966 réponses à ce sujet

[abaris]

errant_knight wrote...

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

You're right, its not only about profit. Its about profit, time constraints and personal tastes.

Maybe Laidlaw really believes in what he's saying. Maybe he's amongst those loving to immerse themselves into a monkey-on-speed RPG experience.

But always keep in mind, that not one of these interviews shows the real person and nothing but the real person. They're still trying to sell a product and even if Laidlaw would think totally different, he wouldn't be at liberty to say so. However, since Laidlaw was one of the lead guys, he probably sees all the more reason to defend his baby. With or without PR influence. To step back would be aking to admitting defeat, which would be a very bad thing as far as reputation is concerned.

[Roxlimn]

DraCZeQQ wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...

Yrkoon:

So they're similar, then. I don't see how DA2 is all the worse. Mind, I don't like it that they do bosses like this, but this is a DA:O issue as well as a DA2 issue.

PS: the math that makes the game run is not an engine. The engine is the middleware that supplies the graphical interface. Moreover, cross-class equipments are not exploits.

So you just pick one random semi-boss battle from DA2, one optional semi-boss battle from DA:O and decide that the games are similar in regards of boss battles?

Alrighty then.  Let's talk about how fast you can bring down the Archdemon and how that combat doesn't involve waves of enemies.

[Yrkoon]

Roxlimn wrote...

Yrkoon:

So they're similar, then. I don't see how DA2 is all the worse. Mind, I don't like it that they do bosses like this, but this is a DA:O issue as well as a DA2 issue.

PS: the math that makes the game run is not an engine. The engine is the middleware that supplies the graphical interface. Moreover, cross-class equipments are not exploits.

Well, to be fair,  I (personally) wouldn't use boss battles for my overall argument anyway, because they're *supposed* to be exceptions to the rule and thus comparing them ultimately  leads nowhere.

What I dislike about DA2's combat is how:

1)  It's overly simplistic:  They added more abilities,  and more combos, sure.  But there's something.... missing from it all that was previously there with DA:O.   Elimination of Friendly fire is only one of those things.  Backstabbing as a standard attack is another.  And there's less spells.  And they removed subtle things like armor penetration, and   your ability to actually MISS your opponent.  Overwhelm doesn't exist anymore.  You can't be paralized, or frozen or stunned for more than about 5 seconds anymore

2)  Combat is... UGLY.  It was  beautifully realistic from a physics standpoint in DA:O  (one of the few things they got SO  perfectly right in the first game.  why they broke it for DA2, I'll never understand)  In DA: O you could thrust your sword into an opponents stomach, then pull it out, then watch them slowly collapse to the ground.   In great detail, you could slice your opponent's head off... and  see blood gushing from the top of their neck as they fell to the ground... headless.  They took that  all out in DA2, in favor of  some  generic "body part explosions*...  and the *same*  body part explosions, no matter what type of weapon you're using.  Silly.  Only a  12 year old would love something like that.

3)  Emersion-killing battlefield logisitics (or lack thereof)  -this has been discussed ad nausium.  The wave-spawns.  The  fully armored Ninjas that drop from a flat  ceiling of a small, enclosed room.    At first, I was actually OK with it.  But after a while I stopped to truly think about it and came to the realization that  the devolopers were quite obviously not catering to adult audiences.  They were catering to very young teens.    It's the only way I can explain it.  But like I said, this issue has been discussed endlessly so I won't bore you  (and myself)  further with it.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 16 avril 2011 - 10:21 .

[Hulk Hsieh]

The real problem is lack of content.
Combat is OK.
Character development system is better than DA:O

[Stegoceras]

Sareth Cousland wrote...

Volourn wrote...

"but you aren't supposed to be making games based on your preference, but the fans' preference."

No. He's supposed to be making games based on his bosses' perferences. This is what THEY wanted.. Whether you or others dislike it or if others like me liked it means nothing to him. It's up tot he bosses what kind of product they want, and he delivers to them what they want.

Laidlaw is part of the senior design team, just look at the first minute of the dev diary. It's possible that the instruction to open the game to new audiences came from higher up, however. And for that reason, I think it would be best to direct the criticism at the game itself instead of the supposed "culprits" behind the changes.

Maybe so, but I do think the higher-ups should then realize that Laidlaw needs to work on his PR, He sort of acts like it's his game and people who don't like it are somehow wrong. Of course this can be a conscious decision of those higher-ups to stay out of the fire, but still Laidlaw isn't doing a good job of maintaining Bioware's goodwill.

So in short I do agree with you that criticism should be directed at the game instead of Laidlaw, but this thread was initially a discussion of Laidlaw's anwsers. So I feel people are perfectly in their right to discuss his poor work on PR.

[MakeSense]

man giraffe dog2 wrote...

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.

No.
Player reception was really similar. And you could go to Stardock's forums and find, among all the (legitimately) raging posts, even some who desperately tried to defend the game and in some cases even deny the bugs.
It was really a very similar situation. Even the users' scores of the game were very close to those we see now for DA2.

If anything, the backlash seems to have more staying power in these forums.
The only real differences between Elemental and DA2, reception-wise, is the average ratings of paid reviewers (you see, small company, big influence company... you do the math), and the way the two companies treated their customers.
Stardock was more than decent to them, considering, while Bioware... well, Bioware is letting Laidlaw speak.
Should I say more?

[Firky]

Yrkoon wrote...

What I dislike about DA2's combat is how:

1)  It's overly simplistic:  They added more abilities,  and more combos, sure.  But there's something.... missing from it all that was previously there with DA:O.   Elimination of Friendly fire is only one of those things.  Backstabbing as a standard attack is another.  And there's less spells.  And they removed subtle things like armor penetration, and   your ability to actually MISS your opponent.  Overwhelm doesn't exist anymore.  You can't be paralized, or frozen or stunned for more than about 5 seconds anymore

I prefer DA2 combat, overall, but these are all true - and minor negatives for me, too. (And, why aren't more people mentioning proper examples, like this? This is way more informative than just saying "combat is just for the ADHD crowd," or whatever.)

I'd add the commanders melee attacks are too easy to dodge, because they take too long to wind up. But dodging is more good than bad - it annoyed me no end that my instinct in Origins was to run away, but then you'd get killed on the other side of the battlefield because the damage was done at the beginning of the animation. Dodging generally good, not so much with commanders. 

[ji.Ruichi]

The guy asking the questions is being polite. I believe there are lots more questions Laidlaw is trying to avoid.

[Roxlimn]

Firky:

The reason people generally don't say that DA2 combat is simpler than DA:O combat is because it isn't true. DA2 combat is actually more complex.

[xkg]

Roxlimn wrote...

Firky:

The reason people generally don't say that DA2 combat is simpler than DA:O combat is because it isn't true. DA2 combat is actually more complex.

Thank you for sharing yor OPINION. My is - DAO combat is more complex than DA2

[man giraffe dog2]

MakeSense wrote...

man giraffe dog2 wrote...

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.

No.
Player reception was really similar. And you could go to Stardock's forums and find, among all the (legitimately) raging posts, even some who desperately tried to defend the game and in some cases even deny the bugs.
It was really a very similar situation. Even the users' scores of the game were very close to those we see now for DA2.

If anything, the backlash seems to have more staying power in these forums.
The only real differences between Elemental and DA2, reception-wise, is the average ratings of paid reviewers (you see, small company, big influence company... you do the math), and the way the two companies treated their customers.
Stardock was more than decent to them, considering, while Bioware... well, Bioware is letting Laidlaw speak.
Should I say more?

I'm not denying that both games have had a backlash on the forums, I'm saying the nature of them is very different. Elemental's problems were mainly technical, with many people unable to play whereas people are protesting against DA2 mainly because they don't like the direction the game is going. And please, don't compare user scores as they don't mean anything except that 4chan doesn't like DA2.

The backlash on this forum is obviously going on for longer as DA2 is a sequel and thus has more passionate fans who are invested in the franchise, as opposed to Elemental which was simply a bad game thqt couldn't be played. Also remember that their CEO denied the claims of a bad game initially and that caused an uproar as well which may have had something to do with their peace offering.

[Dormiglione]

Roxlimn wrote...

Firky:

The reason people generally don't say that DA2 combat is simpler than DA:O combat is because it isn't true. DA2 combat is actually more complex.

So you say that combat system in DA2 is more complex than in DAO. Could you please explain me why do think so? IMO both have the same complexity. Lets take a look at DA2 combat system.
- DA2 has a faster pace. Does this make the combat more complex? No, its just faster, nothing else.
- Does DA2 deliver better AI for your NPC? No, same AI as DAO, not better not worse.
- Does DA2 give me more tactical Option to set the behavior of my NPC? No, i have the same options in DAO.
- Does DA2 deliver a special class of a warrior / rogue / mage that can be used better in tactics? No, the contrary, in DAO i had a berserker called Ogren. This one was really devastating.
- DA2 has Cool-Down on Potions and Bombs. How should this be more complex? It just leads me to run around and hope that i dont get killed while im waiting to use again a potion.

[Roxlimn]

xkg wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...
Firky:
The reason people generally don't say that DA2 combat is simpler than DA:O combat is because it isn't true. DA2 combat is actually more complex.

Thank you for sharing yor OPINION. My is - DAO combat is more complex than DA2

The complexity of a system is not subject to opinion.  You can easily count the number of systems and subsystems and then do a tally.

If you think DA:O is more complex than DA2, then you simply have employed more subsystems in DA:O than in DA2.  That is an opinion.  No scratch that.  It's a misinformed opinion.

Modifié par Roxlimn, 16 avril 2011 - 01:17 .

[_Aine_]

I think the combat was fun, for an action game (waves aside) but not for Dragon Age. That's all. Take the same combat and place it somewhere where the style suits the period, or era, or ....the history of that game, and it is fun, stylish in an over the top way and yes, responsive. It just didn't suit Dragon Age to *me*. It wasn't tactical. As a player, I don't care about how complex it really is behind the scenes, I care about this: Can I plan my battles and have fun? Can I use strategy? Or do I just blow through them with my mage's AOE spells to hurry it up? I enjoyed the complexity in DA:O. Whether that be from the mechanics of combat, or human nature compensating for a weak system I have no idea. But, aside for shuffling into battle, I prefered DA:O. And I am fully aware that is a personal preference rather than an ultimatum of what is great and what sucks in general.

I just didn't think the styles fit. For *my* preferences. ymmv

Modifié par shantisands, 16 avril 2011 - 01:42 .

[Harorrd]

Thats pure insult and crap

[Roxlimn]

Dormiglione wrote...
So you say that combat system in DA2 is more complex than in DAO. Could you please explain me why do think so? IMO both have the same complexity. Lets take a look at DA2 combat system.
- DA2 has a faster pace. Does this make the combat more complex? No, its just faster, nothing else.
- Does DA2 deliver better AI for your NPC? No, same AI as DAO, not better not worse.
- Does DA2 give me more tactical Option to set the behavior of my NPC? No, i have the same options in DAO.
- Does DA2 deliver a special class of a warrior / rogue / mage that can be used better in tactics? No, the contrary, in DAO i had a berserker called Ogren. This one was really devastating.
- DA2 has Cool-Down on Potions and Bombs. How should this be more complex? It just leads me to run around and hope that i dont get killed while im waiting to use again a potion.

Let's tackle the easy one first.  It's not a given that putting a cooldown on an ability adds complexity, but in general, limiting the supply of a resource in the face of a demand creates the space for more complexity.  Unfortunately, DA2 allows you to run around while your abilities are on cooldown, but excessive running seems to be a universal defensive solution in DA2 (as it was in some parts of DA:O).  Optimized use of poisons and grenades is more complex when they are limited.

Secondly, systems.  DA:O had the Spell Combo system, which combined a few spells with a few other spells or effects.  Generally there were no critical timing issues, and acquiring the spells with a single character was easy if you knew how.

DA2 has the cross class combo system which combines abilities across classes, which necessarily means that they are combined between characters.  This necessitates a party-based combo build that incorporates timing issues, since conditions imposed by setup skills do not last quite as long.

There are also a significant amount of self-combos and brute buff or debuff combos that exist across skill trees.  Combining them optimally through progression requires a rather intricate knowledge of when the skills become availabe, options for respeccing, and how to combine them in Tactics for best effect.

Most importantly, you do not have skills and builds in DA2 that essentially auto-win the game for you.

There are other things to compare.  For instance, we can compare positional advantages in DA:O compared to DA2 (it's still there, folks), the power effects, item combinations, gold options, effects of FF, Rune Speccing and immunity management, Elemental Stacking, and so on.

Modifié par Roxlimn, 16 avril 2011 - 01:30 .

[Dormiglione]

Roxlimn wrote...

Let's tackle the easy one first.  It's not a given that putting a cooldown on an ability adds complexity, but in general, limiting the supply of a resource in the face of a demand creates the space for more complexity.  Unfortunately, DA2 allows you to run around while your abilities are on cooldown, but excessive running seems to be a universal defensive solution in DA2 (as it was in some parts of DA:O).  Optimized use of poisons and grenades is more complex when they are limited.

Secondly, systems.  DA:O had the Spell Combo system, which combined a few spells with a few other spells or effects.  Generally there were no critical timing issues, and acquiring the spells with a single character was easy if you knew how.

DA2 has the cross class combo system which combines abilities across classes, which necessarily means that they are combined between characters.  This necessitates a party-based combo build that incorporates timing issues, since conditions imposed by setup skills do not last quite as long.

There are also a significant amount of self-combos and brute buff or debuff combos that exist across skill trees.  Combining them optimally through progression requires a rather intricate knowledge of when the skills become availabe, options for respeccing, and how to combine them in Tactics for best effect.

Most importantly, you do not have skills and builds in DA2 that essentially auto-win the game for you.

Roxlimn wrote...
Optimized use of poisons and grenades is more complex when they are limited.

Its not more complex. Its just more difficult. It doesnt make the combat system more complex.

Roxlimn wrote... 
Secondly, systems. DA:O had the Spell Combo system, which combined a few spells with a few other spells or effects.

The spell combo system added a tactical element. Tactical Elements bring more complexity in the combat. Do you remember that spells always affected your NPC's. Like the paralyze spell combo that paralyzed the NPC's even the caster himself.

Roxlimn wrote... 
DA2 has the cross class combo system which combines abilities across classes, which necessarily means that they are combined between characters.

Its nothing new. In DAO a mage freezed an enemy and the warrior use the final blow -> shattered. See cross combo existed also in DAO

Roxlimn wrote...
There are also a significant amount of self-combos and brute buff ..

DAO had more options and trees to skill up. You couldnt learn all abilities, spells or whatever. You had to choose wisely how you skilled up your character. So this was far more complex than the limited abilities of DA2, where there is no problem to learn the complete tree.

Roxlimn wrote...
Most importantly, you do not have skills and builds in DA2 that essentially auto-win the game for you.

Where do i find the "auto-win" spell, ability or tactical setting in DAO?

Regards

[Roxlimn]

Dormiglione:

Its not more complex. Its just more difficult. It doesnt make the combat system more complex.

Of course it does! If nothing else, spamming Grenades in DA2 ALSO involves running, whereas spamming grenades in DA:O only involves spamming grenades. That is already additional complexity, though perhaps of a kind you don't particularly like.

The spell combo system added a tactical element. Tactical Elements bring more complexity in the combat. Do you remember that spells always affected your NPC's. Like the paralyze spell combo that paralyzed the NPC's even the caster himself.

Don't confuse spell combos with friendly fire.

Its nothing new. In DAO a mage freezed an enemy and the warrior use the final blow -> shattered. See cross combo existed also in DAO

The new part is the part where multi-character cooperation of different classes is required. You didn't in DA:O. You could shatter your own frozen targets with Fist of Stone.

DAO had more options and trees to skill up. You couldnt learn all abilities, spells or whatever. You had to choose wisely how you skilled up your character. So this was far more complex than the limited abilities of DA2, where there is no problem to learn the complete tree.

I want you to go to DA:O right now, fire it up, see the max level at the endgame, and count how many skills you've acquired versus how many are available. Don't hesitate. Just go on over and count.

Now do the same for a DA2 character.

Compare.

Where do i find the "auto-win" spell, ability or tactical setting in DAO?

Storm of the Century. Can't miss it.

[Fallstar]

Roxlimn wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...
So you say that combat system in DA2 is more complex than in DAO. Could you please explain me why do think so? IMO both have the same complexity. Lets take a look at DA2 combat system.
- DA2 has a faster pace. Does this make the combat more complex? No, its just faster, nothing else.
- Does DA2 deliver better AI for your NPC? No, same AI as DAO, not better not worse.
- Does DA2 give me more tactical Option to set the behavior of my NPC? No, i have the same options in DAO.
- Does DA2 deliver a special class of a warrior / rogue / mage that can be used better in tactics? No, the contrary, in DAO i had a berserker called Ogren. This one was really devastating.
- DA2 has Cool-Down on Potions and Bombs. How should this be more complex? It just leads me to run around and hope that i dont get killed while im waiting to use again a potion.

Let's tackle the easy one first.  It's not a given that putting a cooldown on an ability adds complexity, but in general, limiting the supply of a resource in the face of a demand creates the space for more complexity.  Unfortunately, DA2 allows you to run around while your abilities are on cooldown, but excessive running seems to be a universal defensive solution in DA2 (as it was in some parts of DA:O).  Optimized use of poisons and grenades is more complex when they are limited.

Secondly, systems.  DA:O had the Spell Combo system, which combined a few spells with a few other spells or effects.  Generally there were no critical timing issues, and acquiring the spells with a single character was easy if you knew how.

DA2 has the cross class combo system which combines abilities across classes, which necessarily means that they are combined between characters.  This necessitates a party-based combo build that incorporates timing issues, since conditions imposed by setup skills do not last quite as long.

There are also a significant amount of self-combos and brute buff or debuff combos that exist across skill trees.  Combining them optimally through progression requires a rather intricate knowledge of when the skills become availabe, options for respeccing, and how to combine them in Tactics for best effect.

Most importantly, you do not have skills and builds in DA2 that essentially auto-win the game for you.

There are other things to compare.  For instance, we can compare positional advantages in DA:O compared to DA2 (it's still there, folks), the power effects, item combinations, gold options, effects of FF, Rune Speccing and immunity management, Elemental Stacking, and so on.

Seriously? No 'auto-win- classes? Please point to me a class in origins capable of doing 120k damage in a single hit and I'll stand corrected. Or any way of making a 2h warrior swing a sword faster than twice a second?

Modifié par SirLogical, 16 avril 2011 - 01:52 .

[Roxlimn]

SirLogical:

You don't need to do 120k damage in a single hit for most situations. You want lots of damage spread out over the entire enemy force. Swinging a sword faster also requires a serious amount of preplanning and it still requires a significant amount of control.

For the majority of encounters in DA:O, I just spammed Earthquake + Inferno until I got SotC, and then I spammed that plus the occasional Mana Clash.

[Jitter]

Count Viceroy wrote...

Oh look, another one of these threads. Bioware made a game that wasn't what I wanted. Therefore it is bad, period. Bioware chose for better or worse to make something different than DAO2. Deal with it. Looking at it from a unbiased standpoint. DA2 is still a good game. And they can only go forward from here.

The general attitude around here stinks of entitlement. Sad and hilarious at the same time. Maybe if you voice your displeasure enough times they'll cave in and do exactly what you want the next time right?

It's not entitlement when you pay for it. 

When i buy a new phone , and find out that the text options , have been replaced with 3 buttons , i can text my friends with happy , funny or mean .... would you buy the phone ?

And would you feel entitled to have more ?

The original game was text enabled , the second was twitter. 

Modifié par Jitter, 16 avril 2011 - 04:46 .

[Jitter]

Roxlimn wrote...

SirLogical:

You don't need to do 120k damage in a single hit for most situations. You want lots of damage spread out over the entire enemy force. Swinging a sword faster also requires a serious amount of preplanning and it still requires a significant amount of control.

For the majority of encounters in DA:O, I just spammed Earthquake + Inferno until I got SotC, and then I spammed that plus the occasional Mana Clash.

and in DA2 what did you do ? 
spam "A" for Awesome ?

[Roxlimn]

Jitter:

I... ...I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Please clarify.

[Jitter]

Roxlimn wrote...

Firky:

The reason people generally don't say that DA2 combat is simpler than DA:O combat is because it isn't true. DA2 combat is actually more complex.

Ha ha ha ha ... 
take that comedy on the road ?

Mike is that you ?

[Jitter]

MIKE CAN YOU HEAR ME!!!  

Modifié par Jitter, 16 avril 2011 - 05:06 .