843 réponses à ce sujet

[Shadowbanner]

Ok, here it goes.

I've read that some top brass BioWare founders, AKA as "the Doctors", are scratching their venerable puzzled heads pulling out the few hairs they have left wondering on why the feedback has been split beteen the "I love it" and "I hate it" camps for DA2.

So in a brave attempt to ensure the survival of those few remaining hairs, I've tasked it upon myself to explain why we're getting these polarized reviews.

Just what the heck is going on?

Have gamers gone crazy? Are they just paid trolls by CD Project sowing negativity? Heh, you wish.

Nope, it's a direct consequence of BioWare's own making.

I believe BioWare chose to expand its existing fanbase and reach out for casual players (mainstream console). They decided that it was a worthwhile tradeoff to sacrifice a few old grumpy diehard hard-core RPG fans in exchange of appealing to a much broader, younger crowd and in the process make more money, BIG money. (EA approves this paragraph)

Now in principle this, from a corporate strategy point of view, seems a pretty smart move. Heck, even I would buy into it drooling at the expected sales figures and my future annual bonus.

The only small problem is that you are forgetting what you are actually selling.- an RPG.

Without sounding condescending, an RPG is actually a darn complex product that takes a long time to develop (4/5 year development cycles) and requires a significant financial investment. It caters to, let's call them politely, a discerning player class which are now, mostly, in their late thirties or even older. Yes, them type who actually did play Baldur's Gate in its heyday and owned Spectrum, Amigas and Commodore 64. This is the niche clientele BioWare has been tapping into since its foundation so long ago. Its what its known as its "hardcore" fanbase. These are -sadly- waning every year (i.e. marriage, divorce = broke, working, kids, dying of old age etc). This group tends to stick more to PC. Some call them derisively "PC elitists".

Then we have a second, much larger crowd (ergo more dollars), that are more of a casual-type of players who are into the COD and button-mashing wave. They are, mostly, by comparison, much younger and by far a larger population. It's the juicy and larger slice of the cake every developer craves to target; its the publisher's holy grail, their wet dream (yes I'm looking at you EA). This group, generally, favors more consoles (Xbox, PS).

So what BioWare did, in my opinion, was reach some sort of compromise whereby the got rid of veteran old-school in-house assets (Brent Knowles) and incorporated newer talents (Mike Laidlaw) for the lead-role in DA2. Laidlaw had more experience in the console port and would theoretically be more in line with "today's tastes" (the mainstram console crowd). Yes they'd lose in the way some grumpys but it would be over-compensated by the huge influx of newer casual players ("What? There's an in-game inventory? Dude, what's that for?") or so they figured.

So basically DA2 was streamlined or dumbed-down to accomodate it to mainstream console players who, apparently under the eyes of EA and BioWare, prefer simpler action games that require less thinking and more button-mashing. Now this imo was a huge mistake. Because you underestimated both the loyal hardcore fans (who will not take it) and the COD crowd (who are not stupid). I also love COD, but I don't want a "Dragon Calls to Duty". Gamers do not want vanilla substitutes or unpolished lacklustered hybrids, we want the real deal. 

DA:O was a game designed out of sheer love for the first group catering to old-schoool RPG players, the so-called PC die-hards and became hugely successful. DA2 hearkened on BG2 days, it was its spiritual sucessor. It was console ported more or less successfully (worser graphics than the PC version, specially on the Xbox) where it also became an instant critical successs.

Post ME2 and its wild success, elicited by the roses and wine, all creative restraints were lifted (that is, Mr Laidlaw was allowed to do as he pleased reworking the franchise and designing what he thought DA:O should have been in the first place, behaving in the process like a spoilt brat). The aim was to appeal to the larger console crowd this time and make much more money, as in cash-in big time and here we come Forbe's list. Spurred by the success of ME2, developers purposely "massificated" DA2 despite them being completely different universes and games. I like both, but they have distinctly different flavors and so they should remain (although I like neat touches like the blood dragon armor cross-over, mind you).

As a result we have a half-baked game that is a half-hearted hybrid between an RPG and some dumb console button-masher action wannabe Street Fighter VII. Unfortunately, it does neither well.

So on the one hand, we are getting lousy reviews with the "we've been utterly betrayed, you have alienated your fanbase, get rid of Laidlaw! Lite the bonfire! Sharpen the stakes!! Storm Bioware's castle gate!!!" and on the other hand we are getting okish or even glowing reviews from the  "I love ma rogue gangsta-ninja, it's GR8, best game evarr; Mike, dude, you rock ma world mann, u rulz. 10/10. Your fan number one, Avanost".

By now you've probably guessed in which camp I'm in. Well, you'd be wrong. I actually only play DA in consoles, never on a PC. However, I would group myself in the first group because I agree more with their point of view which is more in line with the spirit of the original DA:O and BG days.

It is my believe that BioWare released an incomplete game which does not cater wholly to either group, and this must be addressed if BioWare is to survive.

BioWare is therefore at a development crossroads in which it must decide, once and for all, which path to take the Dragon Age franchise, and by extent, all other franchises such as Mass Effect.

One path will be a return to its origins, pun intended, to its core bread-and-butter which set them on the map. The long-time standing hard-core fans who've always been there for it since KOTOR. This is a niche market that caters to intelligent carefully-crafted (let me add lovingly)  RPG games for which Bioware has been worldwide renowned for longer than I care to think standing proudly along giants such as the Bethesda boys. You won't make it to the Forbe's list, this I guarantee, but you will still make a nice living; more than 99% of the population if that's good enough for you.

The second path is to wholly forget the grumpy disgruntled hard-core fans who are too old anyway and go overboard and cater exclusively to the console fans making the sort of games they cherish. In time you will make it to the Forbe's list. By then all the hard-core fans will have died out of old age anyway or locked away in geriatrics.

What BioWare can no longer afford is to sit on top of the fence trying to pull in both crowds because we're like water and oil, we just don't mix.

BioWare, get your act together, you have to make a clear stance.

So, the ball is now on your roof. Your move...

We'll be right here awaiting your decision for the upcoming DA3. Hopefully this time round, seasoned with more Knowles and less Laidlaw.

If it's the former you have my pre-order guaranteed as well as a hefty chunk of my gamer heart. <3

If it's the latter, it was nice while it lasted, albeit it's now high-time to explore the worlds of CD Project and company, you know, the lads who still cater to them old-age RPG lovers like myself.

My 2 cents.


Disclaimer: no one from EA was hurt, whether purposely or not, on writing this post. Mike, I have my eye on you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


EDIT (20/04/2011): As I have been misunderstood by some people (specifically by fellow console-players) who have taken offense on what I've written, I copy and paste one of my replies that's on page 29 of this thread to further clarify the above text:



"Please re-read carefully what I've written as well as other posts written by me on this thread as follow-up replies.

I'm a console player myself, not a PC elitist, I've made that clear from the get-go.

It's not that I myself see console-players as dumb and PC players as the pinnacle of Mankind. You've completely misundertstood my post then.

I wrote that's the apparent vision EA and BioWare seem to have of us mainstream console-players. They equate console-players to casual button-masher players. While it may be true of some, not all of us are like this.

I specifically wrote that COD players, such as myself, are not dumb. It's a mistake they (EA and Bioware) are making on misjudging their target audience, the larger slice of the cake, not to mention how they've misjudged (mistreated?) their loyal hardcore PC RPG gamers.

As an Xbox gamer I have no interest in my DA being "consolized" or casualized just because...I specifically wrote I'm not interested in a "Dragon Calls to Duty". I want the real deal, I want an RPG as good as PC players get. I want something similar to my DA:O experience again, not identical of course. Sequels require changes and improvements but not to the point that the game no longer feels and plays like the original DA:O as its meant to be a sequel, otherwise call it something else if its a spin-off.

In my post I was mostly being ironic putting myself in their shoes (EA's).I already made clear in a number of posts that there are bright people playing either on PC, console or both.

Precisely my argument hinges on the idea that we (= console players) are not dumb. We do not require all the luv (sic) & hand-holding offerig us a watered-down version of an RPG experience. We are perfectly capable of coping and grasping a complex game without resorting to a PC's 103 keys. Some things will logically be required to be adapted on porting the game over to the console, granted. But that does not imply a general dumbing-down a la DA2.

I do not want to play a game that has been streamlined to the point it's childish & dumbed-down. RPG players, like myself, like deeper gameplay, complex interwoven branching out choices and consequences. Hence my comment on water and oil. You cannot stick us all (console- players) in one bag with a label on it: "feed them only with douche casual games. Not a smart lot".

To each his own, let us RPG lovers (whether PC gamers or console-players) have our classic RPGs, and let the casual button-mashers have their action hack-n-slash games. An RPG lover can be 13 or 77 years-old, to put an example, male or female. You cannot cater to both crowds because we will not mix. The larger the audience you aim to pull in, the more concessions you'll have to be prepared to make along the way; it's an inverse relation. You will have to continually strip down RPG elements of the game to make it more and more appealing to a gradually wider audience to the point it is diluted and is no longer an RPG i.e. Dragon Age 2. By definition an RPG will only have a small fanbase of discerning players; you just cannot cater to a wider audience without losing the essence of an RPG, what gives it its soul. And as I write, a crowd of RPG lovers can be made of PC players or console-players, such as myself. 

It is a gross -and costly- mistake to equate console-players = simple half-witted minds; PC hardcore old guard elite = pinnacle of Human Evolution.

Now please, go and re-read my post again. You are making us console-players look bad."

Modifié par Shadowbanner, 20 avril 2011 - 09:20 .

[Ploppy]

gb2 4chan

[Aermord]

Thank you for your post. It's a good analysis.

However Dragon Age Origins could not have been hugely succesful if it only appealed to the "old crowd" because "we" are simply not enough to generate this kind of sale. I'm a teacher and there are young students at my school who absolutely loved Dragon Age Origins and the same students ended up hating DA2 as well.

Us "old guys" might be on the path to the grave, but it is my impression that new players of the traditional RPG genre are born at a quick pace. They will be just as loyal as we have been when they discover that a great game is not just one based on hack and slash and pretty graphics. - But a game that can challenge them and create a deep story where they can be the hero.

[Supreez]

Biowares strength, that is still and always will be marketable, is good storytelling and world building. Its why people liked ME2 so much and its what a vast majority of games lack. Truth is, as much as i don't want to admit it, they don't have to have really robust RPG elements. As long as the combat is ok, the world is significant, and its good storytelling people will buy their games.

ME2 proved this and I suspect, even if everything else was the same and they only changed being in one small City and running through the same tired places over and over DA2 would have confirmed it.

[upsettingshorts]

I prefer my first person narrative player vs. third person narrative player theory.

Many previous Bioware games were in my opinion implicitly third person narratives. But they didn't go so far as to demand that everyone have this view. Adding a voiceover and a paraphrase system makes the games explicitly third person. So if you always played Bioware games as a third person narrative, this doesn't bother you and is possibly seen as an improvement. If you always played Bioware games as a first person narrative, this is a radical departure.

In terms of the feel of combat and the aesthetics of the animations and such, I don't think that's indicative of much else beyond simple aesthetic preference. If you mod out the exploding bodies, or don't have a DW rogue on your team, the game looks really damn close to Origins, it's just faster.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 17 avril 2011 - 02:02 .

[AkiKishi]

With the exception of Jade Empire and likely DA2, Biowares sales have stayed fairly constant. The latest model of a "JRPG" with choices though is a very wasteful in resources. If anything it's more of an identity crisis than a cross roads. DA2 has no idea what it wants to be. It has "tactical" combat, but at a speed that is not comfortable for many people who like tactical combat. It has button mashing, but the cooldowns mean that you have to wait for things to happen , which contradicts the button=awesome mantra.

[Everwarden]

The problem that Bioware is missing in their attempt to get the "CoD crowd" is that while they have a monopoly (more or less) on RPGs, they are novices with action games and not just any half-ass effort is going to ship twenty million copies with other, established, -good- action games already on the market.

[Sabriana]

Aermord wrote...

Thank you for your post. It's a good analysis.

However Dragon Age Origins could not have been hugely succesful if it only appealed to the "old crowd" because "we" are simply not enough to generate this kind of sale. I'm a teacher and there are young students at my school who absolutely loved Dragon Age Origins and the same students ended up hating DA2 as well.

Us "old guys" might be on the path to the grave, but it is my impression that new players of the traditional RPG genre are born at a quick pace. They will be just as loyal as we have been when they discover that a great game is not just one based on hack and slash and pretty graphics. - But a game that can challenge them and create a deep story where they can be the hero.

True. I can say the same thing. I've been playing RPG's and I love them. My kids watched me, and when they were old enough, they started playing them. They (and many of their friends) are now also RPG fans. Their ages are pre-teen and teen, as are their friends.

So, we are not dying out, because the next generation of RPG fans is coming up. Sure, they also play FPS games, but as my teen so succinctly stated: "If I want to play a FPS, I go get a real one. I don't like "tweeners"

Side note: They (my kids) love DA:O, they are still playing it (just like their mother), but they are no longer playing DA 2. I guess I have to start hiding my VtM:B game again.

[Edli]

TC you're making the same mistake EA made. How hardcore rpgs are enjoyed only from those dying audience of old grumps. That's not true at all. We were kids too when we first got into rpgs. Complicated and deep games and that's why we loved them. There are just different audiences where age have little to do with. I have old grump friends who like only simple games for example.

Look at Blizzard with starcraft. It didn't try to cater to everyone for fear of old strategy players dying off. Blizzard knows that new folks will come and the only way to attract them is not to make a shallow and simple game like they used to play before but a deep and complex one. It knows that there will always be peoples that like these kind of games, both old and new folks.

Modifié par Edli, 17 avril 2011 - 02:16 .

[DASockDA]

I'd like to add that I got into RPGs because my dad played them. The first game I was interested in was Darklands. He told me "You wouldn't like this, it involves a lot of reading." I -still- have fond memories of not understanding how to play that game, and always dying constantly. I had no clue on how to actually play it, but for all of that... I enjoyed it. It spread from there.

To say that the people who grew on on Baldur's Gate are dying out and a dead end... is false. They breed, too. Some of them have more than one kid. And you should -never- underestimate the parent-worship a child has. They will want to like anything their parents like.

After all, DA:O was a great success, and it was as pure an RPG as you can get these days.

[Dokarqt]

Shadowbanner wrote...

 It caters to a, let's call them politely, discerning player class which are now in their late thirties or even older. Yes, them type who actually did play Baldur's Gate in its heyday

Hey, I was a bigtime BG1 nerd in its "heyday" and im only 22:huh:

[Dokarqt]

Also,

DASockDA wrote...
 And you should -never- underestimate the parent-worship a child has. They will want to like anything their parents like.

...whaat? 

[Dragoonlordz]

Sabriana wrote...

Aermord wrote...

Thank you for your post. It's a good analysis.

However Dragon Age Origins could not have been hugely succesful if it only appealed to the "old crowd" because "we" are simply not enough to generate this kind of sale. I'm a teacher and there are young students at my school who absolutely loved Dragon Age Origins and the same students ended up hating DA2 as well.

Us "old guys" might be on the path to the grave, but it is my impression that new players of the traditional RPG genre are born at a quick pace. They will be just as loyal as we have been when they discover that a great game is not just one based on hack and slash and pretty graphics. - But a game that can challenge them and create a deep story where they can be the hero.

True. I can say the same thing. I've been playing RPG's and I love them. My kids watched me, and when they were old enough, they started playing them. They (and many of their friends) are now also RPG fans. Their ages are pre-teen and teen, as are their friends.

So, we are not dying out, because the next generation of RPG fans is coming up. Sure, they also play FPS games, but as my teen so succinctly stated: "If I want to play a FPS, I go get a real one. I don't like "tweeners"

Side note: They (my kids) love DA:O, they are still playing it (just like their mother), but they are no longer playing DA 2. I guess I have to start hiding my VtM:B game again.

Just like EA, I don't think they realise that DA is rated 18+ (M) game. They try to pull in those tweens and make a game they shouldn't be playing. End result is as we have now bunch of gangsta wannabe cursing and swearing kids all hanging out on street corners at night. I heard kid aged around 4y/o out on streets telling strangers to suck his **** and f*** off, I asked him where he learned to say such things... Go figure, was games his mommy bought him. Parenting FTL.

[Sabriana]

Well, I am their mother, and I am last instance before approval. There are movies and games out there that are rated PG 13 that I absolutely forbid my kids to watch. They can recommend all they want, but I am the decision maker. If I find it alright for my kids, then my word goes.

Over here, the violence is turned down in games, but we don't mind sex. As long as it's not hardcore porn, of course.

It's not as if I'm allowing/encourage them to drink booze, smoke or do drugs.

[DASockDA]

Dokarqt wrote...


Also,

DASockDA wrote...
 And you should -never- underestimate the parent-worship a child has. They will want to like anything their parents like.

...whaat? 

Was thinking about how I was when I got into RPGs. When I was seven or so. When they're young, they will want to absorb -anything- their parents like.

[AkiKishi]

If you think "kids" don't play traditional RPGs then that's a misconception. Pokemon is about as traditional as RPG mechanics get.

It's turnbased, it has recruitable party members,it has character growth, it has skills and abilities. That's just scratching the surface. It also has other traditional elements like long multilevel dungeons and side quests.

It's also selling like crazy. The next generation of RPG gamers is not playing CoD , they are playing Pokemon.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 17 avril 2011 - 02:36 .

[Dragoonlordz]

BobSmith101 wrote...

If you think "kids" don't play traditional RPGs then that's a misconception. Pokemon is about as traditional as RPG mechanics get.

It's turnbased, it has recruitable parrt members,it has character growth, it has skills and abilities. That's just scratching the surface. It also has other traditional elements like long multilevel dungeons and side quests.

It's also selling like crazy. The next generation of RPG gamers is not playing CoD , they are playing Pokemon.

Sshhhh! I don't want Mike reading that. I'm sure he would find a way to impliment it. Instead of recruiting party members would end up having to go into the nearest long grass and capture them.

[Stinkface27]

Well-written post, and probably not far from the truth of it. Nobody wants to think that they're getting the brush off from their favorite developer in exchange for a new audience but it's hard to ignore that that is possibly partially the case. I don't think you give the average console player enough credit, though. I think that most of the overly-streamlined features we see in DA2 are not a result of EA trying to rope in the "COD crowd", but the result of a rushed product. There's no reason that somebody who plays primarily consoles, or somebody who is mostly a casual player would be perplexed by an inventory system (your example).

I like to think that there can be a good product at this middle ground between massive crowd-pleaser and deep, intricate RPG. I don't think they need to divorce the old crowd or completely adopt a new one, and if you ask me Mass Effect 2 is a perfect example of that. That's not a popular opinion though, I know. My fingers are crossed for ME3 to do an even better job of that.

[Aermord]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

...The next generation of RPG gamers is not playing CoD , they are playing Pokemon.

Sshhhh! I don't want Mike reading that. I'm sure he would find a way to impliment it. Instead of recruiting party members would end up having to go into the nearest long grass and capture them.

ROFL.. that made my day. Speak of appealing to a larger audience.

[abaris]

Shadowbanner wrote...


I believe BioWare chose to expand its existing fanbase and reach out for casual players (consol-like). They decided that it was a worthwhile tradeoff to sacrifice a few old grumpy diehard hard-core RPG fans in exchange of appealing to a much larger, younger crowd and in the process make more money. (EA approves this paragraph)

And if that's true, its a crucial mistake, probably made by suits, backed up by some expensive surveys.

But ask yourself this: If you're a fan of Mozart, would you buy a Kenny Rogers CD? Or Kenny Rogers doing Mozart?

That's what it comes to. Kenny Rogers fans probably don't want him to sing Papageno and I guess opera fans won't want to listen to Kenny Rogers singing Papageno either.

And that's what they try just now. You can't please both sides with one strike.

[AkiKishi]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

If you think "kids" don't play traditional RPGs then that's a misconception. Pokemon is about as traditional as RPG mechanics get.

It's turnbased, it has recruitable parrt members,it has character growth, it has skills and abilities. That's just scratching the surface. It also has other traditional elements like long multilevel dungeons and side quests.

It's also selling like crazy. The next generation of RPG gamers is not playing CoD , they are playing Pokemon.

Sshhhh! I don't want Mike reading that. I'm sure he would find a way to impliment it. Instead of recruiting party members would end up having to go into the nearest long grass and capture them.

I'd rather he was "inspired" by  Pokemon than CoD.

[mdugger12]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I prefer my first person narrative player vs. third person narrative player theory.

Many previous Bioware games were in my opinion implicitly third person narratives. But they didn't go so far as to demand that everyone have this view. Adding a voiceover and a paraphrase system makes the games explicitly third person. So if you always played Bioware games as a third person narrative, this doesn't bother you and is possibly seen as an improvement. If you always played Bioware games as a first person narrative, this is a radical departure.

In terms of the feel of combat and the aesthetics of the animations and such, I don't think that's indicative of much else beyond simple aesthetic preference. If you mod out the exploding bodies, or don't have a DW rogue on your team, the game looks really damn close to Origins, it's just faster.

This is one of the underlying issues that really explains why people are so split on this game.
 
I think alot goes into the different perceptions of what was great about DA:O. While obviously there was plenty for the "hardcore fans" to love the original game also had tons of things that appealed to so-called "mainstream" console gamers. For an afterthought port to sell 3.2 million on consoles you have to know that a large portion of those numbers weren't because of any "old school RPG" sensibilities the original may have had. 

Also, for a lot of the console fans that may not have been fans of  Bioware's PC titles, there was a lot of brand goodwill built up from Mass Effect. Which, while ME admittedly is a bit of a different experience than DA:O, there are enough similar elements that a fan could be more than satisfied.

So while it may seem like there were all these big changes most of the issues people have with the game are either elements that were actually present in DA:O just not as blatant, or elements that a large portion of Bioware or DA:O fans saw as a natural progression rather than something shocking.

DA 2 didn't go in some new direction to pander to some younger market or casual fans. They made a few concessions to fans that, while so called "hardcore gamers" may be dismissive of, were fans of the original too and were just as instrumental in that games success as the old school gamers.

Modifié par mdugger12, 17 avril 2011 - 02:48 .

[upsettingshorts]

Yup, I've been around since BG1, but since I've always played them as third person games the introduction of a VA and paraphrase don't seem like a big deal to me and something of a natural step forward.  In fact, if I had never started posting on or reading the BSN, it wouldn't have occurred to me that anyone thought otherwise. The fact that many simply assume that such changes could only possibly appeal to some "new" audience implies that those who treated such games as a first person narrative may not have realized that there has always been another way to approach Bioware games either.  That isn't to dismiss that playstyle, far from it, only that there have always been two valid ways to play and that for one of them the introduction of a VA/paraphrase/cinematics isn't as big a change as it would be to the other one.

Fact is Bioware's recent offerings are polarizing because they basically made a choice. That choice was to make the third person experience explicit. This is usually associated with the "cinematic" buzzword. That's why you get some people who really love it (third person) and some people who really hate it (first person) and not a lot of middle ground - which is what polarizing means - because Bioware has effectively chosen a playstyle to endorse with their feature changes after implicitly supporting both.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 17 avril 2011 - 02:52 .

[Mirage III]

I think DA3 should be more streamlined.
1. Why bother with all this useless armor and weapons, just give to main protagonist one weapon and one armor, it's enough. Something that upgradeable with level-up.
2. Tooo many dialogue options. One answer = more fun. Oneliners like in Hollywood blockbusters.
3. Cross-class combos are too difficult, like spell combos in DA: O. People need more simplicity.
4. Where the hell mature sex scenes?! What is it? Is DA2 rated E, for everyone?

[Tirigon]

Yes, indeeed.

Long story short: DA2 failed. Anything new?