139 réponses à ce sujet

[BrainDiver]

Dragon Age should never, in any way, be like COD. Trying to capture that audience was their mistake. I should know, my brother is the usual casual type gamer who plays COD and Need for Speed, in his words DA2 is "nerdy ****", he didn't even like being near the game. Fantasy games are nerdy, RPG's are mostly nerdy, the perception is already there why on earth try to shift is when there is an eager, already established fan-base.

[v_ware]

Interesting and very true.

[FellowerOfOdin]

slimgrin wrote...

 "Many fans of Call of Duty don’t give a crap about Dragon Age -- or very likely Portal for that matter -- and no amount of pandering is going to get them to care."

Someone imprint that on Mike Laidlaw's head.

[Shadowbanner]

SoR82 wrote...

ME3 will still do alright I believe as hopefully a certain ninja loving.... person wont be allowed near it....

Amen to that. Casey, you hearing?

[blothulfur]

What did we do wrong, we bought all your games and dlc and raved about it to all our mates.

Oh bioware why hast thou forsaken me.

Limps off down the street sobbing, ringing his little bell and shouting out "unclean rpg player, unclean".

[Sir JK]

In my humble opinion: The point of the article is part ridiculous and part just what they did. The notion that games shouldn't change in order to not alienate former fans... well sure, it sounds nice. But is it really that realistic? Of those X that bought the game, how many did decide not to continue following that series? How many shrugged their shoulders and thought: "hey, it was okay. Not good. Just okay". How many absolutely hated it?
The notion that DA2 shouldn't have to outsell DAO because 3 million is okay. Sure, until you realise that if you made a copy of DAO it would not sell 3 million units. A significant sum of those fans probably wouldn't have bought a identical sequel. It would have sold less no matter how true it was to the original.

I mean, just think about it. How many of those supposed 3 million are actually professing to the world how much they loved the game? A couple of hundred? A few thousand at most? Is it even 1 % of the fans that loved DAO to bits?

DA2 would have to stride to outdo the original. Anything else would be to accept a loss in customers. Which is a poor business practise and a very unfair treatment of the customers that wnat a sequel.

In short: What worked for a original is not guaranteed to work just as good in a sequel.

The second point that they should just improve on the original... I say that's what they tried to. Did they succeed? That's subjective. But they did try to build on Origins. They tried to expand companion relations, tried to make it better. DAO's combat system was widely regarded as rather stiff, and they tried to improve it. But to improve things they must change. Sometimes you change it just right. Sometimes you change it and people are divided about it. Sometimes most hate it. All you can do is to make what you think is good and hope people will agree.
One example given in the article is BG and BG2. Stating things did not change at all. This is in fact incorrect. For one, companion interaction was massively expanded. Another is that DnD high levels plays differently than DnD lowlevels. A third is that the travel system was changed from a series of connected maps to a few key locations. A fourth is the addition of semi-voiced lines of npc and companions. A fifth is romances. A sixth is the change of plot (progressed into a second story arch). A seventh a change of scenery. An eight is that the number of possible companions was lowered in return for greater characterisation. There's more I'm sure. But all those were changes. Many of us probably think of them as improvements. But there were no doubt many who didn't.
You can't improve a game without changing it. And it will alienate people. The author of the article doesn't seem to realise that in portal2 he just liked the changes wheras in DA2 he didn't.

However, a game series that won't change, won't innovate, will die. One should no doubt be careful about what to change and what not. But a lot of people who thinks DA2 failed and looks at the sales figures as confirmation of this makes one fatal flaw:

They assume it sold worse because people thought like they did.

Most likely, people didn't buy DA2 for all numbers of reasons. That they loved the original and hated the changes most likely being no more than a tiny group out of many.

As a final note to dwell on: Was Portal 2 such a succes because it retained all the old fans, or because it attracted so many new ones? Just food for thought.

[mykeme]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

 "Many fans of Call of Duty don’t give a crap about Dragon Age -- or very likely Portal for that matter -- and no amount of pandering is going to get them to care."

Someone imprint that on Mike Laidlaw's head.

QFT.


Mass Effect 3 will not disappoint because it is (has been up till this point) consistent with what it offers and delivers, indivudial DLC failures aside. Also, Hudson > Laidlaw. Should've stuck to making sh*tty ports for consoles.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I think you can build on the original. The problem was that Dragon Age 2 massively changed the original. What you see in good sequels is take some concepts that are in the original and expand upon them.

No one likes games that are carbon copies, but there's nothing wrong with keeping to the fundamentals of the game while adding to it. As opposed to changing the fundamentals of the game.

I am loathe to use another Witcher 2 example since the game isn't even out yet, but I will use Assassin's Creed 2 as an example.

Name one core aspect of the original that was taken out or changed wholesale in Assassin's Creed 2.

Now name all the things they added or expanded to the game.

Now compare that with Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age 2.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 01 mai 2011 - 10:19 .

[Stegoceras]

Sir JK wrote...

In my humble opinion: The point of the article is part ridiculous and part just what they did. The notion that games shouldn't change in order to not alienate former fans... well sure, it sounds nice. But is it really that realistic? Of those X that bought the game, how many did decide not to continue following that series? How many shrugged their shoulders and thought: "hey, it was okay. Not good. Just okay". How many absolutely hated it?
The notion that DA2 shouldn't have to outsell DAO because 3 million is okay. Sure, until you realise that if you made a copy of DAO it would not sell 3 million units. A significant sum of those fans probably wouldn't have bought a identical sequel. It would have sold less no matter how true it was to the original. (please refer to the original post for the rest of the text)

Your opinion on the matter has merit, however judging by what you say, a sequel could never attract new players unless they either change (a lot) the game. However is it really impossible for someone to have played for example half-life 2 without having played half-life or Warcraft 3 without playing 1 or 2 or commandos 2 without playing 1. You seem to believe that players who played the first might decide not the buy the game but you don't talk about it vice versa (people who didn't play the first who will buy the second). A game can improve on it's predecessor without changing it's fundamentals and still attract new players.

Modifié par Stegoceras, 01 mai 2011 - 10:44 .

[Sir JK]

Stegoceras: Yes. That is true. It is certainly possible for new players to come in to a sequel and love features that were unchanged from the original. No doubt about it.

But regardless if this happens or not. Many who bought the original will not buy a sequel (for lots of reasons. Some completely unrelated to the game itself). You can't count on the new ones coming in to be a larger group than those who left. So you have to build on the strengths and change the flaws. Some things will have to be sacreficed, some adjusted, some unchanged.

In a way. A great sequel doesn't adjust the original's balance, but forms it's own new one. They don't stand on the original's shoulders, but are great games in their own rights...
And to do that... they have to be built from the ground up.

[bti79]

I do hope DA:O ends up outselling DA2, because it is the better game of the two by far. If that is the case, or even if DA2 only outsells DA:O by a slight margin, then I think it should give cause for some serious evaluation by Bioware, on how to get back on track and protect the franchise.

DA2 had the huge success of one of the best (if not the best) CPRG ever made to rest on. DAO had only the Bioware brand and quality to going for it.

I imagine a lot of fans of the series brought DA2 only because it's called DA and had Flemeth in the advertising. Given how things turned out, many are also with good reason rather upset.

DA3 will have the shadow of disappointment from DA2 hanging over it, so it will need to prove itself, even more so than DA:O, who had no such baggage. There is only one answer I think - back to basics - Bioware needs to go back and 
1) Bring back DA:O game mechanics and incorporate some of the elements from DA2 that the fans liked. (which in particular is NOT spawning ninjas and recycled areas, in case anyone was wondering)
2) Bring back DA:O style storytelling - more grand/epic storytelling true to the Bioware CRPG tradition.
3) Follow up on the leads left open by DA:O (surely there is a signifigent fanbase that will buy DA3 if for no other reason then to see Morrigan, Warden, Flemeth, Alistair, and other of those epic characters again) - and more than 5 minutes this time - after Witch Hunt and DA2, surely we have learned to be vigilant

Modifié par bti79, 01 mai 2011 - 11:08 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Sir JK wrote...

Stegoceras: Yes. That is true. It is certainly possible for new players to come in to a sequel and love features that were unchanged from the original. No doubt about it.

But regardless if this happens or not. Many who bought the original will not buy a sequel (for lots of reasons. Some completely unrelated to the game itself). You can't count on the new ones coming in to be a larger group than those who left. So you have to build on the strengths and change the flaws. Some things will have to be sacreficed, some adjusted, some unchanged.

In a way. A great sequel doesn't adjust the original's balance, but forms it's own new one. They don't stand on the original's shoulders, but are great games in their own rights...
And to do that... they have to be built from the ground up.

I'm confused. You say that sequels need to build on the strengths of the original (the core fundamentals on a good original) and change the flaws. Then you say that sequels need to be rebuilt from the ground up.

Those are two conflicting opinions.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 01 mai 2011 - 10:58 .

[bti79]

dp

Modifié par bti79, 01 mai 2011 - 10:58 .

[Tommy6860]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Altima Darkspells wrote...

You mean sequels shouldn't change genres from their predecessor? You're clearly talking crazy.

You wait. DA3 will try to bring in the RTS fans.

Civilization: Thedas edition!

LOL! :lol::lol:

What's next, The Sims: Forgotten Realms!

[Sir JK]

mrcrusty wrote...
I'm confused. You say that sequels need to build on the strengths of the original (the core fundamentals on a good original) and change the flaws. Then you say that sequels need to be rebuilt from the ground up.

Those are two conflicting opinions.

Yes, I do suppose it looked like a leap of logic.

What lacked was a "what makes a good game is never one single feature, but all of them together" step. So when you change something you have to adjust everything in regards to it. Put all the jigsaw pieces together into a new picture, not the old picture. A similar one. But a new one nonetheless. Find a new balance that's great. Not try to remake the old great balance.

So my point was: A new game needs to be a new picture. Building on the strengths of the old one, changing the flaws of the old one. But it cannot be the old one with adjustments. To be great it needs to be great on it's own.

Do my argument make sense now?

[Stegoceras]

@Sir JK

All true, A sequel needs to be able to stand on it's own legs and to do this it's best to start from the bottom. However if you have a (watch out awful analogy following) good bridge behind you, why do you want to try to build a new from memory instead of taking a peek where the last one failed and succeeded and use that information to build a better one.

To bring it back on topic of DA2, which seems to share little more with it's predecessor than it's name, why did they opt for the "new bridge from memory" approach instead of staying closer to the fundamentals of it's predecessor. (To me saying DA2 plays the same as DA:O is saying that Gothic 4 plays the same as Gothic 2 for that matter). In the end a game that shares the same fundamentals is not necessarily a non-sale, I think the past has proven quite the opposite actually.

Modifié par Stegoceras, 01 mai 2011 - 11:10 .

[Tommy6860]

Sir JK wrote...

In my humble opinion: The point of the article is part ridiculous and part just what they did. The notion that games shouldn't change in order to not alienate former fans... well sure, it sounds nice. But is it really that realistic? Of those X that bought the game, how many did decide not to continue following that series? How many shrugged their shoulders and thought: "hey, it was okay. Not good. Just okay". How many absolutely hated it?
.

Sorry, but I disagree with this notion. Most here that are disppointed with DA2 are not with the change, it's the fact that it doesn't play like it was advertised, that being a sequel. Very few expected another Origins, but they did expect similar gameply styles in the RPG mode; DA2 does not play like an RPG.

Following your logic, how well has the COD series done with each iteration? It seems that it never changes, but each year the sales are bigger and bigger with each new release. If they changed COD into an action/adventure game, do you think it would maintain sales after getting panned by the shooter crowd after it were released? Sales would tumble, jsut like DA2 did after fans expressed their distaste for the direction it took. Even ME3 is supposedly going back to much of Mass Effect's RPG aspects that ME2 went away from, because of the fan base.

[Foolsfolly]

Harmless Crunch wrote...

I seem to be the only person who liked the changes.
I liked all of these new things.
-The atmosphere still felt distinctly Dragon age.
-The new Freind/Rival system
-The faster combat
-How many twist and turns in the plot
-A voice protaginist
I could go on for quite a while but all of this new (And good imo) stuff was poorly implemented and rushed.
I dont hate Laidlaw or anybody else who changed the direction of the franchise.

I'm dissapointed in EA who rushed the game and dissapointed many.

Hopefully they know now that this is unaceptable to expect us to pay a large amount of money were the game is half-complete, buggy and a all 'round mess.

P.S. I'm not a DA2 hater, infact I love it more than DA:O and I like the new changes for the series, what I despise is EA trying to make quick buck or two out of a amazing fanchise and the best dev in the industry.
/Rant

I agree with everything you listed except for the plot twists and turns. The barely there (arguably absent) plot had no twist or turns except for that one explosive event.

So it's only fair to say, you liked the twist.

I like many of the changes. I like the art direction. I like a lot of the mechanics (if they ran as intended and are not glitched). What I cannot stand is the disjointed unfocused plot.

That's my problem with the game. There's no story to engage me. The rest, the mechanics and everything, I don't care about a fourth as much. That's just window dressing. I play multiple genres and the mechanics of a game don't concern me (if they're fine tuned. If the game's a shooter it needs to do shooting well, if it's a racing game it needs to do racing well).

Well, that and the level design is for **** because their budget seems to be 100 dollars. Use copy-paste everything! Leave the city unchanged! We built it once already! 

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Sir JK wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...
I'm confused. You say that sequels need to build on the strengths of the original (the core fundamentals on a good original) and change the flaws. Then you say that sequels need to be rebuilt from the ground up.

Those are two conflicting opinions.

Yes, I do suppose it looked like a leap of logic.

What lacked was a "what makes a good game is never one single feature, but all of them together" step. So when you change something you have to adjust everything in regards to it. Put all the jigsaw pieces together into a new picture, not the old picture. A similar one. But a new one nonetheless. Find a new balance that's great. Not try to remake the old great balance.

So my point was: A new game needs to be a new picture. Building on the strengths of the old one, changing the flaws of the old one. But it cannot be the old one with adjustments. To be great it needs to be great on it's own.

Do my argument make sense now?

Fair enough. To be perfectly honest, I just wanted to catch you out making said leap. Sorry.

Anyways, I agree, but there are different ways to go about it. I felt as if Dragon Age 2 was designed not so much to build on those strengths, but how best can the core game be changed to fit a different audience (or expanded). When you say "build on it's strengths", you need to have design principles of a philosophy of what constitutes as good elements and how to improve said elements. But if your design philosophy changes, then the perception of what is good, what is considered a strength and what is considered a flaw, is changed.

A lot of people (though far from all) feel as if these underlying philosophies have changed inbetween Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age 2.

What the previous philosophies were and what they are now, I won't care to comment, because I don't know.

But the reason people are angry isn't really because the sequel has changes from the original, it's because these changes came as a result of different underlying philosophies. Now, maybe we're wrong and this is what Bioware wants all along. I don't know.

But what I do know is that no one, even the most ardent Dragon Age 2 fans, want to argue that the re-used maps or lifeless Kirkwall, or non reacting NPCs are things you'd call a positive step in the right direction.

[Foolsfolly]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

In my humble opinion: The point of the article is part ridiculous and part just what they did. The notion that games shouldn't change in order to not alienate former fans... well sure, it sounds nice. But is it really that realistic? Of those X that bought the game, how many did decide not to continue following that series? How many shrugged their shoulders and thought: "hey, it was okay. Not good. Just okay". How many absolutely hated it?
.

Sorry, but I disagree with this notion. Most here that are disppointed with DA2 are not with the change, it's the fact that it doesn't play like it was advertised, that being a sequel. Very few expected another Origins, but they did expect similar gameply styles in the RPG mode; DA2 does not play like an RPG.

Following your logic, how well has the COD series done with each iteration? It seems that it never changes, but each year the sales are bigger and bigger with each new release. If they changed COD into an action/adventure game, do you think it would maintain sales after getting panned by the shooter crowd after it were released? Sales would tumble, jsut like DA2 did after fans expressed their distaste for the direction it took. Even ME3 is supposedly going back to much of Mass Effect's RPG aspects that ME2 went away from, because of the fan base.

Don't bad talk a genre you know nothing about. COD's changed greatly over the years. In fact, one the biggest changes they did came with Modern Warfare which revitalized the whole series.

All game series change and evolve over time.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Oh, just a little aside. As some who's been playing CoD since the very beginning, Modern Warfare really changed the series in a big way. Not just the modern setting, it added a lot to the games.