966 réponses à ce sujet

[17thknight]

My god, he is really the most obtuse dip**** in the entire industry. Everyone tells him that his design ideas are pure garbage and he just shoves his fingers in his ears and goes "LALALALALALALALLALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Hopefully the investors will demand this **** be fired as sales continue to plummet.

[Melca36]

Yellow Words wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Yellow Words wrote...

H1natachan wrote...

Lets all just sit back and hope the DLC's might save or even turn around DA2, guess i'm naive even daring to think that, then again, what other suprises are in store for us ?

DA:O has replay value up it's sleeve at least, but DA2 the replay value plummets once you've played all 4 classes + possible questing paths.

DA:O venturing into the deep roads felt more epic, you actually did feel like you was in a hostile place. Deep roads in DA2, well i guess they failed there.

I really hope that lessons are learned and DA3 at least gives us what us players want in a RPG.

For me it's the other way around. DA2 offer me far more replay value than DAO ever did. 

So you like exploding bodies?

You think those pick and delivery quests have depth?

What a pleasant and nice way to try and get your point across. 

I feel more personally invested throughout the game and I like the story much more than DA2. I think the combat is fun, even though it's far from perfect. I find it really fun to play as a mage, in DAO they were so overpowered that I got bored after just a few hours. The friend/rivalry system added a new depth to the followers and I'm having fun exploring it.

DA2 is far from perfect but the positive things far outweigh the negative ones for me. 

Oh I definitely think there are some great aspects to DA:2 that should be incorporated in the game like the Friend/Rivalry system

But there are many aspects I did not like and I am sorry I didn't like them but I resent game developers thinking that gamers are stupid and I resent them pandering to people who want everything basically handed to them. 

[NotEvenAmused]

17thknight wrote...

My god, he is really the most obtuse dip**** in the entire industry. Everyone tells him that his design ideas are pure garbage and he just shoves his fingers in his ears and goes "LALALALALALALALLALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Hopefully the investors will demand this **** be fired as sales continue to plummet.

>Demand Mike Laidlaw be fired
>Get banned from forums

Typical Bioware suppression of free speech.
Good thing I didn't register my games so I can still play them.

Modifié par NotEvenAmused, 15 avril 2011 - 10:24 .

[SoR82]

IRMcGhee wrote...

Mecher3k wrote...

IRMcGhee wrote...
pathetic little prejudices.

I suggest you look up that word before using it again.

a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts

Exactly what I meant. 

~chuckles~ "beforehand" Thats all im saying ta

[tonnactus]

SirLogical wrote...


Did you play on the PC on nightmare?

On the xbox.Where party control was was nearly impossible

Most of those hexes you refer to would be resisted by a boss, and most trash mobs.

What??? If so, your magic score was to low maybee. No revenant resists misdirection or death hex.Same was true for human bosses.

What about Gaxkang? Is it coincidence that there has been ONE recorded solo of him on nightmare?

??
http://www.youtube.c...xkang solo&aq=f

The fight was trivial anyway with 100 percent magic resist that was allowed in origins(and his revenant form wasnt very dangerous).Every arcane horror or blood mage in Dragon Age II is more dangerous then gaxkang because they could kill the whole party with one spell...

For sure, the dex rogue was OP'd, as was the arcane warrior, but the most powerful bosses still gave a challenge.

For the dex rogue,only enemies with perfect striking were an issue.Oh,and scattershot archers. For the arcane warrior maybee only the first Ser Cathrien fight is difficult when the player didnt want to retreat from the ambush.

Modifié par tonnactus, 15 avril 2011 - 10:39 .

[TehPhilanthropist]

"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."

Is it just me or does Laidlaw sound a bit Arrogant? That whole thing is full of I’m, me, my, and I, it sounds like he is saying “oh some people might not like the new combat but I really don’t care because I like it and what I say goes HUEHUEHUEHUE (trollface)”

[Mecher3k]

IRMcGhee wrote...

Mecher3k wrote...

IRMcGhee wrote...
pathetic little prejudices.

I suggest you look up that word before using it again.

a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts

Exactly what I meant. 

And laidlaw is a douche that thinks the customer is wrong if the game sucks. Yea great way to sell a product is say if you don't buy it, or don't like it, it's your fault!

Modifié par Mecher3k, 15 avril 2011 - 10:54 .

[Mecher3k]

tonnactus wrote...

SirLogical wrote...


Did you play on the PC on nightmare?

On the xbox.Where party control was was nearly impossible

Oh no ****ing wonder, Nightmare on console was literrally hard on PC.

Fail. That Arcane Warrior WAS overpowered. However it's your choice to use such a overpowered spec. 

[SoR82]

TehPhilanthropist 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." 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."

Is it just me or does Laidlaw sound a bit Arrogant? That whole thing is full of I’m, me, my, and I, it sounds like he is saying “oh some people might not like the new combat but I really don’t care because I like it and what I say goes HUEHUEHUEHUE (trollface)”

Its not you trust me on that :innocent:

[tonnactus]

Mecher3k wrote...


Oh no ****ing wonder, Nightmare on console was literrally hard on PC.

Regarding the healthpoints of enemies yes,but not the resistances as far as i know. If hex spells get resisted,the player just didnt have enough magic.As simple as that. On consoles and pcs.I tried out all classes and only with the rogue archer it was challenging.

[MakeSense]

Ok, I want to elaborate myself.

• "Play on hard". As many others have already pointed out, this is beyond insulting. First, he attempts to restrict the "dumbed down" argument to the mere "difficulty" aspect of the game, which is... well, pick your words of choice, I can't type them. Second, even IF we were speaking about the difficulty aspect of the game, Mr. Laidlaw forgets that the harder difficulty settings are often used by players in the second, or third playthrough, when the mechanics, the items, and the enemies are well known. If one has to switch to hard from the get go, something is going to be missing later (the irony of course being that his argument actually barely applies, since apparently very few people seem to even bother with a second playthrough...)
• Some defend him with the argument "he must stand by the game against all evidence, at least for a while still, as long as they hope to sell more copies". Well guys, look at the example set by Stardock: they released a disastrous game, but they immediately admitted it (damaging their sales but preserving their integrity) and promised 2 expansions for free to all those who bought the game anyway. So no, I don't believe that LIES are the only option: there indeed exist other ways to relate with customers.

Oh man, I can't believe how much this guy irritates me. 
Really, it's not normal.

Modifié par MakeSense, 16 avril 2011 - 12:00 .

[PunchoT]

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!

Mein Herr, the future looks bleak at this juncture. If Laidlaw is left in charge of any further Dragon Age titles, I'm not buying. And the combat in DA:O was certainly not plodding. The only thing I would classify as plodding would be the two-handed fighting.

And, you're biggest complaint is the companions' fixed locations?

[DASockDA]

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?

[i]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

Not acceptable. Some reuse of areas are acceptable, especially when the area is given a different look, such as the cave under the manor in Sebastian's Act 2 quest. It was the same layout as another cave we revisit a thousand times, but it was given a new "skin", which made it a nice change of pace.

You could've, maybe, gotten away with shoving 30 quests into a single jaunt into a cave, but not 30 quests with 30 jaunts into the same cave. Especially when those quests were nothing more than filler, devoid of anything other than exp and "ring"s or "amulet"s.

You keep using this excuse. It's not acceptable. It doesn't mean that you didn't release a game that was 30% complete, atmospherically, knowingly. Next time, just say "We were pressed for time, and funds, and we had to make a regreatable sacrifice. We hoped that the other features of the game would make up for the sad truths of game development. In the future, we wont neglect this aspect of a game so much."

[man giraffe dog2]

MakeSense wrote...

Ok, I want to elaborate myself.

• "Play on hard". As many others have already pointed out, this is beyond insulting. First, he attempts to restrict the "dumbed down" argument to the mere "difficulty" aspect of the game, which is... well, pick your words of choice, I can't type them. Second, even IF we were speaking about the difficulty aspect of the game, Mr. Laidlaw forgets that the harder difficulty settings are often used by players in the second, or third playthrough, when the mechanics, the items, and the enemies are well known. If one has to switch to hard from the get go, something is going to be missing later (the irony of course being that his argument actually barely applies, since apparently very few people seem to even bother with a second playthrough...)

I'd argue that it's just a case of semantics. Sure, it's the usual practice to play on normal first go around, but you can easily change it if you find it's too difficult. And yes the fact that hard should maybe be the 'default' says something about what Bioware thinks the difficulty of the game should be, but in the end, hard and nightmare are still there and you aren't required to play on normal at all.

If someone on their first playthrough just plays normal then they can't be missing much as if they were so annoyed by its ease then they would have changed difficulty. I don't there have been many complaints that nightmare is too easy, especially with friendly fire. If you really want a harder mode there's always mods for that. I don't think people should take it personally.

MakeSense wrote...

• Some defend him with the argument "he must stand by the game against all evidence, at least for a while still, as long as they hope to sell more copies".
  Well guys, look at the example set by Stardock: they released a
  disastrous game, but they immediately admitted it (damaging their sales
  but preserving their integrity) and promised 2 expansions for free to
  all those who bought the game anyway. So no, I don't believe that LIES
  are the only option: there indeed exist other ways to relate with
  customers.

Oh man, I can't believe how much this guy irritates me. 
Really, it's not normal.

Elemental was widely seen as a bug-ridden disaster, as agreed by a lot of reviewers and their forums. I wouldn't quite put DA2 as the same basket as elemental. Sure the game has its controversies but a lot of it is over taste (combat, voiced pc, etc) rather than a massive amount of bugs rendering it unplayable.

[Everwarden]

MakeSense wrote...
 Well guys, look at the example set by Stardock: they released a disastrous game, but they immediately admitted it (damaging their sales but preserving their integrity) and promised 2 expansions for free to all those who bought the game anyway. So no, I don't believe that LIES are the only option: there indeed exist other ways to relate with customers.

You know, a gesture like that would -instantly- restore my faith in Bioware back to full. That is all it would take to convince me that they're a company I can trust to pre-order from again. Granted, that has less chance of happening than me winning the lottery four times in a row.

And before some very special person says something like "You self-entitled bastard! Bioware doesn't owe you anything!" Yeah, I know they don't -literally- owe me anything, all I'm saying is that this would be enough to repair their wrecked reputation in my view, and almost certainly the rest of the angry anti-fans out there who were expecting DA2 to, y'know, not suck. 

[ransompendragon]

Everwarden wrote...

MakeSense wrote...
 Well guys, look at the example set by Stardock: they released a disastrous game, but they immediately admitted it (damaging their sales but preserving their integrity) and promised 2 expansions for free to all those who bought the game anyway. So no, I don't believe that LIES are the only option: there indeed exist other ways to relate with customers.

You know, a gesture like that would -instantly- restore my faith in Bioware back to full. That is all it would take to convince me that they're a company I can trust to pre-order from again. Granted, that has less chance of happening than me winning the lottery four times in a row.

And before some very special person says something like "You self-entitled bastard! Bioware doesn't owe you anything!" Yeah, I know they don't -literally- owe me anything, all I'm saying is that this would be enough to repair their wrecked reputation in my view, and almost certainly the rest of the angry anti-fans out there who were expecting DA2 to, y'know, not suck. 

Plus, as a customer paying for a product you have every right to expect it to be a decent product. Even if we buy a cheap hamburger we have some level of expectation about what it delivers. And if the local McD's screws up too many times we start going to Burger King.

[ransompendragon]

randName wrote...

adneate wrote...

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

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

Completely agree. Both the combat and then the story were so tedious and/or ludicrous that I turned it to easy just to get through it, not because my team couldn't handle it.

I understand a company feeling they need a better "hook" to get players engaged -- I understand but disagree -- if the learning curve is too steep there are other ways to address it.  Besides, the thing I don't get it is their metrics showed people stopped playing after an hour --but those people still bought the game. Isn't that in some respect mission accomplished?

[ransompendragon]

double post.

Modifié par ransompendragon, 16 avril 2011 - 02:01 .

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

ransompendragon wrote...
  Besides, the thing I don't get it is their metrics showed people stopped playing after an hour --but those people still bought the game. Isn't that in some respect mission accomplished?

Careful.  That same argument can be made with people who bought DA2 and hated it.

[Kilshrek]

Here's a quick idea. If at all possible, why not release the % of players who completed the game on Hard or Nightmare. Should be easy enough to gauge response to the difficulty there. Or is that cherry picking my data, I can never be sure..

[Tommy6860]

Kilshrek wrote...

Here's a quick idea. If at all possible, why not release the % of players who completed the game on Hard or Nightmare. Should be easy enough to gauge response to the difficulty there. Or is that cherry picking my data, I can never be sure..

Count me in there. I never played it on any other difficulty than Nightmare and I played twice, on the hopes the main plot would differ according to my class and faction choice at the end.. Yes, it was hard, but once you acquire a tank, you can easily beat the game. The game forced me, after dying repetitively, to resort to kiting and stonewalling the enemies, then you can't lose. Yes,  I beat the game mostly that way, and there are those who will claim that is part of the strategy. But that is simply over-simplifying battle sequences by removing too many tactics and then lessening the strategies because all of the battles seem to be in areas about the size of my living room. You ultimately have no choice but to resort to the "easy way out" tactic, because the enemeis are right there upon you, with little room between the closing distance to combat. Not only that, the battles commence ONLY when you trigger them by the distance you are away from the enemies, you can't even initiate combat otherwise. I died far more in Origins on Nightmare, but not because of the lack of area sizes, but my learning curves for tactics and strategies. But that is what made the combat great in Origins, not so in DA2

Here's a better example, in the Kocari Wilds, which though is still a little linear, the explorable areas are large enough, allowing for ranged and close combat scenarios. I am equipped with my bow, I can see the enemies from afar (not popping in the scene), and when I get close enough for the max range that my bow allows, I can shoot an enemy without them noticing me, then the fighing begins and I use the tactics of my companions. The fact I can see them lets me also assess a strategy before I commence an attack.

In DA2, when I approach the enemies, they are in very confined areas. If I am a rogue and have my bow equipped, I cannot use it, even though I see them, until I am close enough to trigger the combat (which in perspective seems to be about 75'). Note, the game decides for me when it gets triggered, not me. So, right there any strategy is all but gone. Then when the trigger happens and it's time for battle, before I can get a shot off with my bow, I am so close to the enemy anyway due to the trigger, that they are near upon me by the time of my shot they move so fast, making the use my bow near pointless. I then switch immediately to my melee weapons because obviously that fits CQC style fighting . Add the fact of the extremely confined areas, leaves little room to strategize before triggering combat commences.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 16 avril 2011 - 03:47 .

[ejoslin]

Kilshrek wrote...

Here's a quick idea. If at all possible, why not release the % of players who completed the game on Hard or Nightmare. Should be easy enough to gauge response to the difficulty there. Or is that cherry picking my data, I can never be sure..

Well, not really, because you aren't taking into account WHY someone would turn the difficulty down.  It could be that it's too difficult.  It could be that the combat is SO boring and/or annoying that it gets turned down to get through it quicker.

I personally found the waves completely annoying. I CAN finish the game on nightmare, but the combat is bad enough that I chose to do so only once.  

[man giraffe dog3]

I think Mike Laidlaw is great and should be involved in every game ever because Dragon Age 2 is such a masterpiece and it's so good. It is the best game ever and Mike Laidlaw made the best game ever so he must be the best ever.

[Rylor Tormtor]

ejoslin wrote...

Kilshrek wrote...

Here's a quick idea. If at all possible, why not release the % of players who completed the game on Hard or Nightmare. Should be easy enough to gauge response to the difficulty there. Or is that cherry picking my data, I can never be sure..

Well, not really, because you aren't taking into account WHY someone would turn the difficulty down.  It could be that it's too difficult.  It could be that the combat is SO boring and/or annoying that it gets turned down to get through it quicker.

I personally found the waves completely annoying. I CAN finish the game on nightmare, but the combat is bad enough that I chose to do so only once.  

This is a huge assumption on my part, but I assume there is a limited amount of data transfered back, and since there are no achievements for hard or nightmare, I am not sure how easy/accurate this could be. Hell, 6 of my DAo playthroughs never showed up on my BSN account. More importantly, there is the fact that I turned down the difficulty to normal for my second playthrough, because my nightmare playthrough was tredious and annoying. Entirely achieveable, but the absurd tuning of the boss fights didn't lead to a feeling of triumph that I had in DAO when I beat a boss on nightmare, but mostly a feeling of relief that the 20-45 minute boring and frustrating tedium I had just endured was over.*


*Hyperbole is an accepted for of discourse in the land of Intrawebz.

[Gatt9]

ransompendragon wrote...

randName wrote...

adneate wrote...

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

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

Completely agree. Both the combat and then the story were so tedious and/or ludicrous that I turned it to easy just to get through it, not because my team couldn't handle it.

I understand a company feeling they need a better "hook" to get players engaged -- I understand but disagree -- if the learning curve is too steep there are other ways to address it.  Besides, the thing I don't get it is their metrics showed people stopped playing after an hour --but those people still bought the game. Isn't that in some respect mission accomplished?

Their metrics are faulty and don't tell them anywhere near what they think it does. 

Their "Metrics" are actually achievements and trophies,  they're datamining the Xbox and PS3.  So all they know is that the person stopped playing the game at the point they're assuming is one hour in,  what they don't know is why.  It could be...

-The game was a rental and in the rental period the average player makes it about 1 hour in.
-There was some other game that released that caught their attention
-It was a friend's disc they brought over to show off the game.
-Etc

The data is useless without context.  Compare it to a form of datamining Mass Effect,  if you data mine the number of people who completed the achievement of having a person in their party for 60 missions,  and count only the people who did not do it for all the teammates,  and it tells you only 10% of the people kept Ashley in for 60 missions,  then you can infer she wasn't a popular character.

Regardless,  their statements about the metrics are actually a red-herring.  Gaider I think stated that DA2's development began before DAO released,  they made their decisions long before they even could datamine.  They're throwing that out there now to try as a justification.

And TBH,  with all due respect to everyone involved,  I don't trust them to be honest about it at this point.  They lost my trust when there arose significant evidence that multiple employees posted user reviews as if they were average gamers.