966 réponses à ce sujet

[Boiny Bunny]

Firky wrote...

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.)

Well, it's clear that we're both dealing in a good deal of speculation.  To address the factual points of my own and your post, you are correct, Knowles left Bioware approx 6 months after Feb 2009.  As I understand he did some work on the early DA:O DLC, then spent a little time winding up his own responsibilities and handing things over.  He was also involved in early discussions about DA2.

We know that the port of Dragon Age to consoles, which started immediately after the PC version was finished, took a little over 9 months.  From the December 2009 release date, that takes us back to...February 2009 as the development start point for the console ports.

[Boiny Bunny]

EDIT: Double post - oops!

Modifié par Boiny Bunny, 14 avril 2011 - 11:25 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Volourn wrote...

DA1 story; all about the archdemon

DA2 story: all about the PC

da2 > da1

I insist that every RPGs plot revolves around the PC.  There's just no way around that.  Because the plot of the RPG is, by definition, the PC's story.  What the PC does determines what the story is.  Why the PC does things - how the PC feels - those are all important story elements.

The difference is that in DAO the player got to control those details about the PC, and in DA2 the player does not.

[devSin]

Search the archives. The PC game was set to be released in March or April or whenever, and the console versions were set to be released in October (yeah, it sounded just as stupid a plan then). Come February, they unsurprisingly announced that they weren't releasing until October (later moved to November), and David said they were exploring avenues for working on some more content during that time (mainly Shale, and maybe it turned out to be some of the initial DLC or Awakening). I remember it vividly because this is the only reason we were getting Shale. And we deserved Shale. So it was good.

Everybody knew they were holding back release so the console versions could be finished, although it did allow them to QA the content for an extra six months.

[Mrbananagrabber]

JohnEpler wrote...

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.'

Yeah let's all be passive-aggressively arrogant like Mr Laidlaw guys. Respect is a two way street my friend, and Laidlaw's capital of sympathy has all but dried out.

Modifié par Mrbananagrabber, 14 avril 2011 - 11:29 .

[Firky]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

We know that the port of Dragon Age to consoles, which started immediately after the PC version was finished, took a little over 9 months.  From the December 2009 release date, that takes us back to...February 2009 as the development start point for the console ports.

How do you know that, though?

I'm not speculating. I'm just giving facts from my experience. I spoke to the person with the title Lead Designer of DA:O in Feb 2009 and he said it would be PC only (either because it was true or they weren't ready to release new info.)

In my opinion, he was very, very knowledgable about all aspects of DA:O design and I believed what he said about PC only release (at the very least, that this was designed as a PC only title.)

Anyway, thanks for discussion, but I gotta run to other biznes.

Edit: In my mind, anyway, this refutes the idea that Laidlaw was brought in "just to port to consoles" or whatever. It's not conclusive proof but, from my experience, I believe that he had a very strong role in developing DA:O.

Modifié par Firky, 14 avril 2011 - 11:33 .

[darkrose]

Volourn wrote...

"Its not about ignoring flaws in Origins ... im sure they were all pointed out ... but making the same mistakes AGAIN, while adding a lot of more ... its nothing they (Bioware) should be proud of ...

and still DA:O is by far superior to DA2 since the actual content outshine the flaws, which is not DA2 case ..."

No, no it realy isn't. The writing, the characters, and the story are all superior in DA2. The only things DA1 does outright better is the character system (i want to be a dwarf!!!), and the environemnts aren't repetive.

DAO gave me a set of choices in the end that weren't binary, and that I felt mattered, as opposed to DA2, where you choose between two sides and get the same result--which you know going in. 

DAO gave me characters with rich backstories that I discovered through conversations. DA2 gave me the outline of some interesting characters, but I couldn't talk to them enough to hear their stories, and large chunks of information were buried in the codex entries. Show, don't tell, anyone? Not to mention that, if you play as a mage, you have characters watch you cast spells and then forget you're a mage two minutes later. (OH HAI CULLEN)

The antagonists in DAO had complex motivations. Loghain, for example, was a tragic figure because he was honestly doing what he thought was right. Meredith might have been, but any motivation she might have had boiled down to "She's wearing the crazypants" in the end. Orsino's transformation if you side with the mages is completely inexplicable, and only serves to underscore the way any attempt at a coherent narrative falls apart in Act 3. The end of the story isn't even an end; all you get is, "Buy the DLC and the sequel to find out what happens!"

I play Bioware games because of the story and the characters. In DA2, both felt flat, especially compared to the way Origins grabbed me by the throat and didn't let go because I had to know what happened next. In DA2, I just didn't care.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Firky wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...

We know that the port of Dragon Age to consoles, which started immediately after the PC version was finished, took a little over 9 months.  From the December 2009 release date, that takes us back to...February 2009 as the development start point for the console ports.

How do you know that, though?

I'm not speculating. I'm just giving facts from my experience. I spoke to the person with the title Lead Designer of DA:O in Feb 2009 and he said it would be PC only (either because it was true or they weren't ready to release new info.)

In my opinion, he was very, very knowledgable about all aspects of DA:O design and I believed what he said about PC only release (at the very least, that this was designed as a PC only title.)

Anyway, thanks for discussion, but I gotta run to other biznes.

You misunderstood.  Games are platform exclusive if they're released on that platform first.  Not only.  just first.

In Feb 2009, the plan was to release DAO on the PC several months ahead of the console release, so the designer was absolutely correct in his claim that the game was on PC only, because that's consistent with the industry-standard definition of the term.  Verb tense matters.

[Firky]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Feb 2009, the plan was to release DAO on the PC several months ahead of the console release, so the designer was absolutely correct in his claim that the game was on PC only, because that's consistent with the industry-standard definition of the term.  Verb tense matters.

Yes, I suppose, but designed exclusively for PC is still a pretty special thing in RPG land, no? That's what I believed he was saying at the time.

My original point of posting was: In my mind, anyway, this refutes the idea that Laidlaw was brought in
"just to port to consoles" or whatever. My experience is not conclusive proof but,
from my experience, I believe that he had a very strong role in
developing DA:O.

OK, gotta run.

[Envor44]

Terrible interview.

I like DA II(but Origins a lot more), but it's really bad how Mike refuse to listen then come up with irrational arguments.

[Boiny Bunny]

Firky wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Feb 2009, the plan was to release DAO on the PC several months ahead of the console release, so the designer was absolutely correct in his claim that the game was on PC only, because that's consistent with the industry-standard definition of the term.  Verb tense matters.

Yes, I suppose, but designed exclusively for PC is still a pretty special thing in RPG land, no? That's what I believed he was saying at the time.

My original point of posting was: In my mind, anyway, this refutes the idea that Laidlaw was brought in
"just to port to consoles" or whatever. My experience is not conclusive proof but,
from my experience, I believe that he had a very strong role in
developing DA:O.

OK, gotta run.

Well I guess it's a matter of interpretation.  I would venture to guess that he had a strong understanding of the game because he had just been given the role of porting it to consoles.  If you're going to be in charge of a project as large in scope as that, you need to fundamentally understand every aspect of the game from both a surface level and deep technical level - as well as some idea of how the gameplay on the PC is unique and how that can be best translated to consoles without losing the original feel.

At any rate, if you look through years of posts and updates, you will notice that he was not added to the project nor listed as a lead designer until very late in development.  Many comments made by Knowles support the fact that Laidlaw was only brought in for the console port (although it sounds as if he may have taken the lead role on DA DLC as well after Knowles left.)

That sort of leaves Awakening up in the air however.  No idea who was in charge of that.

[Tommy6860]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

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!

No thank you, I'd rather play a game, especially when it is an RPG, where I make the game flow to how I would like it, not on how the developer likes it. It seems by that interview, that Laidlaw went to the Burger King Game Studios division of Bioware/EA and had the game made  "his way", not that he is actually going after a larger market. They didn't make a game for the masses with DA2, they at least should try to ppeal to most of them; in this interview, he fails.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 15 avril 2011 - 12:01 .

[Bostur]

jds1bio wrote...

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. 

I know what you mean. I often imagine NPCs in games as more advanced than they really are. Its also possible that you noticed some details that I never paid attention to, I never really saw much of a behaviour pattern, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

[Tommy6860]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

That sort of leaves Awakening up in the air however.  No idea who was in charge of that.

One lead on that, Ferret Baudoin is the name.

[jds1bio]

Here's a question: what should the responses to the questions have been? What answers would have pleased you the most?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Firky wrote...

My original point of posting was: In my mind, anyway, this refutes the idea that Laidlaw was brought in
"just to port to consoles" or whatever.

I would agree.  Laidlaw was brought in the manage the project after the old project director left (he went to work for Disney).  The project needed a manager.

The plan to port to consoles had been around somewhat longer than that, I'm sure.  We knew about ot on the Forum before that, even.  I'm sure we could find something informative on the old BioBoards.

For ease of searching, here they are:

Old Old Dragon Age Forum

New Old Dragon Age Forum

The newer one can be searched using the Unarchived Forums search, but the older forum requires you use the Archived Forums search.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 15 avril 2011 - 12:11 .

[mellanslag]

I believe that he had a very strong role in developing DA:O.

In that case he had colleagues that were capable of holding him down and not afraid to speak out against whatever DA2-ideas he must inevitably have had even back then. Considering the almost astronomically large differences between DA1 and DA2, it's far more logical to say that he simply had done his homework rather than suggesting that he was the "go to guy" or even that his many visions and ideas came anywhere near that title.

Of course, if Laidlaw DID play a huge part in the design of Origins, then that makes it all kind of sad. How on earth could he have lost "it" so quickly? I understand the pressure they were in to make the best cash-in possible as fast a possible but I would've expected standards even so from the "Origins guy".

To me it is clear that Dragon Age: Origins owed more to Brent Knowles and James Ohlen while Mike Laidlaw did some stuff here and there, constantly mumbling "one day I'm gonna make my own Dragon Age game and it's going to be awesome, I'm gonna show you!" And then they put him on DA2 as solo lead designer and most of us know how that worked out. I'd feel bad for him if he didn't make it so difficult.

Modifié par mellanslag, 15 avril 2011 - 12:15 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I'm not sure what role Laidlaw had in the development of Origins, but Knowles was the Lead Designer at least until the end of 2008. By that time, the base game was mostly finished and they were doing testing, balancing and the like.

Also Firky,

http://www.videogame...iew-1346-2.html

VideoGamer.com: Interestingly Game Informer has posted online that they've got a Dragon Age reveal coming in the November issue and on the front it says it's got an exclusive first look at the console editions. So I guess it's safe to say that Dragon Age: Origins is coming to consoles, right?

BK: Yes it will show up on the consoles after the PC release at some point.

VideoGamer.com: Why have you guys decided to do a console version and what kind of time frame are we looking at in terms of release after the PC version?

BK: I can't speak to the time frame specifically. As to why, we're smart, we think about these things a lot and we know that the console market is an important market as well. And it just makes sense. There's not a lot of RPGs like this available for console players. There's a lot of people that the console is their primary gaming platform, they aren't playing on PC. The reaction to MassEffect for example, was huge, it was phenomenal. We know there's an audience out there for this Western style RPG and we want to make sure we deliver to them a good, strong fantasy RPG. They're going to have a lot of fun with it. We've kept consoles in mind throughout the development cycle so I think we're going to have a really strong offering to the console players.

Maybe plans changed between this interview and your one (then changed again), but it seems to be clear here at least, that a console release was being planned for.

Obviously, BK is Brent Knowles, who was the Lead Designer at the time of the interview. October, 2008.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 15 avril 2011 - 12:25 .

[Phantom13NWN2]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

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 am sorry but I cannot contain myself , how is it possible to say something that stupid? If DAO had filler combat what do you call the waves in DA2, MY GOD, you should think before you write down random stuff that is so opposite of the truth.

Modifié par Phantom13NWN2, 15 avril 2011 - 12:27 .

[mellanslag]

jds1bio wrote...

Here's a question: what should the responses to the questions have been? What answers would have pleased you the most?

Being honest and acknowledging that the large group of people that did not like the game did so for good reasons. Of course, honesty is pretty much extinct and it wouldn't be in Bioware's best interests anyway to come clean. They have to sell the game.

[devSin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I would agree.  Laidlaw was brought in the manage the project after the old project director left (he went to work for Disney).  The project needed a manager.

Who are you talking about?

Scott Greig played the role of vanishing producer, and he was replaced by Mark Darrah once Sonic released. Mike Laidlaw wasn't production or management that he's ever been credited with?

[nopho]

Phantom13NWN2 wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

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 am sorry but I cannot contain myself , how is it possible to say something that stupid? If DAO had filler combat what do you call the waves in DA2, MY GOD, you should think before you write down random stuff that is so opposite of the truth.

feedest ye notte yon trolles

[Bostur]

jds1bio wrote...

Here's a question: what should the responses to the questions have been? What answers would have pleased you the most?

Hmm, thats an interesting question and a somewhat odd topic.

I don't think I expect to be pleased as such when reading an interview. I like it when I notice an interesting personal point of view that I didn't think of myself based on that person's experience. Laidlaw seems to often dodge questions or read from the paper that the marketing guys gave him. Some of it I'm sure is personal as well, but a lot of it doesn't make much sense.


When an interviewer asks why the dungeons were reused so much, Laidlaw usually explains that they wanted to add more quests than they would otherwise have been able to. I guess that technically answers the question, but the really interesting point is why they had to cut so many corners and make so many compromises in the first place. A good interviewer would follow up with a question like that.


One thing that makes me a bit emotional about the interviews he made, is that he doesn't seem to like traditional RPGs much. I like developers who are enthusiastic about what they make, Laidlaw doesn't seem particularly enthusiastic about DA2, and in many cases he seems to think that DAO was a huge failure. As a fan of the genre that strikes me as being a bit odd.

Also the many times he said that crtitics can't cope with change is almost personally insulting. That seems to be the company line, and the official response to critique.

Modifié par Bostur, 15 avril 2011 - 12:30 .

[darkrose]

Sad Dragon wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Actually, half the time it´s select an ability and watch the character finish a pointlessly over the top attack and then use the skill. If you haven´t been interrupted before. Mages are especially bad with those twirls. Getting hit because the character listened too many tales is not my idea of better responsiveness.

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

The abilities not being deployed until the animation's done is a separate issue, I think. The inability to accurately target and the difficulty switching targets when 20 "Carta Thugs" are all bunched up together is another issue. A third issue, for me, was the cooldown times on many of the abilities were so long as to be useless; if I hold the ability for the second wave, rather than waste it on the tissue-paper guys, then in many cases, it doesn't recharge in time for me to use it against the third Templar Hunter who's just ninja'ed in from the ceiling.

[Otterwarden]

Well, I posted this in the "what stage are you thread last night" and I see that my impressions are once again reinforced with this most recent interview in this thread.

With DA, I've reach the stage of acceptance. Nothing written convinces me that the team in place can/will make the changes that would be necessary for me personally to enjoy the series.

Edit: Found this recent review very interesting in that the author was rather harsh on DA2:

www.destructoid.com/the-final-preview-the-witcher-2-assassins-of-kings-198746.phtml

I'll just pull out a couple of lines from that preview:

"Then you have games like Dragon Age II that streamline the more hardcore elements to provide a more polished experience, but at the same time restrict your freedom in terms of customizability and things like crafting."

"Instead of having a tiresome chain of events explained to you, the game expects you to figure out what exactly is going on by just dealing with present events and by paying attention to key characters that shed light on the situation at hand. It's a refreshing take on the old narrative structure we've grown accustomed to in RPGs, for sure."

"That's the kind of scope you're going to have to expect from this game with regard to choice and consequence. Some consequences may be easy to anticipate when you are given a choice. Other choices may affects things you weren't even aware of. It appears that The Witcher 2 attempts to weave a magical tapestry of non-linear interactive storytelling throughout the entire game. And from the looks of it, it does so without making it as obvious as in other games."

"I knew I should keep my eye on The Witcher 2 even before I first saw it in action last year, but now that I've finally played it I feel confident enough to say that as a PC owner you're not likely to find anything like it all year. Sorry Hawke, but your cardboard persona is about to be witched in half."

If we get enough comparisons like this maybe Laidlaw will finally take his hands off his ears.

Modifié par Otterwarden, 15 avril 2011 - 12:36 .