966 réponses à ce sujet

[Brockololly]

I posted this in another thread, but figure it'll get buried there. From Game Informer:

Just some excerpts:

Many of the caves and building interiors are repeated, even though  the locations are supposed to be different. What kind of limitations  necessitated this decision?

In the balance of production, we  realized that we had capacity to create and maintain more stories,  content, and encounters than we could necessarily create unique levels  for, so we made the call to re-use some of the caves and other levels in the interest of providing more sidequests and encounters

Do you see Dragon Age ever revisiting the traditional tactical gameplay found in Origins?

It really depends on the definition of tactical. For some, it simply  means "slower." For others it means more complicated combat scenarios  and more engaging/challenging foes. To the former, I would say no. I  personally find the responsiveness and personality of the new combat  system to be much better for Dragon Age as a whole. My experience with the game feels more like I'm in control, rather than issuing orders, and
that direct correlation to my actions is something I really enjoy.  This is speaking as a habitual PC pause-and-player.

Meredith plays a significant role late in the story, but is largely  absent for the rest of the game. Why keep a prominent antagonist in the background for so long?

The "prominent antagonist" is a  staple of fantasy, be it the brooding eye of Sauron or the endless
hordes of the archdemon. For Dragon Age II, we wanted to attempt  something different and break the mold and try to vilify circumstance,  rather than a specific evil. It's a story of how heroes are made, not  born, and I think that by the same token, it's a story of how the  antagonist need not always be the villain. To me, that's a very human  tale. I believe the early game likely could have used some additional  appearances by Meredith, but we were likely being over-cautious of her  being perceived as a source of confusion or frustration for players: "I  think she's important, but she feels disconnected from my current  goals!"

What would you say to the PC gamer who feels like Dragon Age II was "dumbed down" compared to Origins?

I would suggest that they play on Hard, frankly. Origins on normal  delivered a pretty painful experience on the PC if you were new to RPGs, and I firmly believe that it turned people off. There's a very clear  "skill gap" between someone new to Dragon Age II and a returning Origins player, and I think it's very easy to forget how steep that learning  curve could be once you've overcome it.As such, we've made the early  game quests and encounters more forgiving, especially on normal, to help someone just getting their feet under them acclimate. Hard, however,  presents a solid, and consistent challenge to  veterans, and one where I think teamwork, pause and-play, and smart thinking are all quite important.

Modifié par Brockololly, 14 avril 2011 - 04:03 .

[MorrigansLove]

[quote]Brockololly wrote...

I posted this in another thread, but figure it'll get buried there. From Game Informer:

Just some excerpts:

[quote]
Many of the caves and building interiors are repeated, even though
the locations are supposed to be different. What kind of limitations
necessitated this decision?
In the balance of production, we
realized that we had capacity to create and maintain more stories,
content, and encounters than we could necessarily create unique levels
for, so we made the call to re-use some of the caves and other levels in
the interest of providing more sidequests and encounters[/quote]

[quote]
Do you see Dragon Age ever revisiting the traditional tactical gameplay found in Origins?
It
really depends on the definition of tactical. For some, it simply
means "slower." For others it means more complicated combat scenarios
and more engaging/challenging foes. To the former, I would say no. I
personally find the responsiveness and personality of the new combat
system to be much better for Dragon Age as a whole. My experience with
the game feels more like I'm in control, rather than issuing orders, and
that direct correlation to my actions is something I really enjoy.
This is speaking as a habitual PC pause-and-player.[/quote]

[quote]
Meredith plays a significant role late in the story, but is largely
absent for the rest of the game. Why keep a prominent antagonist in the
background for so long?
The "prominent antagonist" is a
staple of fantasy, be it the brooding eye of Sauron or the endless
hordes of the archdemon. For Dragon Age II, we wanted to attempt
something different and break the mold and try to vilify circumstance,
rather than a specific evil. It's a story of how heroes are made, not
born, and I think that by the same token, it's a story of how the
antagonist need not always be the villain. To me, that's a very human
tale. I believe the early game likely could have used some additional
appearances by Meredith, but we were likely being over-cautious of her
being perceived as a source of confusion or frustration for players: "I
think she's important, but she feels disconnected from my current
goals!"[/quote]

[quote]
What would you say to the PC gamer who feels like Dragon Age II was "dumbed down" compared to Origins?
I
would suggest that they play on Hard, frankly. Origins on normal
delivered a pretty painful experience on the PC if you were new to RPGs,
and I firmly believe that it turned people off. There's a very clear
"skill gap" between someone new to Dragon Age II and a returning Origins
player, and I think it's very easy to forget how steep that learning
curve could be once you've overcome it.As such, we've made the early
game quests and encounters more forgiving, especially on normal, to help
someone just getting their feet under them acclimate. Hard, however,
presents a solid, and consistent challenge to  veterans, and one where I think teamwork, pause-and-play, and smart thinking are all quite important.[/quote]


[/quote]

Ermm, I did?

[AkiKishi]

They should have kept him on Jade Empire.

[adneate]

The "Play on Hard" is the most insulting comment yet, turning the difficulty up doesn't change the fact that the combat system is broken. Everything is auto-scaled and since all attacks hit every single fight in the entire game is exactly the same. You just wail on something until it runs out of hit points and dies. It takes forever to take down a "Boss" because they have a magical aura that makes your weapons dull and your armour rusty. Turning the difficulty to Hard does not solve these problems.

[Miashi]

Brockololly wrote...
In the balance of production, we  realized that we had capacity to create and maintain more stories,  content, and encounters than we could necessarily create unique levels  for, so we made the call to re-use some of the caves and other levels in the interest of providing more sidequests and encounters

You lost your trash, serah.

Oh, and on the dumbed down part...
Putting the game on hard won't make appear new dialog options magically, unfortunately. I appreciate the very insightful suggestion though.

Modifié par Miashi, 14 avril 2011 - 04:12 .

[randName]

adneate wrote...

The "Play on Hard" is the most insulting comment yet, turning the difficulty up doesn't change the fact that the combat system is broken. Everything is auto-scaled and since all attacks hit every single fight in the entire game is exactly the same. You just wail on something until it runs out of hit points and dies. It takes forever to take down a "Boss" because they have a magical aura that makes your weapons dull and your armour rusty. Turning the difficulty to Hard does not solve these problems.

Aye, and while Hard or Nightmare are both playable, the problems with the combat system gets magnified the higher you go.

Modifié par randName, 14 avril 2011 - 04:15 .

[rak72]

This interview gave me visions of ML with his fingers in his ears singing la la la , I can't hear you.

[oldmansavage]

Gotta give him props for making a turd and defending it til the end.  I'll just have to take a pass on his proudcts.

[Fraevar]

Seriously, give Mike Jade Empire 2 already, since it's obvious it's that kind of game he wants to be working on. Dragon Age is not the franchise for you, Mike.

No disrespect intended, Mike - I loved your work on JE, but I genuinly believe you completely misunderstood what it was that fans loved about Origins and wanted more of.

As for the interview - sadly that's the nature of publically traded companies. They will never admit fault, though by now I think we all know that it came down to them not being given the option to delay the game to fix issues like the recycled areas.

Modifié par Delerius_Jedi, 14 avril 2011 - 04:34 .

[Whammo]

Truth be told, I'm starting to feel a bit for Laidlaw now.

He's had to justify the recycled areas in so many interviews, and there's no way you can give a satisfactory answer to that.

[adneate]

Alistairlover94 wrote...
 There is no challenge in that, only tedium!

Dragon Age 2! Boldly mixing boredom with tedium! Press a button and something underwhelming happens!

[John Epler]

Allow me to repost what I posted in the other interview thread:

'I've mentioned it before, and it bears mentioning again - feel free to disagree with others, but avoid the personal insults, and this includes developers.

Calling someone a cretin or a douche, whether they are an employee of BioWare  or another community member, is completely unacceptable. If you are unable to express yourself without personal insults, then you will not be welcome on these forums anymore.'

Modifié par JohnEpler, 14 avril 2011 - 04:31 .

[Aaleel]

Many of the caves and building interiors are repeated, even though  the locations are supposed to be different. What kind of limitations  necessitated this decision?

In the balance of production, we  realized that we had capacity to create and maintain more stories,  content, and encounters than we could necessarily create unique levels  for, so we made the call to re-use some of the caves and other levels in the interest of providing more sidequests and encounters

There's really no excuse for this.  Just say we didn't have enough time.  But don't try to offer the we tried to offer you more by giving you less argument.  Also it was not caves, it was one cave, the same cave over and over.

Meredith plays a significant role late in the story, but is largely  absent for the rest of the game. Why keep a prominent antagonist in the background for so long?

The "prominent antagonist" is a  staple of fantasy, be it the brooding eye of Sauron or the endless
hordes of the archdemon. For Dragon Age II, we wanted to attempt  something different and break the mold and try to vilify circumstance,  rather than a specific evil. It's a story of how heroes are made, not  born, and I think that by the same token, it's a story of how the  antagonist need not always be the villain. To me, that's a very human  tale. I believe the early game likely could have used some additional  appearances by Meredith, but we were likely being over-cautious of her  being perceived as a source of confusion or frustration for players: "I  think she's important, but she feels disconnected from my current  goals!"

The bolded part is exactly what happened, so I don't see what he's trying to accomplish with this statement.

Modifié par Aaleel, 14 avril 2011 - 04:34 .

[berelinde]

No, that isn't patronizing. Not at all. (rolls eyes)

Mr. Laidlaw, please listen to what people are really saying, not what you want to hear. When they complain that DA2 is dumbed down, people are not talking about the combat. Or perhaps I should say that they are not talking about solely the combat. They are talking about everything. They are talking about brainless side quests where the PC stumbles across a set of human remains and magically knows that they must be delivered to some random dude. They are talking about dialogues where you don't even have to read the paraphrases because the color-coded icon tells you far more about what you're about to say than the paraphrase does. They are talking about a world where the only time people converse with each other is if there is an active quest. This goes for lovers, family, friends, and passersby on the street. They are talking about waves of heavily armored templars parachuting into a sealed room. There is more to a game than button-mashing. Or there should be.

Modifié par berelinde, 14 avril 2011 - 04:38 .

[Edli]

Brockololly wrote...

[/i]

Do you see Dragon Age ever revisiting the traditional tactical gameplay found in Origins?

[i]It really depends on the definition of tactical. For some, it simply  means "slower." For others it means more complicated combat scenarios  and more engaging/challenging foes. To the former, I would say no. I  personally find the responsiveness and personality of the new combat  system to be much better for Dragon Age as a whole. My experience with the game feels more like I'm in control, rather than issuing orders, and
that direct correlation to my actions is something I really enjoy.  This is speaking as a habitual PC pause-and-player.

Why change the gameplay mechanism in the middle of  the serie? If you want an action rpg than make a new IP. It's like Pholyphony digital decides that Gran turismo 6 will play like Burnout. Who does that seriously.

[nopho]

XxTaLoNxX wrote...

It was an interesting read, but I still see that they didn't ask him the hard and obvious questions. So I will now, I doubt ML will respond though.

Q: What do you think went wrong with the production of DA2?

was already told in another interview, he wanted to make the game even less complicated (speak more dumbed down)

XxTaLoNxX wrote...
Q: What do you think you could have done better?

see above

XxTaLoNxX wrote...
Q: The public backlash on DA2 was massive, why do you think so many gamers got so mad?

"people just can't appreciate our game. for what it is"
seriously theres many kinds of managers and i get the (very subjective!) feeling that he might be the kind who defends every decision, no matter how much disliked by others, until either people give up or he loses his position. some people can't admit haveing done a failure until theres nothing left to save.

[FabianGrey]

Aaleel wrote...

Many of the caves and building interiors are repeated, even though  the locations are supposed to be different. What kind of limitations  necessitated this decision?

In the balance of production, we  realized that we had capacity to create and maintain more stories,  content, and encounters than we could necessarily create unique levels  for, so we made the call to re-use some of the caves and other levels in the interest of providing more sidequests and encounters

There's really no excuse for this.  Just say we didn't have enough time.  But don't try to offer the we tried to offer you more by giving you less argument.  Also it was not caves, it was one cave, the same cave over and over.

Meredith plays a significant role late in the story, but is largely  absent for the rest of the game. Why keep a prominent antagonist in the background for so long?

The "prominent antagonist" is a  staple of fantasy, be it the brooding eye of Sauron or the endless
hordes of the archdemon. For Dragon Age II, we wanted to attempt  something different and break the mold and try to vilify circumstance,  rather than a specific evil. It's a story of how heroes are made, not  born, and I think that by the same token, it's a story of how the  antagonist need not always be the villain. To me, that's a very human  tale. I believe the early game likely could have used some additional  appearances by Meredith, but we were likely being over-cautious of her  being perceived as a source of confusion or frustration for players: "I  think she's important, but she feels disconnected from my current  goals!"

The bolded part is exactly what happened, so I don't see what he's trying to accomplish with this statement.

He means that they thought about putting more of Meredith in the early game to foreshadow what was to come, but opted against it to avoid confusing the players with a seemingly important character that they had no real interaction with pertaining the story at that point. And to move away from having an obvious nemesis to the player, instead "vilifying circumstance" as monseur Laidlaw says.

Solution: Ehrm, change the story so she does play a more important role early on (Orsino too for that matter). Heck, make those two characters main quest givers so you interact and get to know them, instead of suddenly coming across them in the last chapter after hearing their names once or twice.

As far as the interview goes, yeah, there's only one thing I want answered about DA2: What the hell Bioware, What the hell?

[ejoslin]

He really does not get it. This is disenheartening. I was really REALLY hoping that the good elements, the elements people really like, from both games would be a part of DA3.

I guess... that won't happen. I'll reserve further judgement until I see the DLC for DA2. He said they had learned their lessons from the reaction to DLC of DAO. But it doesn't look like he heard the actual complaints about them.

[Miashi]

JohnEpler wrote...
Calling someone a cretin or a douche, whether they are an employee of BioWare  or another community member, is completely unacceptable. If you are unable to express yourself without personal insults, then you will not be welcome on these forums anymore.'

You're right. Although I do understand certain people being irate when reading comments such as increasing the game difficulty as a quick fix to an oversimplied combat system - poor enemy variety, stapling different names on enemies that inherently have similar mechanics, constant enemy wave spawning, even in illogical scenarios. It's pretty much insinuating that players are wrong about well established design issues.

It doesn't mean that the people playing a simplified game are simpletons.

Modifié par Miashi, 14 avril 2011 - 04:48 .

[Romantiq]

What a load of crap his argument is when asked about reused environments.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Greetings fellows!  I must say that based upon that link, I hold high hopes for the future at this juncture.  ^_^

I'm glad they're sticking to their guns on this. I enjoyed DAO and I enjoyed, DA2, but DA2 had more playtime per hour than DAO did. Because of that, DA2 is shorter, but I certainly don't miss the plodding, filler combat from DAO.

I like his explanation of the recycled maps. That's kind of what I had suspected. Still, I wish there had more more variety there. Like how Bethesda has components to their dungeons and they swap pieces and parts out to make different places.

Still, someone should have poked him and been like "Dude? We need to be able to manage all our companions from a central location, even if it doesn't make any sense in a larger scale."

Good stuff! Here's to the future!

Modifié par RinpocheSchnozberry, 14 avril 2011 - 05:07 .

[devSin]

I usually give these interviews a pass (it's all PR-speak anyway), but "play on Hard" is really, really offensive. You may or may not agree that the game has been dumbed down, but what on earth does changing the difficulty setting have to do with anything?

GI.com: People say the waves are dumb.
Mike: I suggest they play on Easy. Less waves. Everybody wins!

GI.com: People say you reused environments far too much.
Mike: I suggest they only do a few side-quests each time. Fewer areas. Everybody wins!

GI.com: People say Meredith is far too detached from the story.
Mike: Story?

[John Epler]

Rinpoche, a reminder that appeals to civility apply to you, as well.