966 réponses à ce sujet

[Reinveil]

Now, now, let's not bog this discussion down with actual facts.

[TJSolo]

Reinveil wrote...


All true.  However, the blight was still happening, yes?  Whether or not Loghain thought it was?  And a Grey Warden is needed to kill the archdemon, right?  Which is what you do at the end of the game?

I'm not arguing that Loghain is less interesting or integral to the plot than the archdemon, only that his defeat is not what ultimately motivates the protagonist.  The goal of Origins isn't to decide his fate, it's to unify the land and defeat the blight.

There would be no need to "unify the land" if Loghain did not divide the land. The majority of the battles during the blight and the appearance of the archdemon was supposed to have taken place at Ostagar if not for Loghain screwing up the containment.  He did not cause the Blight but he surely was the reason for the Blight going any further than Ostagar.

[eyesofastorm]

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."

No... it just means "Not retardedly fast".  It's comments he makes like this one that cause the beef I have with him.  I'm not slow, boring, stupid, or old-fashioned.  I also don't have a proclivity for idiocy.  

Modifié par eyesofastorm, 14 avril 2011 - 10:23 .

[Boiny Bunny]

Also, a definition of 'antagonist':

An antagonist is a character, group of characters, or an institution, who represents the opposition against which the protagonist(s) must contend.

Loghain and the Archdemon both fit into that category perfectly.

Which one you think is more important is a subjective matter.

The Archdemon is what you are working towards for most of Origins, but sits in the background for most of the game, not mentioned, seen, or providing any opposition whatsoever.

Whereas, Loghain is mentioned all the time, and is deeply involved in many of the sub-plots that occur across the game.

The fact that the Archdemon is defeated AFTER Loghain doesn't make Loghain any less of an antagonist.

What you are saying is akin to saying that the final boss of DA2 is all that DA2 is about. When really, DA2 is not at all about the final boss. The game has numerous focuses in it's plot, and numerous antagonists to match, spread evenly over the story. If anything, the final boss in DA2 feels a bit tacked on and out of place in the overall scheme of things.

[Cutlasskiwi]

Sad Dragon wrote...

Sad Dragon wrote...

This is something I have been wondering. At times it feels like the ability gets delayed untill after the animation of the standard attack gets finished (especialy bad for the mages) . Not sure this is the case or if its simple a targening issue and I just happened to not have any mob 'hard targeted' at the time.

Is this just me or is it just a series of bad targeting incidents?

- TSD

To answer my own question: The animation is stopping the spell from being casted -- though i think the targeting was also part of my problem as the spell gets queued directly after the animation ends, and I'm sure I kept hitting the button for more then the animation time.

- TSD

Thanks for looking it up, saves me the time 

[Reinveil]

TJSolo wrote...

Reinveil wrote...


All true.  However, the blight was still happening, yes?  Whether or not Loghain thought it was?  And a Grey Warden is needed to kill the archdemon, right?  Which is what you do at the end of the game?

I'm not arguing that Loghain is less interesting or integral to the plot than the archdemon, only that his defeat is not what ultimately motivates the protagonist.  The goal of Origins isn't to decide his fate, it's to unify the land and defeat the blight.

There would be no need to "unify the land" if Loghain did not divide the land. The majority of the battles during the blight and the appearance of the archdemon was supposed to have taken place at Ostagar if not for Loghain screwing up the containment.  He did not cause the Blight but he surely was the reason for the Blight going any further than Ostagar.

I don't want to derail this thread with this for much longer, but wasn't Duncan under the impression that even with Loghain's help, they were going to be overrun at Ostagar?  It was pretty clear that Cailan was vastly underestimating what was happening (and the archdemon wasn't even present at the battle, anyway).  If the goal of the game was to thwart Loghain, the game would end then and there.  He plays a large part in HOW things play out, but he's not WHY they're playing out.

[Reinveil]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Also, a definition of 'antagonist':

An antagonist is a character, group of characters, or an institution, who represents the opposition against which the protagonist(s) must contend.

Loghain and the Archdemon both fit into that category perfectly.

Which one you think is more important is a subjective matter.

The Archdemon is what you are working towards for most of Origins, but sits in the background for most of the game, not mentioned, seen, or providing any opposition whatsoever.

Whereas, Loghain is mentioned all the time, and is deeply involved in many of the sub-plots that occur across the game.

The fact that the Archdemon is defeated AFTER Loghain doesn't make Loghain any less of an antagonist.

What you are saying is akin to saying that the final boss of DA2 is all that DA2 is about. When really, DA2 is not at all about the final boss. The game has numerous focuses in it's plot, and numerous antagonists to match, spread evenly over the story. If anything, the final boss in DA2 feels a bit tacked on and out of place in the overall scheme of things.

Let's all just agree this is correct and get back to supporting/being apalled by the GI interview. 

[Tommy6860]

Romantiq wrote...

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

Exactly, as if adding these quests and more combat actually lent anything to the main plot/story. I found it all too amusing (and sad as well) when he said they re-used some of the maps? They re-used ALL of the maps, so many times over ad nauseam. I can't count how many times I exprienced a different quest, going to the exact same layout as the "Wounded Coast", and in each quest going there, I encounter the exact same remains in the same location, yet each time, those same remains miraculously produce loot.. How's that for "added content"!

[2papercuts]

eyesofastorm wrote...

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."

No... it just means "Not retardedly fast".  It's comments he makes like this one that cause the beef I have with him.  I'm not slow, boring, stupid, or old-fashioned.  I also don't have a proclivity for idiocy.  

heres how I see new combat

everything in the game that they've changed from the lack of customization to the sped up combat seems to be counter productive to the immersion they're trying to create and make believable. In my opinion the tone and feeling of the game should be reflective in all elements of the game to create a consitant and immersive universe, but in DA2 it appears that this is not the case. DAO, was a "thoughtful" game, a game that you had to think about things and consider the consequences; ranging from making tough decsions, to strategetic combat, to having to think about what your companions would specialize in and equip to make them the most effective. In DA2, this does not appear to be the case, where you can spend time thinking about a tough decsion, and then the next second you can be doing ridiculous and completely unbelievable things in combat.

[Brockololly]

Delerius_Jedi wrote...

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.

Yup- they've got a perfectly good Action game franchise waiting in Jade Empire should they want to go that route. Yet another action game isn't what I thought DA would turn into but that seems to be the avenue Laidlaw or the Doctors wants to take it. I think for many people, DAO wasn't just about the setting- its the gameplay as much as anything too.

axl99 wrote...
The article's a nice post mortem, but I'd rather read
something by another person who was on the dev team for DA2. Like a
level designer. I know I have a list of questions to ask for one.

Like this interview with DA2's Lead Level Designer?

Sad Dragon wrote...
I can understand that  they didnt want to go for the "big bad a'la Sauron"-villian but as  someone earlier said. Have us interact with them -- Meredith and Orsino  -- and get to know them, maybe even like both of them and then force us  to choose sides. That way we have grown to know them and through that  can see both views more clearly.

Bingo- that was the nice thing in Origins with Loghain, was how you start out seeing him as a totally evil bad guy traitor, but through the game you can see how he was just rather incredibly misguided and made some terrible decisions, albeit with good intentions, but just kept digging himself a deeper hole with every subsequent action. So that by the time you got to the Landsmeet, you had a more complete picture of the man. The same could have worked with Meredith or Orsino easily, but instead at the end, any sliver of characterization and humanity they have gets ripped up as they just turn into over the top video game boss/monster fights.

errant_knight wrote...

I don't personally think it's only  about the profit. I'm certain that Mr. Laidlaw believes what he's  saying, absolutely. I also think there are other Bioware franchises for  which he'd be more suited. He seem to have little respect for the  original game or to really understand why so many people liked what it  had to offer. It's pretty sad, really.

Yeah, I think its not just Laidlaw, its BioWare as a whole really- they want to have their games be easily accessable interactive stories, not necessarily in depth RPGs. Like in the interview with Zeschuk and Muzyka in the other thread, having the game be "accessable" and bringing in new people is one of their prime directives with their games- which is fine, but (IMO) they're going about it all the wrong way. If they think a simpler game will bring in more profit, I'm skeptical of that. A good game will, and DA2 is a decidely average game. 

Especially after DA2, I think its turned a great many away from BioWare in general for their progressively basic games and lack of polish. Especially if they're intent on moving into the more crowded action game market, there are many many better action games out there if I want to play one- all this despite seemingly  having a pretty nice niche carved out with DAO's more classical RPG approach, that was still commercially successful.

ejoslin wrote...
I believe Laidlaw was the lead of console  ports.  He also took over the lead in time to do the DLCs for Origins. Which really does explain why the DLCs have such a different feel than  DAO.

Yup- James Ohlen was the original Lead and now he's the Lead on TOR, then Brent Knowles took over and Mike transitioned in as Lead for Origins' console port.

Brent Knowles has a interesting post on his blog regarding Game Design Expectations which is likely relevant to the discussion regarding Laidlaw and the shift in direction from Origins.

A little excerpt from one of his comments below the post:

I think the change of direction is a combination of the general push  from above (the broadcast) with how individual leads & teams  interpret that broadcast. I think given how the changes move Dragon Age
towards being closer to Mass Effect a lot of this change is driven from  the message being broadcast down.

The *specific* implementation  would be the team (i.e., I don't think Ray and Greg said specifically
'remove this' or 'remove that'). The implementation would be a  reflection of what the team thought was needed to meet the goals/vision  of the company as stated mixed with their own preferences. The leads  team on Dragon Age 2 has little overlap with the leads team on DA:O.

So while Laidlaw and Darrah may be responsible for the actual game and its specific changes, the overarching directive to have DA2 be a more action focused, simpler, cinematic game (and wherever DA goes from here on out)  likely comes from the Doctors and EA as much as anyone. So there is plenty of blame to go around:wizard:

Modifié par Brockololly, 14 avril 2011 - 10:38 .

[Riloux]

MorrigansLove 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.

So he's designing from a standpoint of his personal preferences rather than what RPG players enjoy. That's lovely.

[ItsToofy]

Reinveil wrote...

Volourn wrote...

"Somehow me thinks you didnt play the same da:o i did, especially seeing as you forget that loghain had a larger part in the story than the archdemon,"

Loghain may have been on screen more; but the story wasn't about him. Beginning, middle, and end of DA1 was all about stopping the archdemon. Period.

This I actually agree with.  Loghain added a certain level of political intrigue, but ultimately he was only an obstacle to be overcome on the way towards the larger goal and provided a final step in unifying everyone against the archdemon/blight.

And therefore....the story wasnt simply about the archdemon, the end.

[Reinveil]

ItsToofy wrote...

Reinveil wrote...

Volourn wrote...

"Somehow me thinks you didnt play the same da:o i did, especially seeing as you forget that loghain had a larger part in the story than the archdemon,"

Loghain may have been on screen more; but the story wasn't about him. Beginning, middle, and end of DA1 was all about stopping the archdemon. Period.

This I actually agree with.  Loghain added a certain level of political intrigue, but ultimately he was only an obstacle to be overcome on the way towards the larger goal and provided a final step in unifying everyone against the archdemon/blight.

And therefore....the story wasnt simply about the archdemon, the end.

I suppose if you want to over-simplify things to that degree, sure.

[2papercuts]

Reinveil wrote...

ItsToofy wrote...
And therefore....the story wasnt simply about the archdemon, the end.

I suppose if you want to over-simplify things to that degree, sure.

although there were other conflicts the warden had to stop, the warden stopped them to stop the blight

the blight is the driving point of DAO

[Zjarcal]

Brockololly wrote...

So while Laidlaw and Darrah may be responsible for the actual game and its specific changes, the overarching directive to have DA2 be a more action focused, simpler, cinematic game (and wherever DA goes from here on out)  likely comes from the Doctors and EA as much as anyone. So there is plenty of blame to go around

Or praise... :innocent:

[Firky]

Sigh. You guys and your "facts."

I'm sure posting this is entirely pointless, because posting here is a bit like raising your hand in a room full of shouting people. But, I'm so sick of everyone claiming to know everything.

In around Feb, 2009, I was given an interview with the Lead Designer of Dragon Age Origins; Mike Laidlaw. One of the questions I asked was "Will this be a PC exclusive release?" The answer was "Yes." I just got the magazine off the shelf to check.

When I interviewed him, his title was Lead Designer, he was the person put forward for interviews and at the time DA:O was still a PC only title. I don't claim to know who did what on DA:O, but what I've said is factual.

Also, I remember that interview vividly. My impression was that Laidlaw firmly had his hand in design. He knew every little in and out of every little decision. I was blown away.

Incidentally, I've just really enjoyed rereading that preview, so thanks, people who think they know all and got on my goat. I'd forgotten all about that preview. My intro is quite funny, in retrospect. "One door closes and another door opens. So stop sulking and get over here. Now. By 'here' I mean looking forward to Dragon Age: Origins and by 'sulking' I mean thinking that 'spritiual successor to Baldur's Gate' means 'it better be just like my favourite RPG or else'. When the person telling you this is slaying Firkraag in another window as she types, you should listen."

[darkrose]

Brockololly wrote...

[/i]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?

[i]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!"

That's a nice idea. Unfortunately, as executed, it turned into: "Everyone in Kirkwall is insane. Also, MacGuffin!"

Great, Meredith wasn't supposed to be inherently evil. Instead, she came across as crazy and stupid, because seriously, you're a templar and you can't figure out that the idol is a Bad Thing? And NO ONE notices for three years that you've got this sword that's giving off crazy vibes?

Also, if the Orsino/Meredith showdown of ultimate destiny wasn't supposed to be the center of the story, maybe back off on showing the two of them facing each other down on the ever-present loading screen? Just saying.

[Boiny Bunny]

Firky wrote...

Sigh. You guys and your "facts."

I'm sure posting this is entirely pointless, because posting here is a bit like raising your hand in a room full of shouting people. But, I'm so sick of everyone claiming to know everything.

In around Feb, 2009, I was given an interview with the Lead Designer of Dragon Age Origins; Mike Laidlaw. One of the questions I asked was "Will this be a PC exclusive release?" The answer was "Yes." I just got the magazine off the shelf to check.

When I interviewed him, his title was Lead Designer, he was the person put forward for interviews and at the time DA:O was still a PC only title. I don't claim to know who did what on DA:O, but what I've said is factual.

Also, I remember that interview vividly. My impression was that Laidlaw firmly had his hand in design. He knew every little in and out of every little decision. I was blown away.

Incidentally, I've just really enjoyed rereading that preview, so thanks, people who think they know all and got on my goat. I'd forgotten all about that preview. My intro is quite funny, in retrospect. "One door closes and another door opens. So stop sulking and get over here. Now. By 'here' I mean looking forward to Dragon Age: Origins and by 'sulking' I mean thinking that 'spritiual successor to Baldur's Gate' means 'it better be just like my favourite RPG or else'. When the person telling you this is slaying Firkraag in another window as she types, you should listen."

Your post made me laugh.  Well done.

On a more serious note, as I understand, by Feb 2009, Laidlaw WAS the lead designer, and Knowles was gone.  The PC version was finished a little bit prior to that and development on the console version had already started.

As to why Laidlaw said the title was a PC exclusive at the time - I don't claim to know his actual motivations, but if I had to guess, I'd say that Bioware weren't ready to announce that the game would be on consoles at that point. 

Modifié par Boiny Bunny, 14 avril 2011 - 11:11 .

[adneate]

I love how the "Human Story" ended with two big friggin' monster fights, way to drop the ball and then incinerate it and ****** on the ashes. The only way the ending could be less about humanity and it's flaws would be if Meredith also turned into a giant blob that went "OOGAH BOOGAH BOOGAH BOOGAH!"

You stay classy Bioware.

[Mantaal]

The "play the Game on Hard" part was really funny.
Its the only WAY to play the Game on Hard or Nightmare. Even my 6 years old Daughter could play that game on Normal. I dont even try Easy. What happend on Easy? The Enemys die from a Heart attack if they see you?

Really. How could he really think that, deleting 50% of the Content from the first game, makes a better or a even good 2nd game? I dont get it.

Modifié par Mantaal, 14 avril 2011 - 11:18 .

[mellanslag]

Welp, looks like I won't be playing Mass Effect 3 or Dragon Age 3 then. I don't care that Mike Laidlaw doesn't have anything to do with the Mass Effect team, I refuse to support a company with an individual like this on the payroll.

Modifié par mellanslag, 14 avril 2011 - 11:17 .

[jds1bio]

Bostur wrote...

Yes archers and mages were stationary and shooting. Thats not clever tactics thats just the definition of those types of enemies. ;-) Seems to me enemies pretty much just moved as little as possible and attacked the closest target, or had a priority list. Its easy to flank an enemy when you can teleport to the battle, and of course the NPCs was often lucky to end up next to a mage when they teleported in all the time. It all seemed pretty random to me.

Maybe the combat was like those optical illusions, where sometimes I saw the vase and you saw the two faces.   In DA2 my mage wasn't afraid of beating someone over the head if they got too close.  I dunno.  Thanks for posting though, at least someone is making an attempt at trying to pinpoint this. 

[Firky]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

On a more serious note, as I understand, by Feb 2009, Laidlaw WAS the lead designer, and Knowles was gone.  The PC version was finished a little bit prior to that and development on the console version had already started.

As to why Laidlaw said the title was a PC exclusive at the time - I don't claim to know his actual motivations, but if I had to guess, I'd say that Bioware weren't ready to announce that the game would be on consoles at that point. 

I now wish I'd started my DAII review with that intro.

Doesn't that Knowles blog say this? "and then in early September 2009 I left BioWare." That's 6 months after my interview.

How do you know the PC version was finished in Feb 2009? I do know that I got the interview at around the same time that DA:O was originally supposed to be released, but that's not proof PC was finished necessarily.

Also, it's not proof, but when Laidlaw said PC only I absolutely believed it. We discussed RPGs, Baldur's Gate, reasons why to make a game PC only, or not. I was convinced it was still PC only in Feb 2009. (Not proof, just my feeling.)

[devSin]

Firky wrote...

In around Feb, 2009, I was given an interview with the Lead Designer of Dragon Age Origins; Mike Laidlaw. One of the questions I asked was "Will this be a PC exclusive release?" The answer was "Yes." I just got the magazine off the shelf to check.

If that's what he said, then he straight up lied to you. (Or not, as Sylvius notes down there in the dungeons, it would have been "exclusive" if he were still talking about the 1Q09 release that never happened.)

By that time, it was already known that the release was being pushed back to the end of the year so that the console versions could be finished and all three versions released simultaneously (the PC version was largely done, but this gave time for them to sew up all three versions, and for David to finish writing Shale so they could add him back in for DLC).

Modifié par devSin, 14 avril 2011 - 11:38 .

[Firky]

^ I'm yet to see proof, though. I'm not saying you guys are wrong, I'm just very interested to know how you know.

Edit: And, yes, we did know release was pushed back.

Modifié par Firky, 14 avril 2011 - 11:22 .