playtesting the scenarios upfront.

But I agree, DAO/ME2 did just enough of this.  It's as if, on their version of page 371, they made the words appear: "hey, I know you just came from page 143, and page 87 before that, so read this:".

And I think DA2 did lots of this too, but just not in the main story.  It's as if they said on the first page "if you like mages, read paragraph 1.  If you like templars, read paragraph 2."  But then the same sentence is at the end of both paragraphs - "Now turn to page 371".

As for KOTOR, I think that KOTOR's plot twist was so overriding that we fell in line with the premise and took a bullet train through to the end.  KOTOR had its own version of Anders as well.  In retrospect I think I had a lot more impact making choices about the jedi combat than about anything in the story that mattered.

[Dagiz]

jds1bio wrote...

TUHD wrote...

Albeit you make a few good points, IMHO some of your points are a bit flawed due to overgeneralization

Thanks for reading.  I'm glad you think there is overgeneralization, which tells me that perhaps you don't see yourself as part of the people I mention in my post.  I'd like to know more about what you think is flawed and what the corrections might be.

I think that's the issue with internet forums in general.   There are always going to be generalizations, or overgeneralizations.  We as posters can say we have the majority of people with us or agreeing with each individual claim that the opinion we hold is virtually the same across the entire fanbase.  The problem with this thinking, and it's not limited to one side or the other, is that in all the number of people that actually visit and post on forums vs. the number of units sold is a rather small number.  Even if the constructive criticism thread reaches 100 pages and there's what, ten posts per page??  let's say there's 20.  And each post is from one person only (which is not the case...but hypothetically), that's still only 2% of all the units sold.  I am not hearing from 98% of the total customer base.  And as a business person (At least what I would do) is take a look and what is being said, find ideas I like since they might appeal to a larger base and dump those that I  feel only appeal to a small minority of my fan base.   Especially since I  need to show a profit.  I can't and I  won't cater to the small, albeit very vocal, minority that call for me to change my personel around or want me to fire certain individuals simply because they (the small vocal minority) don't agree with the choices that I (as the owner) okayed to happen.  - sorry about that mini rant...saw another "get rid of mike laidlaw thread" and I think that people tend to forget that while he was the lead on this...if the higher ups didn't like his vision, this game would not have gone the direction it did.  and I hate laying the blame all on one person for this.  

Now don't get me wrong, I did enjoy the game and I am enjoying it on a second play through...though even on nightmare...having a two-handed warrior is overpowered....as of right now...at least I think so.  And the exploding corpses are more prevalent than they were before.   HOWEVER, there are some improvements that could and should be made.  And I think the consensus here is that the storytelling and the illusion of choice was handled poorly when compared to other games that Bioware has produced.  What if during the takeover of the city, it was a little longer than just that one day...but you are tasked with setting up a resistance and than having the big showdown? 

I was and still am torn about the ending.  At first I  was "aw crap, seriously????" but the more I thought about it...the more it made a little sense.  I think we've all known or seen people who are so far gone in anger and feel so justified at what they are doing that they pull something we don't agree with and you are left in the middle going "WTF just happened???".  At least I have had that experience.  From that point of view it made sense.  But like others it was also a little hollow for me and there was a feeling of...uh..unaccomplsihement (is that even a word??  If not I used it therefore it is now).

I  do like the points about "showing" not "telling" me a story.  That makes a lot of sense and hopefully in the next incarnation that gets soem serious overhauling.  Imagine that instead of Varric just talking through the change in acts that there was a montage of various things going on during the three years.  You see some changes rather than just being told "Hey Hawke, you now own the thrid largest house in all of Kirkwall."  Let's see them moving in, with maybe Mom hugging Hawke and a dwarf mover dropping a box of breakables.  Something like that would have been a little more effective...at least for me.  

For kicks I loaded up KoTOR and NWN again.  Alongside with playing BG (have been at that for a while) Looking at the those three titles and than DA:O...the biggest thing I am feeling is that the presentation is lacking a wee bit more in DAII.  Heck, even Fallout 3, for me at least, has a better presentation of the story. 

Modifié par Dagiz, 13 avril 2011 - 04:02 .

[jds1bio]

Cybermortis wrote...

For DA2 it is clear that this isn't the worlds worse game since the overall comments could be summed up as 'I enjoyed this for a while'*. But it is also clear that this isn't a good game either - its sort of OK, maybe good in parts but certainly not great.

Let's agree that this is just an opinion.  One that is perhaps shared by many, but still just an opinion.

Cybermortis wrote...

To some degree it could be argued that we, as players, hold some responsibility for this in so far that our expectations were too high. But if so this is because we know that Bioware is more than capable of producing very good solid games. They haven't done so here, but they tried and still try to convince everyone they did.

You, me, and every other consumer here hold absolutely no responsibility for the specs and content of DA2, nor will I take any.  I had a great time with DA:O, and I may have wanted more of a few things here and there, but I never asked BioWare for Dragon Age II - whether it be the game that was released, or a carbon-copy of DA:O.  The decision to make DA2 was a purely creative and business decision by BioWare and EA, as it was to collect gameplay feedback on DA:O and use the data in some way to help fashion the makeup of DA2, as it was to allow people to import their savegames into DA2, then make decisions on what parts of the savegames were valid or invalid to the story.

Cybermortis wrote...

'Fault' here lies with Bioware for rushing the game and producing something well below what they are capable of. As well, arguably, of trying to make too many changes too quickly at the same time. Certainly they are guilty of promising things that they did not deliver - the infamous 'Button Awesome' being a prime example. (Although that is down to the marketing departments rather than the poor people who made the game).

Other than some bugs, we have no concrete or circumstantial evidence that this game was rushed.  There is also no concrete measurement to measure whether something is being rushed, or someone is rushing around.  Speed and rates of speed increasing or decreasing are relative, they are a function of distance per unit of time.  AC Brotherhood was ready a year after its predecessor, so was it a rush-job?

Cybermortis wrote...

The good news is that neither Bioware or the players have 'backed themselves into a corner' here. As players it is clear we will still buy Bioware games IF they are good games - although a lot of people will no longer be buying them off the Bioware name alone. For Bioware they are not stuck after DA2, there is nothing about the game that stops them from making changes - heck they could go back to making DA3 almost exactly the same as DA:O in style, play and design and just claim that DA2 looked different because that is how Varric was discribing the world rather than what it really looked like. The only way Bioware would be stuck is if they have committed themselves to rush-producing games who's main function is to sell DLC and the next game.

I would like to believe this.  But buying the game IF it's good is like saying "is it ok to go in the water now?" after a shark sighting.  Who is going to tell you?  It's a decision only you yourself can make after analyzing the risks.

I think your last sentence is closest to the truth, especially where Facebook is concerned.

[Cybermortis]

jds1bio wrote...

Cybermortis wrote...

The good news is that neither Bioware or the players have 'backed themselves into a corner' here. As players it is clear we will still buy Bioware games IF they are good games - although a lot of people will no longer be buying them off the Bioware name alone. For Bioware they are not stuck after DA2, there is nothing about the game that stops them from making changes - heck they could go back to making DA3 almost exactly the same as DA:O in style, play and design and just claim that DA2 looked different because that is how Varric was discribing the world rather than what it really looked like. The only way Bioware would be stuck is if they have committed themselves to rush-producing games who's main function is to sell DLC and the next game.

I would like to believe this.  But buying the game IF it's good is like saying "is it ok to go in the water now?" after a shark sighting.  Who is going to tell you?  It's a decision only you yourself can make after analyzing the risks.

And where would you get the data needed to decide on the risks for going into the water?

People, either by directly asking them for because they wrote down information you can read.

Same with games in this context - Many people are not going to buy Bioware titles until they have asked around and read reviews (and given some of the reviews that appeared at the games release I'm guessing they are talking about user/player reviews rather than paid reviewers).

[xX N7 Xx]

I love BIOWARE games but:
Every BIOWARE game ever mades story: Cool hero recruits party and saves the world from a villain.
Revan -> Malak
Exile -> Sith Lords
Shepard -> Saren/ Harbinger/ Reapers
Grey Warden -> Archdemon
Hawke -> Qunari/ two others that can be named due to spoilers.
They all made you recruit party members. KOTOR and DA: O even had the same engine (pretty much).
They need to create an entirely new story. Which means a new writer(s). Not that theres anything bad about the ones here now, it's just that theyir used to doing the same thing and they see that people like it but it's time for change!
My advice: Hire Sam Lake (Alan Wake and Max Payne) and get him to write you an RPG. Or somebody of similar talent.

[Ieolus]

xX N7 Xx wrote...

I love BIOWARE games but:
Every BIOWARE game ever mades story: Cool hero recruits party and saves the world from a villain.
Revan -> Malak
Exile -> Sith Lords
Shepard -> Saren/ Harbinger/ Reapers
Grey Warden -> Archdemon
Hawke -> Qunari/ two others that can be named due to spoilers.
They all made you recruit party members. KOTOR and DA: O even had the same engine (pretty much).
They need to create an entirely new story. Which means a new writer(s). Not that theres anything bad about the ones here now, it's just that theyir used to doing the same thing and they see that people like it but it's time for change!
My advice: Hire Sam Lake (Alan Wake and Max Payne) and get him to write you an RPG. Or somebody of similar talent.

Why is it time for a change?  What possible reason is there to make such a basic change to something that clearly people like and want to keep experiencing?

Change just for change-sake is just an all round bad idea, exhibit #1 DA2.

[AkiKishi]

jds1bio wrote...
So for instance, after the feedback collected on DA2, do I think BioWare is going to create another game with the same cave/interior layout system?  Unless ME3 has it and it's "too late" to do anything about it, no I don't think so.

Do I think that BioWare/EA will market another BioWare game with the "button=awesome" types of marketing again?  Unless they create a 2D shooter called "Dragon Age: 'Splosions", no I don't think so.

So does that mean that the collective opinion was "right" about what is wrong with DA2?  Maybe, but I think that in these cases the collective opinion would actually be more powerful than just being "right", because the "size" of their opinion among the populace will influence the next product more than the opinion's validity will.

Could go either way. DA3 may just be a cheap cash in to wind up a failed IP. What is clear is that EA want Bioware to have mass market sales.

DA2 changed a lot of things, people dislike DA2 for any number of reasons. The point on which the agree is that DA2 failed to deliver one way or another.

[Zachriel]

Why is it time for a change? What possible reason is there to make such a basic change to something that clearly people like and want to keep experiencing?

Because sooner or later you begin to realize that in every Bioware game produced since NWN, you are doing the same thing, just in a different setting. The most blatant example is between NWN and KOTOR. I'm not sure if spoilers games other than DA2 are allowed in this forum, so it play it safe I won't list the similarities side by side. I will merely say that the title for KOTOR could easily have been Neverwinter Nights in Space.

The same goes for Jade Empire, Mass Effect, and Dragon Age: Origins. The details are different, the similarities more subtle, but they are still present and apparent to anyone who has played other Bioware titles.

The only reason I kept buying Bioware titles for a while was that even though they kept rehasing the same storyline, the games each had their own gameplay mechanics and were fun to play. I was glad to see them finally trying to break the mold and try out a completely new and different approach to storytelling with DA2. I don't think they got it quite right, but I think they should keep trying.

[Dragoonlordz]

xX N7 Xx wrote...

They need to create an entirely new story. Which means a new writer(s). Not that theres anything bad about the ones here now, it's just that theyir used to doing the same thing and they see that people like it but it's time for change!
My advice: Hire Sam Lake (Alan Wake and Max Payne) and get him to write you an RPG. Or somebody of similar talent.

Doing a new story or way of telling their stories I'm fine with BUT do so in a new IP imho not an existing one with a fanbase build on a different story and/or way of telling that story.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 13 avril 2011 - 09:04 .

[jds1bio]

TUHD wrote...



As for this, I believe the disgruntled fans are looking past the graphics and the combat, and are looking at the
role-playing, but there is an trend of even cutting that down in Dragon Age 2. Sure, there are some great characters, but some are.... well, not calling up an reaction either way.

Again, thanks for posting and contributing.  I get what you're saying about the characters.  But I think for certain characters, the game takes this a step further.  It's as if the game says that Hawke is partly responsible for what the characters do, when no matter what the actions the game allows your Hawke to take, you have no chance to change what they do. 

TUHD wrote...



As
for Bioware, they prove with Mass Effect they are able and willing to
get past an immutable story shape - and the first concepts of DA2
sounded promising at first too - but it's up to the project leaders. And
there lies the problem IMHO when it comes to Bioware.

At BioWare I don't know what is considered first when designing a new game - the story, the role-playing scenarios, or the combat.  And I don't know, or pretend to know, what the right or best way to proceed is.  But
it seems to me that if the story is laid out first, then you're already boxed in by the beginning, middle, end, and the  dramatic curves that exist in a story.  This is only natural, and creative people know that constraints breed creativity. 

But it seems to me that if you don't decide up front whether the "roleplaying goal" is first and foremost inevitable (i.e. destiny), something the player should be steered towards (what state the game wants you to end up in), or something that is ultimately up to the player (given x possible choices and consequences), then without a roleplaying goal structure you're left with attaching roleplaying scenarios to the story in an ad-hoc fashion.

With DA2 it looks to me like the goal is inevitable first, because it's already said and done by the time Varric tells his story.  But then inside that, BioWare tries to steer you towards making a choice (pick a side), a goal that is actually a choice - very intriguing, could be similar to what ME2 did regarding choice of squadmates.  But as you play the game, the game makes you think that the outcome is not inevitable, because you're playing, and Varric/Cassandra pseudo-sum-up things at certain points after you play based on what you chose to say and do.  Which would put the steering towards the choice back up on top as the main goal. 

So now we have a situation where the outcome is simultaneously inevitable (if you're in a scene with Varric/Cassandra), but is also leading up to a choice (if you're with Hawke), a choice that, short of shutting off the power, must be made.  That is a tough corner to come out of, and the solution hinted at (that Hawke really isn't responsible for what happened and que sera sera) is tough to accept for some people who thought they were participating in choices for 30 hours or more.  Unfortunately, we see very little of what happens between the time the choice is made, and the arrival of the inevitable and Varric's story. 

Modifié par jds1bio, 13 avril 2011 - 09:46 .

[Cybermortis]

xX N7 Xx wrote...
Exile -> Sith Lords
.

Knights of the old Republic;The Sith Lords wasn't made by Bioware. I made this mistake too....


As I've written elsewhere the problem with DA2's plot is that there is no adversary for Hawke. Meaning there is no one Hawke is striving to vanquish or just out-do, and therefore no one to help focus the story throughout the game and explain WHY Hawke is doing the things he/she is doing in any way.

Traditionally this role has been played by the 'big-bad' or his right hand man/woman as part of a 'save the world' story. The mistake Bioware took in DA2 is in assuming that you could only have, or only required, an adversary in a STW plot.

The adversary doesn't have to be someone you have to fight and kill. In DA2 this role could have been played by a rival family who has political power and isn't happy that the Hawkes have returned, and who are unwilling to see them 'rise to power' without a fight. In act one this 'fight' might be more literal, with them sending mercs or Templars after Hawke. In act two and three the 'fight' would become less direct and more political, with the adversary trying to destroy Hawkes reputation indirectly. In the end you would have the option to settle things through force, peacefully or by setting them up yourself. This wouldn't have prevented the story progressing as it does, but would explain many of Hawkes motivations and actions and make it feel as if Hawke was being pro-active rather than reactive.

As it is we have no real adversary, and certainly no long lasting one, throughout either the game as a whole or even individual acts. You'll note that the quests that are being praised in the game are the ones that have a clear adversary. 

Modifié par Cybermortis, 13 avril 2011 - 09:48 .

[Dagiz]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

xX N7 Xx wrote...

They need to create an entirely new story. Which means a new writer(s). Not that theres anything bad about the ones here now, it's just that theyir used to doing the same thing and they see that people like it but it's time for change!
My advice: Hire Sam Lake (Alan Wake and Max Payne) and get him to write you an RPG. Or somebody of similar talent.

Doing a new story or way of telling their stories I'm fine with BUT do so in a new IP imho not an existing one with a fanbase build on a different story and/or way of telling that story.

I've seen this arguement a few times now and I am not sure how it applies.  One of the main issues I have with it is that it seems to suggest that only those that post on forums about their displeasure of the game can be considered the fanbase.  I am a fan of DA:O.  I  liked both games.  Each had their strong points and their weak points.  And yes, I am fine with what they did in terms of changing how they told the story.  There certainly could have been improvements, no doubt about that.  But I do not take issue with the change.

That's me though.   And I  do consider myself part of the fan base.  I just don't agree that Bioware is doing a disservice to their fanbase which is the perception I have when I see a post like that.  It's such a subjective term, "fanbase".  I've asked the question before and have never gotten an answer from anyone...but what defines the fanbase?  Is it the people who found Bioware when they were all working with Interplay and Black Isle with BG?  or IWD?  or when they did NWN?  or JE?  Or KoTOR?  Or dare I  say Sonic or Shattered  Steel?  Or is the fanbase the people that found them through DA:O?  Who is the "right" kind of fan base?

Sounds Orwellian in a way "All fans are equal, but some fans are more equal than others." 

[Dragoonlordz]

Dagiz wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

xX N7 Xx wrote...

They need to create an entirely new story. Which means a new writer(s). Not that theres anything bad about the ones here now, it's just that theyir used to doing the same thing and they see that people like it but it's time for change!
My advice: Hire Sam Lake (Alan Wake and Max Payne) and get him to write you an RPG. Or somebody of similar talent.

Doing a new story or way of telling their stories I'm fine with BUT do so in a new IP imho not an existing one with a fanbase build on a different story and/or way of telling that story.

I've seen this arguement a few times now and I am not sure how it applies.  One of the main issues I have with it is that it seems to suggest that only those that post on forums about their displeasure of the game can be considered the fanbase.  I am a fan of DA:O.  I  liked both games.  Each had their strong points and their weak points.  And yes, I am fine with what they did in terms of changing how they told the story.  There certainly could have been improvements, no doubt about that.  But I do not take issue with the change.

That's me though.   And I  do consider myself part of the fan base.  I just don't agree that Bioware is doing a disservice to their fanbase which is the perception I have when I see a post like that.  It's such a subjective term, "fanbase".  I've asked the question before and have never gotten an answer from anyone...but what defines the fanbase?  Is it the people who found Bioware when they were all working with Interplay and Black Isle with BG?  or IWD?  or when they did NWN?  or JE?  Or KoTOR?  Or dare I  say Sonic or Shattered  Steel?  Or is the fanbase the people that found them through DA:O?  Who is the "right" kind of fan base?

Sounds Orwellian in a way "All fans are equal, but some fans are more equal than others." 

You can be a fan of Bioware, you can be a fan of DA, you can be a fan of DAO or DA2 of both/not both. All people fans of different things, common sense instead applies. If you change how a pre-existing story is told to such an extend it no longer at most basic levels is the same DAO (changes and choices effect world around you) to DA2 'framed narrative style in a retrospective manner of Varrics memory' (changes to how you speak to people and react but choices change nothing story plot wise around you). It's a complete change in approach and common sense is if your doing something completely new in approach you do so in a way that won't offend the people who in previous title in series became fans based off a different story implementation model and instead try this new approach in a new IP.

DAO never was designed to be like DA2 and DA2 was designed with a different approach to DAO, DAO built a fanbase on one thing and DA2 sh**ed on it for sake of testing this new method of how to tell a story. It doesn't matter if you was a fan of DAO and then when DA2 came out was a fan of that as it's akin to being a fan of FPS and RPGs at same time, that doesnt mean the all RPGs should implement FPS mechanics just because your a fan of both. Simply the fact pre-DA2 people got drawn into one thing and in the DA2 it was changed instead of trying out new ideas in a new series therefor upsetting a pre-existing fanbase created from different expectations given to them in DAO.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 13 avril 2011 - 10:57 .

[Dagiz]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

You can be a fan of Bioware, you can be a fan of DA, you can be a fan of DAO or DA2 of both/not both. All people fans of different things, common sense instead applies. If you change how a pre-existing story is told to such an extend it no longer at most basic levels is the same DAO (changes and choices effect world around you) to DA2 'framed narrative style in a retrospective manner of Varrics memory' (changes to how you speak to people and react but choices change nothing story plot wise around you). It's a complete change in approach and common sense is if your doing something completley new in approach you do so in a way that won't offend the people who in previous title in series became fans based off a different story implemntation model and instead try this new approach in a new IP.

I'm really not trying to be obstinate here, but it'st he same arguement, just phrased differently.  It still comes down to a change was made that some fans of the original game dislike.  That in no way means that they shouldn't have made that change or that they as the creators felt that the change was warranted...despite what some individuals think. 

DAO never was designed to be like DA2 and DA2 was designed with a different approach to DAO, DAO built a fanbase on one thing and DA2 sh**ed on it for sake of testing this new method of how to tell a story.

They were designed differently, but I have to ask, was the fanbase built ont he method of telling a story or was the fanbase built because it was Bioware?  That's the big issue with throwing terms like "fanbase" around.  The assumption is that it speaks to the entire fanbase, when the reality is, I suspect at least, that it is not the case.  There are fans of the original franchise that feel that way, but in no way does the encompass the entire "fanbase".  Because I  know I  certainly don't feel that way.  

It doesn't matter if you was a fan of DAO and then when DA2 came out was a fan of that as it's akin to being a fan of FPS and RPGs at same time, that doesnt mean the all RPGs should implement FPS mechanics just because your a fan of both.

That's is your opinion though.  That's all it boils down to.  Was the entire experiement a rousing success?  Not really, but I  don't see it an epic failure either.  It didn't do what they thought it was going to do, but I don't think it means that we are necessarily finished with this type of experimentation.

Simply the fact pre-DA2 people got drawn into one thing and in the DA2 it was changed instead of trying out new ideas in a new series there for upsetting a pre-existing fanbase created from different expectations given to them in DAO.

Here's thing though, from the get go, all marketing, everything that anyone from Bioware said in pre-sales and in the year leading up to release was that this was not going to be DA:O.  It wasn't going to be a direct sequal.  It was going to be different.  Every press release or interview given a year ago all said it's going to be different.  So if that is the case, why then, are individuals who liked how DA:O upset that DAII  is not DA:O2?    My whole point in this, and yes I  am splitting hairs and being very picky about language and the use of words, is that using a term like fanbase denotes that you or anyone else speaks for me.  And that is simply not the case.  it's the same as those that defend the game ad naseum without admitting there are faults and saying they are the fanbase.  We are all part of the fanbase here.  Otherwise we woudn't be here.

That being all said, I have enjoyed RPG games since chainmail, still have the old books to boot, and the changes made since that time in what became D&D are unreal.  I am/was one of the people that think there is nothing wrong with THAC0.  It was a great system...the lower the number the better off you were.  But it got changed.  So should Wizards have waited and created a new IP  to change that rule simply because there were people in the fanbase that didn't like that change?   I  can say yes, but reality says no, because it is theor IP and they are free to do as they wish. 

Same here, it's Bioware's IP.   A few people liked, a few people didn't like it, and I am willing to bet that overall most people are "whatever as long as I have fun" with it.  I  happen to like the framed narrative approach, it was different, it was unique.  Could have been better presented though. 

[Dragoonlordz]

Dagiz wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

You can be a fan of Bioware, you can be a fan of DA, you can be a fan of DAO or DA2 of both/not both. All people fans of different things, common sense instead applies. If you change how a pre-existing story is told to such an extend it no longer at most basic levels is the same DAO (changes and choices effect world around you) to DA2 'framed narrative style in a retrospective manner of Varrics memory' (changes to how you speak to people and react but choices change nothing story plot wise around you). It's a complete change in approach and common sense is if your doing something completely new in approach you do so in a way that won't offend the people who in previous title in series became fans based off a different story implementation model and instead try this new approach in a new IP.

DAO never was designed to be like DA2 and DA2 was designed with a different approach to DAO, DAO built a fanbase on one thing and DA2 sh**ed on it for sake of testing this new method of how to tell a story. It doesn't matter if you was a fan of DAO and then when DA2 came out was a fan of that as it's akin to being a fan of FPS and RPGs at same time, that doesnt mean the all RPGs should implement FPS mechanics just because your a fan of both. Simply the fact pre-DA2 people got drawn into one thing and in the DA2 it was changed instead of trying out new ideas in a new series therefor upsetting a pre-existing fanbase created from different expectations given to them in DAO.
 

I'm really not trying to be obstinate here, but it'st he same arguement, just phrased differently.  It still comes down to a change was made that some fans of the original game dislike.  That in no way means that they shouldn't have made that change or that they as the creators felt that the change was warranted...despite what some individuals think. 

It's becoming clear that you lack the comprehension/understanding of any explanations of the differences. I simply explained it to you and you just don't understand the explanation (not being mean or anything) but it seems to me your so set in your mindset that no explanations no matter how logical or sensible would get you to understand.

They were designed differently, but I have to ask, was the fanbase built ont he method of telling a story or was the fanbase built because it was Bioware?  That's the big issue with throwing terms like "fanbase" around.  The assumption is that it speaks to the entire fanbase, when the reality is, I suspect at least, that it is not the case.  There are fans of the original franchise that feel that way, but in no way does the encompass the entire "fanbase".  Because I  know I  certainly don't feel that way.  

No I already explained to you that being a fan of Bioware is different than being a fan of everything they make and same applies to being a fan of DAO/DA2. When DA2 did not exist the fanbase of DAO was made from people who enjoyed the method and gameplay designs and concepts from that game. That is the DAO fanbase. DA2 came and some fans of DAO became fans of DA2 but a lot of us fans of DAO did not become fans of DA2, that is the fanbase I uses in my description. I already told you to use common sense in that regard.

That's is your opinion though.  That's all it boils down to.  Was the entire experiement a rousing success?  Not really, but I  don't see it an epic failure either.  It didn't do what they thought it was going to do, but I don't think it means that we are necessarily finished with this type of experimentation.

Never said it wasn't my opinion... One thing I would love to have known is if DA2 was a new IP and not a sequal using the name and fanbase of DAO to make sales from this new way of telling their stories (already explained what this means to you), whether or not the sales would even be half of what they are right now. But will never know because the large portion of initial sales were due to DAO fans pre-ordering and buying on the success of DAO. While that isn't 100% relevant to what I said at start it is something I wonder.

Here's thing though, from the get go, all marketing, everything that anyone from Bioware said in pre-sales and in the year leading up to release was that this was not going to be DA:O.  It wasn't going to be a direct sequal.  It was going to be different.  Every press release or interview given a year ago all said it's going to be different.  So if that is the case, why then, are individuals who liked how DA:O upset that DAII  is not DA:O2?  

No, DA2 was explained to the fans as being a follow up from DAO but better and that they was going to try new things but that they would keep enough of the old system to keep the fans of DAO happy. So in that regard your semi wrong, they did release details of some changes yes, but at same time saying it will be better than DAO and still have enough of DAO to keep the fans happy. This lead many people to pre-order on that promise not whether or not the health bar is red or blue or if Anders would or would not have a shave before looking like a tramp in DA2.

My whole point in this, and yes I  am splitting hairs and being very picky about language and the use of words, is that using a term like fanbase denotes that you or anyone else speaks for me.  And that is simply not the case.  it's the same as those that defend the game ad naseum without admitting there are faults and saying they are the fanbase.  We are all part of the fanbase here.  Otherwise we woudn't be here.

I speak for myself and for anyone who happens to agree with me, it is irrelevant whether you consider yourself in that same fanbase or not because if your not what difference does it make to you. If your going to take offense everytime someone uses the words fanbase your in for a shock, it's an industry wide term used daily everywhere. Like I said try to apply common sense to the term in relation to it's meaning and usage on context of what was written.

That being all said, I have enjoyed RPG games since chainmail, still have the old books to boot, and the changes made since that time in what became D&D are unreal.  I am/was one of the people that think there is nothing wrong with THAC0.  It was a great system...the lower the number the better off you were.  But it got changed.  So should Wizards have waited and created a new IP  to change that rule simply because there were people in the fanbase that didn't like that change?   I  can say yes, but reality says no, because it is theor IP and they are free to do as they wish. 

As do we with our wallets. But I reserve the right to have an opinion on something I bought whether you like it or not.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 13 avril 2011 - 11:56 .

[Tommy6860]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

<snipped>
No, DA2 was explained to the fans as being a follow up from DAO but better and that they was going to try new things but that they would keep enough of the old system to keep the fans of DAO happy. So in that regard your semi wrong, they did release details of some changes yes, but at same time saying it will be better than DAO and still have enough of DAO to keep the fans happy. This lead many people to pre-order on that promise not whether or not the health bar is red or blue or if Anders would or would not have a shave before looking like a tramp in DA2.

TY for saving me tons of typing, I agree with you. I was especaially perplexed by Dagiz's claim that DA2 was promoted as not being another Origins. In that direct sense he is correct if he is going by Bioware's/EA's personel claims in blogs and interviews. But it was advertised and promoted as a sequel and many reviews to the game, placed it in that context, hence most of us who loved Origins, expected a sequel that followed in its essence. Had the game been called something other than DA2, like DA: Hawke's Adventure, or a new IP altogether, it may have worked a bit better.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 14 avril 2011 - 12:07 .