220 réponses à ce sujet

[Captain Sassy Pants]

Pedrak wrote...

Three things.

1) If DA2 sold faster than DAO, it is more DAO's merit than DA2's. Preorders have been 400.000, IIRC, and they were based on Bio's reputation and on DAO's strength. 

2) BioWare doesn't HAVE TO please us old school fans. It's nice when they do, but, frankly, they are running a business, and if - say - a shorter game with full voice acting is going to be more profitable than a much longer game with more dialogue choices but with partial VA, why wouldn't they do it? Let's be realistic, people.

3) Re: disappointment. While most of the flaws people found in DA2 are subjective and debatable, I'd say some things (ex. the reused areas) could be classified as objectively weak. So it's not all a matter of expectations. And I say this as someone who, overall, enjoys the game.

Start a new IP, don't convert the IP you started to appease old fans into something it was never conceived as.

Gee, that was hard.

[Nozybidaj]

ejoslin wrote...
Another thing that will skew the data is that many people play through once or twice but played all the origins as well, so that may give you 2 full playthroughs, 4 only getting to Ostegar in their data.

I actually did exactly that with all the origins.  Only finished the game with a few of those though.  

Problem with statistics like these are, they can only tell you what happened, not why.  Figuring out the why is where people tend to veer off course, especially when personal biases come in to play, which I think with the way DA:O has been portrayed by certain individuals within BW leading up to the DA2 release is a given.

[Shadowbanner]

Volourn wrote...

No, it isn't. Still full price. And, DAO also was in 'bargain basekt' in certain places after released. proves nothing.

Before replying in such a manner, you ought to check your facts first.

http://www.amazon.co...02774519&sr=8-3

[Captain Sassy Pants]

Volourn wrote...

No, it isn't. Still full price. And, DAO also was in 'bargain basekt' in certain places after released. proves nothing.

It isn't "budget" priced, but it isn't full price, either. Amazon.com had it for 40 USD. It seems to have gone up since then, but it still isn't back to full price.

They still have signature editions for sale for crying out loud, under the initial 60 USD.

It's about 29 USD on Amazon.uk.

Please, do research before you spout off things you are clearly wrong about, or at least support your argument with more than just "no, you're wrong".

[aries1001]

Laidlaw has not been alone on making this game; yes he was Lead Designer, but even the Lead Designer has a -ahem- boss. And it is Darrah, Mark Darrah, the project director. And ultimately, Darrah's boss(es) is/are Ray M. and Greg Z. They decide ultimately what the future of a project is going to be - still, I hope. Or maybe Bioware, as company, isn't aware of that they've grown, and still think of themselves as a small indie company. It happens to companies that grow a lot...too rapidly, it seems.The point I'm getting at is that most likely Laidlaw has had some parameters to work within, given, handed or dicussed through his superiors to or with him. And the story actually also has to fit in with the rest of the game. Making a game is not like writing a book, or writing a movie script, it is probably more similar to making a musical, an opera or maybe even movie, the filming part, I mean.

Personally, I believe I'm a core fan of Bioware (been playing Bioware games since 1998 or 1999) ; I do like the bold chance they took with DA2, the framed narrative, the more personal story etc. etc. How well it has been done, can be discussed, how well the use use of the dialogue wheel has been done can also be discussed. However, as I see it, Bioware does not want to go up the voiced protagonist, the dialogue wheel or the cinematic designs of the art direction and the graphics. Or the new art direction for the Dragon Age universe.

To me, it seems, though, that Bioware, are trying to make a formula or finding a way to tell a story in a cinamatic way, and in doing so, they're experimenting a lot with how to tell the story, on how to make the combat, how to make the characters, the dialogue etc. etc. And they have done it with a short development time of maybe 12-15 months. And yes, certain parts of the story could maybe have been presented better, certain other parts could have been highligted more.

As for the interview with Ray and Greg, if you read between the lines what they say, Ray and Greg, it becomes clear that by saying 'da2 sells well' they're also sort of saying 'we're continuing down this road'. Adding change, but keeping the core fans (somewhat) happy. And let's fnot forget that some (or many?) people are angry with or at Bioware for varius reasons e.g. thinking the've destroyed rpgs, they sold out, etc. etc. Ultimately, if people are upset by Bioware's decisions, they can try making their own game. Just like the people behind the Broken Hourglass has done for now close to six years, and it is still not released, and just like Vault Dweller is doing with his Age of Decadence game. I know this sounds harsh, but I really feel like people should try to make the pong tennis-game (like I did) from gamemakers 6.0 or 9.0 - then, maybe they'll understand how difficult it is to make a game, let alone an rpg.
/aries1001

[SoR82]

Captain Sassy Pants wrote...

Start a new IP, don't convert the IP you started to appease old fans into something it was never conceived as.

Gee, that was hard.

Amen to that

[Swoo]

"Origins was Bioware's best selling game ever."

Nope. ME2 is.

If Volourn is wrong and ME2 is the highest selling game for them then blame Bioware, because they are the ones who said it.

[As of November] Origins is the single, most global successful title we have put out to date - Rob Bartel, Bioware's Principal Designer.

It has even been brought up a few times in interviews, like...

We understand that Origins is actually BioWare’s best selling
game to date. Does it annoy you then that many still refer to it as a
‘niche’ game?


Not really, since I think that Origins was a bit niche in its overall presentation. - Mike Laidlaw

Modifié par Swoo, 14 avril 2011 - 07:52 .

[jds1bio]

Nozybidaj wrote...

ejoslin wrote...
Another thing that will skew the data is that many people play through once or twice but played all the origins as well, so that may give you 2 full playthroughs, 4 only getting to Ostegar in their data.

I actually did exactly that with all the origins.  Only finished the game with a few of those though.  

Problem with statistics like these are, they can only tell you what happened, not why.  Figuring out the why is where people tend to veer off course, especially when personal biases come in to play, which I think with the way DA:O has been portrayed by certain individuals within BW leading up to the DA2 release is a given.

I agree with you guys.  The "played through all origins, but completed one or two playthroughs" seems the most likely. 

I run ski trips every year for a club, and every year a group of people insist "why don't we go to XYZ mountain next year?"  And then we offer the trip to XYZ mountain, and then not enough of them sign up to pay for the trip.  We have to plan trips for what we think will get the most people to pay for, at the places the most people will enjoy.  And believe it or not, we've done the equivalent of "pre-ordering" for their trip, to give them a greater incentive, and they still don't sign up.

My wife just told me that a soap opera she watches has been cancelled.  It's being replaced by a cooking show, and a lifestyle show, because "that's what polled the most" when they asked people what they wanted to see most.  Really?  When most of cable and local TV is already glutted with cooking and lifestyle shows?   I suspect the people polled may be answering that way because that's all they end up seeing anyways. 

Interpretations of polled stats are funny things. 

Modifié par jds1bio, 14 avril 2011 - 07:55 .

[AkiKishi]

Swoo wrote...

"Origins was Bioware's best selling game ever."

Nope. ME2 is.

If Volourn is wrong and ME2 is the highest selling game for them then blame Bioware, because they are the ones who said it.

[As of November] Origins is the single, most global successful title we have put out to date - Rob Bartel, Bioware's Principal Designer.

It has even been brought up a few times in interviews, like...

We understand that Origins is actually BioWare’s best selling
game to date. Does it annoy you then that many still refer to it as a
‘niche’ game?


Not really, since I think that Origins was a bit niche in its overall presentation. - Mike Laidlaw

The idea behind DA2 was if DA could sell that many to a niche market a dumed down DA would sell to a bigger market. Does not seem to have worked out that way.

My theory is you can dumb the system down to a single button press but unless you confront the core of Bioware game design it's not going to make a difference.

[ejoslin]

Swoo wrote...

"Origins was Bioware's best selling game ever."

Nope. ME2 is.

If Volourn is wrong and ME2 is the highest selling game for them then blame Bioware, because they are the ones who said it.

[As of November] Origins is the single, most global successful title we have put out to date - Rob Bartel, Bioware's Principal Designer.

It has even been brought up a few times in interviews, like...

We understand that Origins is actually BioWare’s best selling
game to date. Does it annoy you then that many still refer to it as a
‘niche’ game?


Not really, since I think that Origins was a bit niche in its overall presentation. - Mike Laidlaw

Wow, did he really say that?  If it's a niche, it's a really BIG niche.  I actually think that DAO did so well because, well, it was SUCH a good RPG that people who don't normally play them played it.  Watering the game down won't make it appeal to more people.

Ah well. 

Edit: How that reads to me is, "I didn't like DAO that much, so it doesn't matter HOW popular and well received it was, I'm not going to try to make a game like that again."

Modifié par ejoslin, 14 avril 2011 - 08:16 .

[randName]

TheMadCat wrote...

randName wrote...

Westwood had only C&C, BioWare have 2 strong IPs, and apparently a good connection with Lucas Arts, they have also done several rather distinct games in the past - unless you classify doing ARPGs as a one trick pony? 

There is obviously still a risk for them being consumed, but they should be more in the postion of Dice than Westwood, and I would claim that BioWare have done more when it comes to variation than DICE (Even if DICE also have done racing games, and Mirrors Edge).

Dune series, Dragonstrike, one of the first Battletech games, Bladerunner.

These were all their games in the early and mid 90's which built them up the the juggernaught they were alongside with the early C&C generation. Ironically it wasn't until EA took control of them that they became what you consider them to be which is a one trick pony and milking the C&C franchise well beyond death. If history harbors and hints of the future then the furutre's looking bright for BioWare doesn't it.

Hm, as I remembered it Dune and the rest were done several years before they were purged into EA, and I don't count BG, MDK2 or NWN even to BioWares current strengths due to time.

That said I only tested Dune when I was a kid, and then time flowed differently (preteen years).

And I'm not saying that BioWare can't become a one trick pony for EA, they certainly can ~ as Westwood ended up before they were lost.

EDIT: I'll retract my comment, or I checked the wiki and they did games like Bladerunner post 1992 (1997).
In my ignorance I just remembered Dune, Eye of the Beholder and other classics, but these were all during or before 1992.

Modifié par randName, 14 avril 2011 - 08:21 .

[Everwarden]

aries1001 wrote...
 However, as I see it, Bioware does not want to go up the voiced protagonist, the dialogue wheel or the cinematic designs of the art direction and the graphics. Or the new art direction for the Dragon Age universe. 

You're likely right. Sad. 

I know this sounds harsh, but I really feel like people should try to make the pong tennis-game (like I did) from gamemakers 6.0 or 9.0 - then, maybe they'll understand how difficult it is to make a game, let alone an rpg.

That doesn't sound harsh, it sounds moronic. "Game design is haaaard!" is not an excuse to make a bad game, and telling people to "Go make a better RPG!" is just ridiculous. No, people are complaining about a faulty product they bought; stating that they (with no programming experience) can't make a game is not an argument.

What, your car broke down? Why don't you go build a working car, Mr. Complainypants? Do you know how complex an automatic transmission is? See, doesn't make much sense. 

[Nozybidaj]

We understand that Origins is actually BioWare’s best selling
game to date. Does it annoy you then that many still refer to it as a
‘niche’ game?


Not really, since I think that Origins was a bit niche in its overall presentation. - Mike Laidlaw

Hmm, wonder what that makes all their other games then?

[randName]

Nozybidaj wrote...

We understand that Origins is actually BioWare’s best selling
game to date. Does it annoy you then that many still refer to it as a
‘niche’ game?


Not really, since I think that Origins was a bit niche in its overall presentation. - Mike Laidlaw

Hmm, wonder what that makes all their other games then?

Less niched games that sell less - a niche isn't really only about how well something sells, just how large the target audience is (obviously the ME target audience is at least in scope larger, and so is DA2s, but you need to get those to buy it as well).

[Cutlasskiwi]

Swoo wrote...

"Origins was Bioware's best selling game ever."

Nope. ME2 is.

If Volourn is wrong and ME2 is the highest selling game for them then blame Bioware, because they are the ones who said it.

[As of November] Origins is the single, most global successful title we have put out to date - Rob Bartel, Bioware's Principal Designer.

It has even been brought up a few times in interviews, like...

We understand that Origins is actually BioWare’s best selling
game to date. Does it annoy you then that many still refer to it as a
‘niche’ game?


Not really, since I think that Origins was a bit niche in its overall presentation. - Mike Laidlaw

Where did he say that? I'm just curious if that's all he said or if he elaborated on the subject.

[Killjoy Cutter]

randName wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...

We understand that Origins is actually BioWare’s best selling
game to date. Does it annoy you then that many still refer to it as a
‘niche’ game?


Not really, since I think that Origins was a bit niche in its overall presentation. - Mike Laidlaw

Hmm, wonder what that makes all their other games then?

Less niched games that sell less - a niche isn't really only about how well something sells, just how large the target audience is (obviously the ME target audience is at least in scope larger, and so is DA2s, but you need to get those to buy it as well).

Despite what marketing people think and try to make happen, your product cannot be everything to everyone.  It's OK to make the best possible product you can make, of a more defined and particular type.  Quite often, it's better to do that. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 14 avril 2011 - 08:39 .

[TheMadCat]

randName wrote...

Hm, as I remembered it Dune and the rest were done several years before they were purged into EA, and I don't count BG, MDK2 or NWN even to BioWares current strengths due to time.

That said I only tested Dune when I was a kid, and then time flowed differently (preteen years).

And I'm not saying that BioWare can't become a one trick pony for EA, they certainly can ~ as Westwood ended up before they were lost.

Well that was kind of my point, prior to the EA aquisation Westwood was a very creative studio that tackled a variety of products in different genres and that is what got them to the top of the food chain in the mid 90's. EA is what created the one trick Westwood that you and many others may be famailar with and what led to their decline. 

[bEVEsthda]

aries1001 wrote...

Laidlaw has not been alone on making this game; yes he was Lead Designer, but even the Lead Designer has a -ahem- boss. And it is Darrah, Mark Darrah, the project director. And ultimately, Darrah's boss(es) is/are Ray M. and Greg Z. They decide ultimately what the future of a project is going to be - still, I hope. Or maybe Bioware, as company, isn't aware of that they've grown, and still think of themselves as a small indie company. It happens to companies that grow a lot...too rapidly, it seems.The point I'm getting at is that most likely Laidlaw has had some parameters to work within, given, handed or dicussed through his superiors to or with him. And the story actually also has to fit in with the rest of the game. Making a game is not like writing a book, or writing a movie script, it is probably more similar to making a musical, an opera or maybe even movie, the filming part, I mean.

Personally, I believe I'm a core fan of Bioware (been playing Bioware games since 1998 or 1999) ; I do like the bold chance they took with DA2, the framed narrative, the more personal story etc. etc. How well it has been done, can be discussed, how well the use use of the dialogue wheel has been done can also be discussed. However, as I see it, Bioware does not want to go up the voiced protagonist, the dialogue wheel or the cinematic designs of the art direction and the graphics. Or the new art direction for the Dragon Age universe.

To me, it seems, though, that Bioware, are trying to make a formula or finding a way to tell a story in a cinamatic way, and in doing so, they're experimenting a lot with how to tell the story, on how to make the combat, how to make the characters, the dialogue etc. etc. And they have done it with a short development time of maybe 12-15 months. And yes, certain parts of the story could maybe have been presented better, certain other parts could have been highligted more.

As for the interview with Ray and Greg, if you read between the lines what they say, Ray and Greg, it becomes clear that by saying 'da2 sells well' they're also sort of saying 'we're continuing down this road'. Adding change, but keeping the core fans (somewhat) happy. And let's fnot forget that some (or many?) people are angry with or at Bioware for varius reasons e.g. thinking the've destroyed rpgs, they sold out, etc. etc. Ultimately, if people are upset by Bioware's decisions, they can try making their own game. Just like the people behind the Broken Hourglass has done for now close to six years, and it is still not released, and just like Vault Dweller is doing with his Age of Decadence game. I know this sounds harsh, but I really feel like people should try to make the pong tennis-game (like I did) from gamemakers 6.0 or 9.0 - then, maybe they'll understand how difficult it is to make a game, let alone an rpg.
/aries1001

Great post. Thankyou for making it.
As I was reading this thread, I became rather uncomfortable and was looking to write something similar.
Now I don't have to.
People really need to take this in and understand it. What kind of game DA2 was going to be, was not a decision that was taken by Laidlaw. Nor was the 18 month shedule. He just had to execute. I think he did that fairly, given the parameters. The combat system is similar to DA:O on the PC, while still better adapted to the consoles. Reused dungeons - he wanted more content, a longer game, but didn't have the time. Same with linearity, it also saves resources. And so on. So the only thing you can blame personally on Laidlaw, is maybe the over-the -top animations? I dunno.

Ray and Greg decided to do this (DA2) with the Dragon Age franchise. I'm sure there are financial motives (and expectations) behind. It's still a pity.

And on that note, I'd like to say that the COD crowd is really not at all happy with all the dumbness/dumbing down of COD either. A word of warning. What looks like success is maybe just a long succession of delivering the same experience over and over (and letting it cost), picking up new customers by visibility, reputation and word of mouth.
Bioware obviously totally failed doing that with DA franchise.

And really - has dumbing down ever led to success for a game? Really?
I can't think of a single.

The EA marketing crowd was so sure that Spore needed to have really simple gameplay, to gain a fantastic audience of "casual" gamers. They sure as hell weren't right. And I could have told them that. Every "casual" gamer I've ever known, want something interesting to happen in the game. And they're really not that keen on killing, extermination, war and frustrations. And that is precisely what Spore offered.

I'm afraid you're right about that Ray and Greg are really saying they will continue on this path. And just look for some way to cater for some of what they perceive our complaints are. - And, pity again, that probably means this is the end of the road for me. I'm not making any promises, but I don't think I'll be buying any more Bioware games.

Good thing I'm such a big fan of Bethesda. Not the same type of games as Bioware. At all. But I still like their games.
And I doubt very much that interactive (somewhat) movies is the future of videogaming.

[aries1001]

Everwarden wrote...

aries1001 wrote...
 However, as I see it, Bioware does not want to go up the voiced protagonist, the dialogue wheel or the cinematic designs of the art direction and the graphics. Or the new art direction for the Dragon Age universe. 

You're likely right. Sad. 

I know this sounds harsh, but I really feel like people should try to make the pong tennis-game (like I did) from gamemakers 6.0 or 9.0 - then, maybe they'll understand how difficult it is to make a game, let alone an rpg.

That doesn't sound harsh, it sounds moronic. "Game design is haaaard!" is not an excuse to make a bad game, and telling people to "Go make a better RPG!" is just ridiculous. No, people are complaining about a faulty product they bought; stating that they (with no programming experience) can't make a game is not an argument.

What, your car broke down? Why don't you go build a working car, Mr. Complainypants? Do you know how complex an automatic transmission is? See, doesn't make much sense. 

I was just trying to point out that not all people that complain know how hard it is to make a game - if they tried it maybe the would understand how difficult it really is.

[byzantine horse]

So what would you have them say then? "Sorry, our game sucks, please don't buy it so that I am fired, my economical and social situation is put in peril and my family is evicted from its home". Do you really expect that?

[Mr.BlazenGlazen]

byzantine horse wrote...

So what would you have them say then? "Sorry, our game sucks, please don't buy it so that I am fired, my economical and social situation is put in peril and my family is evicted from its home". Do you really expect that?

This is BSN. So yes, they expect him to say that.

[_Motoki_]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Good thing I'm such a big fan of Bethesda. Not the same type of games as Bioware. At all. But I still like their games.
And I doubt very much that interactive (somewhat) movies is the future of videogaming.

I always say Bethesda is excellent at world building on a macro level and terrible at it on a micro level. Mind, you, I still enjoy their games, quite a bit actually, but dialog and characterization have always been a weak point in them. At times I found myself wishing whoever wrote those in-game books would have written some of the dialog because some of them are quite good. The thing is, you're never going to get DA:O or BG level of characters in ES games but you know that going into them. They have been that way all the way back to Arena in 1994.

They have definitely streamlined and scaled some things back, but I think at the core you still get a big open world to run around in, soak up the atmosphere and do whatever you want whenever you want. I don't think any of the main ES games have taken such a radical left turn like DA2. The best comparison I can think of is if Bethesda had made Redguard a main Elder Scrolls game instead of a side game. :-P

It's completely semantics, but had this game been billed as a side story or spin off instead of a direct sequel I think it might have been received a bit better or at least there would not have been as much expectations and disappointment.

[Volourn]

"always say Bethesda is excellent"

No. Bethesda sucks at EVERYTHING. There is not one part of their game that is better than horrible. Betehsda is the worst most successful developer ever.

[Everwarden]

Volourn wrote...

"always say Bethesda is excellent"

No. Bethesda sucks at EVERYTHING. There is not one part of their game that is better than horrible. Betehsda is the worst most successful developer ever.

Is that sarcasm?

I have -hated- a lot of what Bethesda does, especially as recently as Fallout 3 (I had a thread in the spoiler forum called "Worst ending since Fallout 3", and I meant it), but even as a bitter Fallout fanboy who thinks that they need to fire whoever wrong the "I need to find my daddy!" quests, I am forced to bitterly acknowledge that they are great at building a world to explore and creating an atmosphere.

[Phantom13NWN2]

Btw, I also gathered from the interview that Ray said that there were som games that were not yet announced. He also stated that some of the games were maybe of a different genre.... Seriously Bioware is an RPG developer... It seems like Bioware is changing.. and not for the better... What are the going to make ? A Devil May Cry style Dragon Age ? Was there not enough "awesome" in DA2?

Modifié par Phantom13NWN2, 14 avril 2011 - 09:44 .