966 réponses à ce sujet

[Volourn]

"This is a bit misleading. Or "spin" as it's called in politics."

It's not misleading. It's also how every publisher does things for every game develioped.

"400,000 of that 1.1 million did NOT come in the first two weeks, it came in the last 4 *months*. Pre-order sales."

And,, how many pre sales did DA1 get based on BIO's past games like BG2 & NWN (two games espicially in BG2's case where BIO used to pimp DA1). 'Hey, guys, come buy DA1, it's basically BG3!" Don't think that had noe ffectb on DA sales?

" And that speaks more of DA:O's greatness than anything else. "

I wonder how many pre order sales DA2 lost because of people who BOUGHT DA1 and LOATHED it? Probably quite a few.

On top of this, everyone should have been aware of many of the changes being made yet went out and bought the game. We knew before hand we were playing hawke, that there were no playable dwarfs and elfs, no origins, no duel weilding or bow welding warriors, no non combat skills, that it would be set in one city, the combat would be faster... yet people pre ordered it anyways?




The fact of the matter is that DA2 does not have the legs to ever outsell DA:O. But as you point out, it may not need to, since it was so cheap to produce compared to DA:O.


DA2 is successful because of BIO *not* DA1 just as DA1 is successful because of BIO *not* ME. *SHRUG*


"Not for PC he was. He was the lead designer for DA2 and console DA:O."

Why would I weep? DA1 was a better game on 360 than PC. So much so I didn't bother with DA2 on PC and gave away my PC evrsion of DA1 to someone b/c, comapritively speaking, it was trash. The fact that laidlaw was repsonsible for it? SWEET.

Modifié par Volourn, 15 avril 2011 - 07:10 .

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Mecher3k wrote...

I'll ignore the sale rankings on multiple sites then.

Herp Derp.

You can't point to any of those as official numbers, though, which removes any authority in your assertion.  :)

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

erynnar wrote...

You do remember a certain post by a moderator directed at you, don't you?  All the cute smileys won't help you.

I'm pointing out flaws and exceptions to your rules and it bugs you.  The smiles are just me trying to take the sting out of it.  You should relax and try to put up a counter example.

[Reinveil]

Volourn wrote...

"You keep saying that, and I don't recall you being able to answer any questions as to when he actually took that title,"

He is a Lead designer of DA1. This is undisputable fact. It doesn't matter what he did. That was his position on the game as given to him by the BIO docs. I trust them tom give credit to the right people on their own games as they get nothing for giving false credit. Next you gonna claim that Dave Gaider wasn't a Lead Writer for DA1 but just the janitor. That's ridiculous.

If people are going toa ccuse BIO of lying about who a Lead designer was they need to prove it. Until then, Laidlaw was a LD on DA1. This is fact, and it's dishonourable, pathetic, and disgusting to claim otherwise.

One of three, yes.  That came on late in the PC game's development, which has been discussed at length throughout this thread and is supported by posts made by the developers themselves (you know, the people that had a hand in the manual you're clinging to like a holy relic) during Origins' development cycle.  Someone was nice enough to provide links to the old forums so that you may read them for yourself when you're done sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming that you can't hear us.

You know what else is pathetic?  Being in deep denial about a trivial factoid on a video game message board and getting so worked up over it you're actually calling people "dishonorable".  Maybe it's time to take a break from the forum and champion a cause that's actually worthwhile.

[Mecher3k]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Mecher3k wrote...

I'll ignore the sale rankings on multiple sites then.

Herp Derp.

You can't point to any of those as official numbers, though, which removes any authority in your assertion.  :)

Yes I can, if their rankings for DA2 are LOWER then DA:O, it says something about DA2.

Mainly how it sucks.

[Reinveil]

Mecher3k wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Mecher3k wrote...

I'll ignore the sale rankings on multiple sites then.

Herp Derp.

You can't point to any of those as official numbers, though, which removes any authority in your assertion.  :)

Yes I can, if their rankings for DA2 are LOWER then DA:O, it says something about DA2.

Mainly how it sucks.

Don't bother, he's the biggest troll on the board.  Even the mods he's white knighting have had to warn him about being obnoxious.

Modifié par Reinveil, 15 avril 2011 - 07:15 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Volourn wrote...

"You keep saying that, and I don't recall you being able to answer any questions as to when he actually took that title,"

He is a Lead designer of DA1. This is undisputable fact. It doesn't matter what he did. That was his position on the game as given to him by the BIO docs. I trust them tom give credit to the right people on their own games as they get nothing for giving false credit. Next you gonna claim that Dave Gaider wasn't a Lead Writer for DA1 but just the janitor. That's ridiculous.

If people are going toa ccuse BIO of lying about who a Lead designer was they need to prove it. Until then, Laidlaw was a LD on DA1. This is fact, and it's dishonourable, pathetic, and disgusting to claim otherwise.

It's not lying.  People get titles on projects that don't mean anything or reflect what they actually did all the time. 

Or haven't you ever noticed how some movies have about 37 "producers" of various types?  Executive, assistant, co-. managing, senior, etc?   Some of those people spent two days on the phone before filming started, getting the director in touch with the cinematographer and the landlord in touch with the caterer, and then moved to another project. 

If all Laidlaw did on DA:O was manage the console ports, that doesn't make DA:O a game that bears his stamp or resulted from his efforts -- which is what you appear to be trying to "prove" by repeating your statement (paraphrasing) "Laidlaw was a lead designer, that's a fact" ad nauseum. 

[Volourn]

"One of three, yes."

Game over. Thank you for your honesty.


P.S. People who base their opinions on others' opinions are weak. if I did that I'd be hatin' on awesome games likes like BL or liking crappy games like MW.

LMAO I'll pass and stick to my own opinions so i can enjoy awesome games ARC and hating crappy games like FO3.

[Yrkoon]

Volourn wrote...

"This is a bit misleading. Or "spin" as it's called in politics."

It's not misleading. It's also how every publisher does things for every game develioped.

"400,000 of that 1.1 million did NOT come in the first two weeks, it came in the last 4 *months*. Pre-order sales."

And,, how many pre sales did DA1 get based on BIO's past games like BG2 & NWN (two games espicially in BG2's case where BIO used to pimp DA1). 'Hey, guys, come buy DA1, it's basically BG3!" Don't think that had noe ffectb on DA sales?

" And that speaks more of DA:O's greatness than anything else. "

I wonder how many pre order sales DA2 lost because of people who BOUGHT DA1 and LOATHED it? Probably quite a few.

On top of this, everyone should have been aware of many of the changes being made yet went out and bought the game. We knew before hand we were playing hawke, that there were no playable dwarfs and elfs, no origins, no duel weilding or bow welding warriors, no non combat skills, that it would be set in one city, the combat would be faster... yet people pre ordered it anyways?




The fact of the matter is that DA2 does not have the legs to ever outsell DA:O. But as you point out, it may not need to, since it was so cheap to produce compared to DA:O.


DA2 is successful because of BIO *not* DA1 just as DA1 is successful because of BIO *not* ME. *SHRUG*

Volourn, I've debated with you on message boards for 10 years.    10 years... and you've yet to learn how to use the quote feature.  LOL


Anyway, give me a second to distinguish between my words and your responses to them


Ok...  DA:O's pre-order numbers are neglible.   Which means that DA:O  got its 3.2 million in sales the good old fashioned way:    It earned them.    The game sold on its own merits, not another game's merits.

This is not the case with DA2, who's week by week numbers show drastically declining sales figures... steeper than Origins.  You can skirt around this point all you want, but it's the bottom line.  It proves that DA2 was not as well received by the consumer as DA:O was.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 15 avril 2011 - 07:21 .

[StartatZero]

Since when does Dumbed-Down=Difficulty level? Obviously nothing else exists other then combat in DA2...

[Reinveil]

Volourn wrote...

"One of three, yes."

Game over.  Thank you for your honesty. 

This has been covered.  Nobody was debating that this is what he was credited as, they were debating his actual involvement in the development of the original version of Origins.

Modifié par Reinveil, 15 avril 2011 - 07:22 .

[Everwarden]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

You can't point to any of those as official numbers, though, which removes any authority in your assertion.  :)

The exact same methods were used to gauge DAO sales, so if the numbers are off they're off by about the same margins as DAO sales. Still tells the same story, you just don't like hearing it. 

Modifié par Everwarden, 15 avril 2011 - 08:14 .

[Yrkoon]

StartatZero wrote...

Since when does Dumbed-Down=Difficulty level? Obviously nothing else exists other then combat in DA2...

It's called Dodging the question.   It was a rare, GOOD question from a journalist, and Mike Laidlaw dodged it.

[Volourn]

"It proves that DA2 was not as well received by the consumer as DA:O was."

Yet, I have never argued otherwise. All I pointed out to give DA 'credit' for DA2's early success is not accurate either ebcause all BIO games sell well. Even JE, which was a disspaoint sales wise (still sold 1.5-2mil).

DA series sold, and will sell well because of BIO's name.

Who knows what DA2 will end up sales wise. It's going to be a success. Whining about it isn't goin to change what happens. BIO is going to do what they alyways do. They find out by their own research what people liked or disliked about the game, react accordingly, and make games how they see fit, anyways, since us peons are nothing to them.


I just pointed out a fact and people got upset about it. DA2 sold 1mil+ in under 2weeks. And, wasselling at a faster clip than DA1. That's where we are at officially since vghchartz doesn't counjt with their fantasy numbers.

DA2 was 4th in NPD charts for March. That's as close as we have to 'facts' outside of official BIO/EA.

[tonnactus]

sami jo wrote...
 The combat in Golems was significantly more difficult without altering the base system,

It wasnt difficult for anyone who had 100 percent dogde.(easy to reach with any class after Awakening)
100 percent magic resistance,100 percent doge,all things that were possible in the first game and make it very easy even on nightmare.

[DeathStroke TZA]

Guliver wrote...

DeathStroke TZA wrote...

Guliver wrote...

Edli wrote...

Guliver wrote...

Bull**** in all it's glory.

There's nothing challenging or hard about games. You just press buttons and something awesome happens. Life is about overcoming challanges, game is just about fun. Don't confuse those two things.

It kinda makes me wonder why some peoples prefer to play chess in their free time. I mean seriously, why challenge yourself when you can have fun? Or maybe fun is subjective and means different things to different folks?

While I agree with your post I still find it silly that you compare a computer game with chess.

Don't know about you but I never found any of Dragon Age games challenging.
If you think that DA:O with it's battle mages and supernatural rogues provided any challenge you must be living in  alternate universe.

Awakening was even a bigger let down. New equipment gave huge stats and enemies were incredibly easy. 

Dragon Age 2 on Nightmare is definetly more challenging then DA:O/A ever was. Yes, there are some parts of the game were you just had to run in circles for half an hour while you kill some elite boss or bunch of enemies but there were also parts of the game were you had to strategicly figure out where to position your characters, which skills to use exactly at  which time and what companions to take with you so you don't kill each eather with AoE skills.

I remember fighting Meredith on my first playthrough. She killed Aveline with full hp in one shot. Killed her on normal at my second playthrough just to end it faster so I can start my third playthrough with Warrior Pro-Templar Male Hawke  This time im going to try her on Nightmare.

Archdemon was nothing compared to her, I just spammed Balista and hp pots and waited till it died.
Even High Dragon of DA:O was easier then in DA2.

I don't understand why so many ppl complain about this game? Because it didn't met your expectations? Well, you can't have everything..
Bioware did a good work on this game, it could be better but unfortunetly it isn't, so maybe it's time you quit hating this game and instead just play it and enjoy it.

Anyway, it can't be that bad as some of you say. Compared to other rpgs it's definetly one of the best rpgs out there.

Surely you didn't just say Meredith was hard? She's the end boss! She had damn well better be more difficult than insert random mob. In a whole, Dragon Age: Origins on nightmare is possibly the hardest thing to calculate. You have friendly fire to worry about, proper tactics, trail and error, in every battle you encounter on DA:O. I had a hard spot on DA:2 : Meredith

You contradict yourself in every sentence. Archdemon was "the" end boss of DA:O and it was damn easy.
DA:O was a joke. You could solo the whole game and all of it's hardest bosses just with rogue. This is something you can't do on DA2 and that proves it's more challenging than DA:O.
Anyway, I never considered any of RPG's challenging. If you want challenge, play a strategy game on the hardest mode or go up against real players.

You my friend, need to play Final Fantasy VII, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and plenty of other RPG's because you obviously don't know a damned thing about them. These games WERE hard. As was Dragon Age: Origins. I gave reasons for me saying the combat was easy, because all I had to do was keep a healer, tank and DPS in DA:2. I didn't have to change tactics UNTIL Meredith. Didn't die once TILL Meredith. Maybe I'm just really good at Dragon Age 2, but I can still go into Dragon Age: Orgins and get my ass handed to me at various points in the game, Which to me means that DA:O is harder than DA:2. And I'm not the only one who feels that way. So don't try to insult someone for their opinion and try to pass yours off as fact.

Like it or not, Those who dislike Dragon Age 2 are the heard majority, and Sales are proving that many are not liking it. 

[sami jo]

tonnactus wrote...

sami jo wrote...
 The combat in Golems was significantly more difficult without altering the base system,

It wasnt difficult for anyone who had 100 percent dogde.(easy to reach with any class after Awakening)
100 percent magic resistance,100 percent doge,all things that were possible in the first game and make it very easy even on nightmare.

Nothing quite like taking a quote completely out of context... If you read the rest of what I wrote, you would note that I was saying that the combat in DA:O did indeed have issues and was using Golems as an example of the fact that they could improve it without making any changes at all to the base system.  I was not suggesting that Golems was perfect in terms of combat and I stated quite clearly that there are builds in DA:O that make it ridiculously easy on any difficulty setting. 

That said, I don't think that removing tactical pieces such as setting traps and queing up abilities ahead of time and replacing them with predictable waves of enemies to increase the difficulty was the way to fix it.  Knowing that every battle will have waves of baddies falling from the sky is not an improvement on stupid mobs milling about waiting for me to run into them.  And honestly, I didn't find the combat to be any more difficult in DA2, just more tedious and fiddly.  I realize some people prefer it.  I would posit that both systems have issues and that whichever one they move forward with in the next installment of the series needs some work.

[erynnar]

Volourn wrote...

"Now you are right to like DA2, and I like that you defend it, it certainly needs it over here, and I’m not claiming that you are wrong in that you find it superior."

I don't find DA2 superior to DA1. I find them equal.

P.S. the assumption is correct.



"So because it says that in "ther" manual, you've got the whole story?  OKAY!"

A. I trust BIO's manual over internet punks like us any day of the week.

B. Why would BIO list him as 'lead designer' if he wasn't?

Lead designer is lead designer. Period.

If youa re gonna bash him for his work as LD on DA2 you should (if you liked DA1) praise him for his work as DA1 LD.

C. None of us work at BIO so try to make up silly stuff about what he actually did is just plain foolish and pathetic and ignorant.

You do realize that "Lead Designer" is a title, and does not indicate whether his contribution was that big in DAO, right?  That his contribution to DAO if he came in on the say the last six months (and I have no idea if it was that short a time he came on board with DAO), then most of the decisions on the game would have been made, and it he wouldn't have had much impact on DAO except for the final polish.   So a title does not an major influence make.

Anyone else ever get the feeling (right or wrong) that Mr. Laidlaw doesn't love DAO, or even like it very much? Or is that just me?

Oh, and if Mr. Laidlaw reads this forum, first, hi. And no offense to you sir, but you aren't supposed to be making games based on your preference, but the fans' preference.  So, please take a good look at the official Constructive Crit Thread, and the official Reviews thread.  Both fans of DA2 and DAO have written wonderful, well thought out posts on what they loved, liked, meh'ed, and hated.  Not surprisingly, those have been very consistent, love or hate DA2 or DAO.

[DeathStroke TZA]

FedericoV wrote...

DeathStroke TZA wrote...

Laidlaw isn't wanting to see the flaws of the game and he is saying those that do, are playing the game wrong and ignorantly. Which is insulting, so I can feel for those calling him out. I think he'd be a great asset to Bioware if they'd put him on games that are more in his lines of gameplay, and keep him from doing interviews, because so far all we're seeing from Laidlaw are "Lol you don't like my game? Oh well don't play it. and btw play it right dumb***" He keeps that up and No one will equals no money for Bioware and in turn none for EA. EA likes monies. 

Laidlaw cannot say anything negative about DA2. I doubt that his contract allow such freedom. I'm pretty sure that he wasn't happy with the time schedule he has to work with. But the design direction were not decided by him alone, that's for sure. Bioware studied focus group reaction and then confronted them with the metrics they gathered from Origins. That's the source of most changes. Focus groups and metrics showed that Origins was not so liked as its fans now make it.

Now, I doubt that metrics and focus groups are a good tool to build a game but that's what they have done. The process has worked really well with ME2, but probably the dev cycle was too short and the changes too big to have a good result in DA2. Basically, they have stretched too thin with DA2, that's my impression.

Having said that, the one and ultimate responsbile for Bioware's direction are the docs. And they allways wanted to bring RPGs to a wider audience. Even BG I was called a "dumbed down game for Diablo fans" at the time. If you expect them or Laidlaw to make an apology while the game is still in the first weeks of his commercial life... well, I think that you must be very young or very naive...

My main qualm was that he say's we're doing it wrong. That isn't something you tell your customers. Calling me young is semi-correct as I'm 19 years-old. Calling me Naive is incorrect, I have 2 jobs, a fiance, a mortgage, college and too much to list that I deal with every day. No parents to help me with bills, or anything else for that matter like most of you. Taking a personal opinion and then trying to attack someone isn't very nice. So maybe you are the one who's naive.

[tonnactus]

sami jo wrote...


That said, I don't think that removing tactical pieces such as setting traps

I could agree with that.

And honestly, I didn't find the combat to be any more difficult in DA2, just more tedious and fiddly

Dragon Age 2 combat is just as tedious or exiting as Dragon Age Origins combat was. No one could me seriously tell that bosses like jarvia or arl howe were less tediuos then the ones in the second game. They also had just insane healthbars.
By the way,in my opinion,fortitude alone makes the second game harder then the first,at least for rogues and mages in the first levels.

Modifié par tonnactus, 15 avril 2011 - 08:01 .

[DreGregoire]

So yeah nice interview. Way to target your "chosen" audience, Bioware.

My mistake was that I thought I was part of the target audience and that DA2 was actually going to be another good RPG like DAO. Instead I got a game that personally I don't feel like playing more than a few times. I could go on and on about what I do or don't like but I have a blog for that. Don't worry I've been set straight by this interview.

[AlanC9]

DeathStroke TZA wrote...
You my friend, need to play Final Fantasy VII, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and plenty of other RPG's because you obviously don't know a damned thing about them. These games WERE hard.-

NWN hard? The game with infinite free respawning?

Hell, BG wasn't all that hard. You could get screwed at low levels or if someone blew a couple saves, but that's not the same thing as being hard. The vaunted mage battles in BG2 were just a matter of remembering how to play rock-paper-scissors, and the loadscreens themselves told you what to do.

[Volourn]

"You my friend, need to play Final Fantasy VII, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and plenty of other RPG's because you obviously don't know a damned thing about them. These games WERE hard. As was Dragon Age: Origins."

DA2 was harder than all of them. You obviously know nothing about those games.

[Addai]

ejoslin wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Kklathan wrote...

IMHO, there can be no good answer to the question of "why reuse the maps?". Even people who are passionately defending DA2 refuse to attempt to justify the reused maps. Would it really be so hard for EA or Mike to say "Mea culpa. In retrospect the recycling of maps was a mistake, however justified it seemed during the development process. I / We apologize to the players and be assured, should the be a DA3, we will not be reusing maps in it."

Should they (the mythological "they", whomever they may be) have said something along those lines I would have felt a little bit optimistic about the future of the DA franchise. Instead what we got was an interview that can be summed up as "I LIKE the game I made and you cant make me change it! nah nah na naaa nah."

True.  "We rushed it because we want more of your cash" might be the honest answer, but not going to make anyone feel better.

All the Laidlaw hate is a bit much, though.  He's trying to make the best of what they were given.  I really hope that EA isn't trying to milk the franchise to pay for its MMO boondoggle.

While I don't agree with the hate (ugh, it's a GAME), I don't think he made the best of what he was given.  Had the whole game not been completely rebuilt, from the UI to the AI to the graphics to the conversation system and instead they had tweaked, DA2 could have had a lot more to it.

Certainly agree there.  That was something that might have made the devs happy but gave very little return to players.

[FedericoV]

DeathStroke TZA wrote...


My main qualm was that he say's we're doing it wrong. That isn't something you tell your customers. Calling me young is semi-correct as I'm 19 years-old. Calling me Naive is incorrect, I have 2 jobs, a fiance, a mortgage, college and too much to list that I deal with every day. No parents to help me with bills, or anything else for that matter like most of you. Taking a personal opinion and then trying to attack someone isn't very nice. So maybe you are the one who's naive.

First of all: I do not mean to attack you or to be disrepectfull. Sorry if I offended you, it wasn't my intention. I'm just saying that it's obvious that Bio devs and the docs will speak very well of their games while there is a commercial campaign going on and that you won't hear any negative thing about DA2 untill they begin to speak about DA3 (assuming that there will be a DA3). And also that it's obvious that they will defend their games against the harhest critics. I'm not saying that you are naive, I was talking about a trend I've seen in the forums: there people who come here expecting. an apology from the devs. Sorry, expecting is not the right word. They pretend it. Well, it will never happen.