966 réponses à ce sujet

[jds1bio]

Otterwarden wrote...

When the "new people" are ported over from other genres and start threads like "Why are you so upset that DA3 will have multiplayer?" it is easy to understand why those who are committed to keeping any semblance of an RPG gameplay style may not be particularly accomodating to what many of these new players think.  Traditionally, those who wanted to play an RPG had to adapt to the complexities that were found in these games.  Today, it is the larger market that dictates how the game is developed.

Well, how about starting by answering their question straight-up.  The answer could be "I don't want another Wow-type game" or "I want the company to focus on the best single-player campaign possible" or "I don't want to be logged in all the time" or whatever.

Are you saying that the larger market is incapable of adapting?  Why do older people think that younger people are incapable of adapting to the things they adapted to?  Younger people are adapting to their own changing bodies all the time.  Everyone has learned to use motion controls all different manner of handheld devices.  I don't get it, they could be introducing someone to something new, but instead they shun them.

And regarding the statement I bolded, I think it is what devs and pubs THINK the larger market wants that dictates how the game is developed.  That's how they developed their own reputation for tacked-on multiplayer, while every year there's still a blitz to play one certain brand that gets stellar reviews.

[Otterwarden]

jds1bio wrote...

Well, how about starting by answering their question straight-up.  The answer could be "I don't want another Wow-type game" or "I want the company to focus on the best single-player campaign possible" or "I don't want to be logged in all the time" or whatever.

Are you saying that the larger market is incapable of adapting?  Why do older people think that younger people are incapable of adapting to the things they adapted to?  Younger people are adapting to their own changing bodies all the time.  Everyone has learned to use motion controls all different manner of handheld devices.  I don't get it, they could be introducing someone to something new, but instead they shun them.

And regarding the statement I bolded, I think it is what devs and pubs THINK the larger market wants that dictates how the game is developed.  That's how they developed their own reputation for tacked-on multiplayer, while every year there's still a blitz to play one certain brand that gets stellar reviews.

Asked and answered a thousand times over.  When every attempt to grab for the "WoW" market prize, or the COD endless boilerplate installments, ends up bastardizing a franchise that had a decent following of very satisfied customers, there is no mood to move the game in that direction.  Even if it could theorectically be done well, and not at the expense of the original market, it hasn't been acheived yet.  In DA2 over the camera views and strategic combat decisions were thrown out the window in favor of spastic, blood exploding, button mashing fights with ninja reseves parachutting in.  The first person to do it well will be copied in a heartbeat.

[TEWR]

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.

Aside from the exploding goop enemies, I agree with the bolded. Archery/Crossbow is definitely better than in Origins, and overall most of the new attack animations are great. Maybe slow down Greatsword a tad and speed up the enemies to use the same attack style the characters use depending on class and that should work nicely. Also, my attacks shouldn't always make the enemies stumble back on Normal difficulty. Half the time is ok. All the time, where I'm just not even giving them a fighting chance, is not ok.

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!"

I agree with the whole antagonist isn't always the villain bit, but I'm not sure how to feel about the other part. I guess if more main quests that had showed who Meredith and Orsino were in Act 3 were there, I'd be a lot happier. Instead of just hearing it from random Kirkwall civilians (Kirkwallians?)

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[i].

This I don't agree with. I mean, I never found Origins bosses and everything all that strategic so DA2 bosses being easy to me was nothing new for the series imo. But to say "Play it on Hard" just seems.... well I don't know.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 15 avril 2011 - 03:08 .

[The Angry One]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

But I didn't really think Geralt was a typical 'buff male hero'.  More of the 'dark broody' type.  I liked the fact that most of the people in the game thought he was a freak and stayed away from him as opposed to reveling in his manliness and heroics.

Certainly true, and were I to ever get out of my jaded-with-male-heroes phase Geralt would be someone I'd more likely end up controlling than, say, the bland brown haired white guy from every Gothic game ever made (I think the developers of Gothic have a pathological hatred of character customisation or anything that isn't a 30 something white male).

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Just hurry up with DA 3 announcement. I'm interested  to know what's BioWare vision on DA 3. I've been waiting for DA 3 for almost a year now. Will it be like DA 2 or DA O?  Will it be using the same third person narrator? Will it be as linear as DA 2? Will it be using one city setting like GTA?  I'm done criticizing Mike Laidlaw. This interview only reaffirm what I've suspected.  His dictation on what should make the best RPG in history regardless of fans opinion, do not concern me anymore. Capcom will deliver Dragon's Dogma, CD Projekt Red will deliver The Witcher 2, Bethesda will deliver TES: Skyrim, Atari and Cryptic Studios will deliver Neverwinter ( my Neverwinter Night 3 which I've been waiting endlessly. Even if it isn't developed by Obsidian, I expect it'll retain most of NW 2 features, Co-op and toolset  ).

So, yeah. Go ahead Mike. Continue to sell your vision of  expensive online interactive movie with meaningless stats, buggy tactic, illusion of choices, non impact linear plot and hack N slash element. Streamlined everything you want because movie fans and novel readers only want story. They don't want to role play. Role play takes too much time, familiarity with lore, imagination and creativity. They don't want to journey and create their own adventure. They have no time for that. They don't want that. They want to be spoon feed and treated like sheep as they're incapable to imagine how to live other than outside their monitor/TV/novel books, despite their claim they want fantasy role play. They want to press a button and something awesome happen. This type of players will pay anything you dumped. And you're right to please this lowest common denominators. 

Good luck with that and please don't forget to announce DA 3 news. The sooner the better so I could evaluate myself whether I'm wasting my time here or not. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 15 avril 2011 - 03:38 .

[Shirosaki17]

They've already announced they're not getting rid of the wave feature. I think that says it all right there. They're going to keep on doing the same things regardless of feedback. We won't get higher quality mobs or challenging fights, just a lot of trash mobs thrown at us in waves to make the game "challenging".

[AlanC9]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

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[i].

This I don't agree with. I mean, I never found Origins bosses and everything all that strategic so DA2 bosses being easy to me was nothing new for the series imo. But to say "Play it on Hard" just seems.... well I don't know.

But isn't that what difficulty levels are for?

Reading that quote, I'm wondering if maybe DAO had lousy completion rates. I wish they'd release the spybot data.

[Merced652]

AlanC9 wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

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[i].

This I don't agree with. I mean, I never found Origins bosses and everything all that strategic so DA2 bosses being easy to me was nothing new for the series imo. But to say "Play it on Hard" just seems.... well I don't know.

But isn't that what difficulty levels are for?

Reading that quote, I'm wondering if maybe DAO had lousy completion rates. I wish they'd release the spybot data.

Think he already said it had lousy completion rates though he didn't validate that against any metric that averages out what percentage of games are never completed. Personally i don't take anything laidlaw says at face value, at least after all the **** we were fed in his pre-release interviews. 

Modifié par Merced652, 15 avril 2011 - 05:06 .

[skyrend]

AlanC9 wrote...

Melca36 wrote...
They won't be sticking to their guns when the eventual sales figures don't match Origins.

Not quite true. DA2 wasn't as expensive a project as DAO.  It doesn't need to sell as many copies as DAO did to make as much or more profit.

Well, if their goal is to shrink the fanbase, then job well done.

[Nightnight]

Brockololly wrote...

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.

I am not going to sound like a whiner or anything. All I am going to say is that I am disappointed with how the lead designer of future DA games perceive fan reactions and the general direction DA is going into.

Modifié par Nightnight, 15 avril 2011 - 05:14 .

[Killer3000ad]

The man won't admit his mistakes and continues to toe the line to disaster. I will not preorder DA3 if Mike Laidlaw is still in charge. I will wait for genuine non-ad money reviews before purchasing DA3 in the future.

I had hope MIke might see the light but it's clear he is behind the fiasco that is DA2. He has to go.

[Roxlimn]

Killer3000ad wrote...
The man won't admit his mistakes and continues to toe the line to disaster. I will not preorder DA3 if Mike Laidlaw is still in charge. I will wait for genuine non-ad money reviews before purchasing DA3 in the future.

I had hope MIke might see the light but it's clear he is behind the fiasco that is DA2. He has to go.

This is the same guy who was Lead Designer for Dragon Age Origins.

[Nightnight]

Roxlimn wrote...

Killer3000ad wrote...
The man won't admit his mistakes and continues to toe the line to disaster. I will not preorder DA3 if Mike Laidlaw is still in charge. I will wait for genuine non-ad money reviews before purchasing DA3 in the future.

I had hope MIke might see the light but it's clear he is behind the fiasco that is DA2. He has to go.

This is the same guy who was Lead Designer for Dragon Age Origins.

I thought it was Brent Knowles.

[Everwarden]

Killer3000ad wrote...

The man won't admit his mistakes and continues to toe the line to disaster. I will not preorder DA3 if Mike Laidlaw is still in charge. I will wait for genuine non-ad money reviews before purchasing DA3 in the future.

I had hope MIke might see the light but it's clear he is behind the fiasco that is DA2. He has to go.

Putting trust in big name reviewers was the mistake I made, and I won't be taking the word of someone who got sent a copy rather than buying one ever again (except perhaps GameCritics, who gave it a 25%). The Escapist=shills, and I didn't see that coming. A 100% score? Seriously? Even if someone loves DA2, no serious reviewer could actually call it a perfect score game.

Sadly, no refunds available for PC purchases. At least I got to play ME2, which was a good game. 

[Merced652]

Roxlimn wrote...

Killer3000ad wrote...
The man won't admit his mistakes and continues to toe the line to disaster. I will not preorder DA3 if Mike Laidlaw is still in charge. I will wait for genuine non-ad money reviews before purchasing DA3 in the future.

I had hope MIke might see the light but it's clear he is behind the fiasco that is DA2. He has to go.

This is the same guy who was Lead Designer for Dragon Age Origins.

You mean lead designer for the console port of origins, Brent Knowles led dragon age for the longest period of time between the three who ever held the title and Brent was in place when the PC development was finished. He was then assigned new projects that never materialized because of resource restrictions largely a result of ToR and later resigned. Laidlaw did nothing but give people the god awful console version of the game, lolawakening, and bad DLCs. 

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

James Ohlen and then Brent Knowles were the Lead Designers of Dragon Age Origins for most of it's development. Mike Laidlaw became Lead Designer in either late 2008 or early 2009. The meat of the game was already finished by then.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 15 avril 2011 - 05:34 .

[Everwarden]

Roxlimn wrote...

This is the same guy who was Lead Designer for Dragon Age Origins.

He went from one of three leads to -the- lead. He openly disliked the direction Origins took, and moved it towards his own vision of what fans 'should' want. Now he's sticking to his guns despite overwhelmingly bad reviews (not from the big reviewers, but from most people who actually had to -buy- the game), and worse sales. 

I wonder if that hurts his widdle feelings, that fans so overwhelmingly dislike -his- direction for the series. 

[Hexsun]

The man has to go, he shouldn't have anything to do with DA3.

[Roxlimn]

A significant number of people who bought Dragon Age Origins did not finish it, on account of the bad learning curve. If nothing else, the move to make Normal easier is the right one (even though I, myself, do not normally play on Normal).

He was one of the designers of DA:O (the only one left in the late goings), so we can't discount his involvement by the by. If we want him gone, then it has be because we all also hate DA:O.

I think a lot of the anger being experienced by gamers who post here is because DA:O is not precisely like DA:O. Laidlaw thinks this is good. SO DO I. Games that don't change eventually die. The game has to advance and improve to remain relevant.

[Addai]

Everwarden wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...

This is the same guy who was Lead Designer for Dragon Age Origins.

He went from one of three leads to -the- lead. He openly disliked the direction Origins took, and moved it towards his own vision of what fans 'should' want. Now he's sticking to his guns despite overwhelmingly bad reviews (not from the big reviewers, but from most people who actually had to -buy- the game), and worse sales. 

I wonder if that hurts his widdle feelings, that fans so overwhelmingly dislike -his- direction for the series. 

He probably doesn't have much choice.  They had to use the marketingspeak in the early PR, and I'm sure there are talking points now, too.

Whether it was due to personnel change or what, I do agree that as of the post-release DLC, the franchise started feeling a lot different and not in a good way.  I'm still loyal because I like the world and the storytelling, but it's getting progressively less fun and less rewarding to play what's being put out.  I'm ready for The Witcher 2 now as well.

[Everwarden]

Roxlimn wrote...
I think a lot of the anger being experienced by gamers who post here is because DA:O is not precisely like DA:O.

No. That's a copout to avoid addressing the real complaints about the game... mainly that it was a sloppy piece of garbage that was obviously pushed out to bank on the success of Origins. Change -can- be good, and Origins had some major problems that needed to be fixed. DA2 ignored those problems and added lots of new ones. 

[Melca36]

Roxlimn wrote...

A significant number of people who bought Dragon Age Origins did not finish it, on account of the bad learning curve. If nothing else, the move to make Normal easier is the right one (even though I, myself, do not normally play on Normal).

He was one of the designers of DA:O (the only one left in the late goings), so we can't discount his involvement by the by. If we want him gone, then it has be because we all also hate DA:O.

I think a lot of the anger being experienced by gamers who post here is because DA:O is not precisely like DA:O. Laidlaw thinks this is good. SO DO I. Games that don't change eventually die. The game has to advance and improve to remain relevant.

So exploding bodies and fed ex delivery quests is considered evolvement???

PLEASE!

There is nothing wrong with change but when it dumbs down and diminishes elements that gives the game its identity, that is not evolvement.

Its called pandering.

DA:2 was not a bad game by any means but it lacks the spark and epicness that was Origins and hopefully the developers will learn not cater to one side and learn to come up with a reasonable balance that appeals to ALL FANS.

As for the people who did NOT finish the game...I blame laziness and self entitlement. We live in a society where the majority of people want things handed to them.

[xkg]

Roxlimn wrote...
I think a lot of the anger being experienced by gamers who post here is because DA:O is not precisely like DA:O. Laidlaw thinks this is good. SO DO I. Games that don't change eventually die. The game has to advance and improve to remain relevant.

 Logic

[MingWolf]

I'll give him what respect deserving of humanity, but when he evades every problem presented to him, arguing that the design decisions were sound or that it is the player's fault for not realizing the validity of his design decisions (i.e., playing on hard, trying to justify reused dungeons), then I have little faith in the future of DA. Its going to crash and burn, sooner or later. It might not be so apparent now given DA2's initial sales (which is more or less a capitalization of DA:O's success), but if DA3 turns out like this mess, its going to hit them hard in the face before they even know it.

[Lalue]

play on hard or nightmare setting so the game last longer...less maps so they could work on the story...so why the need to play on hard, if there is more stories since they re used the maps..

Do you understand what i mean? because i dont ><