139 réponses à ce sujet

[EternalPink]

killstreaks were in UT2004 the last multiplayer FPS i ever really played, its not a new idea or one stolen from modders.

Perhaps part of the reason for the failure to get the CoD fanbase is that CoD is a multiplayer game so your not only trying to attract them to a different game (RPG) but also into single player games, I know people that play CoD and when they are after a change into a RPGish experience they load up a MMO like WoW or Warhammer rather than turn to single player games.

I don't think i've ever talked to anybody that plays games like CoD just for the single player side of it

Modifié par EternalPink, 01 mai 2011 - 11:39 .

[Merilsell]

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.

Making RPG's for people who don't play RPG's might not have been their best idea after all.  Most likely because those players give a flying rats ass about RPG's no matter how many times someone is telling them how BUTTONZAWESOMEZ it is. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/ninja.png[/smilie]

Modifié par Merilsell, 01 mai 2011 - 11:44 .

[bEVEsthda]

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?

As far as I'm concerned (sofar), your writings on the subject so far seem to be utter rubbish.
So possibly there is some communication miss here. But if there is, and you mean things on a different scale or axis than you seem to mean, then you have no argument because you would then seem to be discussing different things than other people here.

Now to clear up this: Give an example of a successful game franchise which illustrates your points.
That I may understand what you're talking about. Because I can't think of a single one, where the game is not centered around the mechanics themselves, i.e. Civilization etc (same game, updated graphics & mechanics).
Instead, I'd say successful franchises, like COD and the Infinity Engine games, proves you wrong.

[Sir JK]

Stegoceras: I'd argue that they did not change the fundamentals as much as presentation. DA2 still runs on the same principles as any other Bioware rpg. You have companions, which you can control. Combat is built on an underlying level and class based mechanics distributing various bonuses and powers that are allocated by the player with regular intervals. Combat is in focus, with much emphasis of using the party powers in combinations. The companions are interactable and have personal dramatic-stories to share with you, some of a romantic nature involving you. Personal equipment is a big part in resource management.
All the themes and support pillars that make Bioware games are there. All the fundamentals works, in principle, the same way. What is different is how they are presented. In some regards, profoundly different.

The bridge is still a bridge. It is even the same type of bridge. It is however, not crossing the same gorge. The decorations and how the keystones and supports are positioned are different. But based on the same ideas. Built on the ideas that made the old bridge.

Tommy6860: Then what exactly did this group expect beyond vague notions? Did they even all expect the same thing? Is there anything in common except that this "most here" are generally disappointed? Or perhaps more crucially: Is it even "most here". I don't mean to invalidate your opinion, or those that might feel as you do. But is it really that prevalent?

As for COD. Is COD doing well because it never changes, or because the changes are rather seamless? As for making it a Action/Adventure game... isn't that what it is nowadays? Sure it is a shooter too. But it is not a far stretch to actually class it as a action/adventure game.

In the same sense. Is the sales really tumbling because "the fans" are expressing their distaste for it. Is that really the only reason? I highly doubt it. I think there's thousands of factors, opinions, reasons and so on. Seeing something support one's position does not mean that position is true. And indeed. Maybe "the fans" (this vague, ill-defined, faceless, voiceless group) are disappointed because the game changed too much. Then again... if "they" were disappointed because it did not change enough... it would look the same.

mrcrusty: No worries. It was probably neccessary for me to add it regardless.

The problem with using "a lot of people" as support is that is a vague term. Is it "all who feels like I do" or "everyone who feels dissapointed" or "everyone" or just meaningless? People use it all over to support their critiscism of the game. But when it really boils down it it... it's just their critiscism. A lot of those "a lot of people" will probably have not agreed completely with a game that have suited you perfectly. And even if they did... how many are they of the total. Is it even remotely useful to call on them?

Is it philosophy or presentation you disagree with? If Bioware did something wrong, what was it and what would you have seen instead? Could it even have been done? Does anyone else want just that?

Do people really have a specific idea in mind... or are they just wanting the same feeling they felt when they played the original.? The sensation of nostalgia?

As for "lifeless kirkwall", re-used maps, non-reacting npc... those are more the result of a lack of resources than design philosophy. We'd have seen them regardless of how the game was made (except of course in the best of all possible worlds)

[EternalPink]

Linear unchangeable plot - Wrong

Slightly OT : but why is waffling on rather than concise posts to make a point in vogue at the moment?

[Sir JK]

bEVEsthda wrote...
Because I can't think of a single one, where the game is not centered around the mechanics themselves, i.e. Civilization etc (same game, updated graphics & mechanics)
Instead, I'd say successful franchises, like COD and the Infinity Engine games, proves you wrong.

Both CoD and the Infinity Engine games have undergone massive changes. You might feel they are less fundamental than the changes made to DA2, but they were massive.

Let me put it like this:
Baldur's Gate 1. Baldur's Gate 2. Planescape Torment. Icewind Dale. Icewind Dale 2.
Which of those is identical to any other?

Not one of them.
Similar in it's presentation perhaps. But ID1 and 2 operate under different DnD mechanics. BG is largely open, customizeable and uncharacterised compared to BG2s more directed, plot-driven and characterised approach. Planescape torment is almost a category on it's own.

Their only common denominator is that they all used infinity and were on some level based on DnD.

[Stegoceras]

Sir JK wrote...

Stegoceras: I'd argue that they did not change the fundamentals as much as presentation. DA2 still runs on the same principles as any other Bioware rpg. You have companions, which you can control. Combat is built on an underlying level and class based mechanics distributing various bonuses and powers that are allocated by the player with regular intervals. Combat is in focus, with much emphasis of using the party powers in combinations. The companions are interactable and have personal dramatic-stories to share with you, some of a romantic nature involving you. Personal equipment is a big part in resource management.
All the themes and support pillars that make Bioware games are there. All the fundamentals works, in principle, the same way. What is different is how they are presented. In some regards, profoundly different.

The bridge is still a bridge. It is even the same type of bridge. It is however, not crossing the same gorge. The decorations and how the keystones and supports are positioned are different. But based on the same ideas. Built on the ideas that made the old bridge.

Of course, Perhaps poor choice of words on my part, but I wasn't talking as DA2 sharing the fundamentals of any bioware game, but sharing the fundamentals of it's predecessor DA:O. Then perhaps fundamentals is the wrong word to pick here (non-native english speaker here) what I ment to say is that whatever the case may be an sequel tends to feel similar in play and feel as the predecessor whose name it carries, DA2 in my opinion and may only presume a fair few other felt that DA2 did not feel that way. If they wanted to change the game they should have done so in a new line or a spin-off line or whatever they could have come up with, the fact that they consciously decided to put a 2 behind the name of the game should have narrowed down the amount of change they wanted to incorporate.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Sir JK wrote...

snip

Well, obviously I can only speak for myself, but there are people who share my same basic opinion. Now, whether we make a majority or even a noticeable minority of people is something I do not know. In terms of what I disagree with for philosophy or presentation. I have no idea, it's a mix of both I suppose, and what makes it harder to distinguish between the two is the fact that it was rushed.

Now, as for nostalgia, I find it difficult to accept nostalgia as a legitimate reason. Origins is only a couple of years old, and I never felt that Origins was more than "solid concepts & design done really well". It certainly didn't whack me in the face like PS:T did. That game was simply amazing, my previous experience with RPGs before then being the Diablo games. It changed my perception on what cRPGs were and what they could do. I'd freely admit to being biased by nostalgia for that game, as I haven't played it in a number of years.

But not Origins, especially in comparison to Dragon Age 2.

I'll try and elaborate with a tl;dr post if I can be bothered or able to properly articulate my opinions.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 01 mai 2011 - 12:52 .

[Sir JK]

Stegoceras wrote...
Of course, Perhaps poor choice of words on my part, but I wasn't talking as DA2 sharing the fundamentals of any bioware game, but sharing the fundamentals of it's predecessor DA:O. Then perhaps fundamentals is the wrong word to pick here (non-native english speaker here) what I ment to say is that whatever the case may be an sequel tends to feel similar in play and feel as the predecessor whose name it carries, DA2 in my opinion and may only presume a fair few other felt that DA2 did not feel that way. If they wanted to change the game they should have done so in a new line or a spin-off line or whatever they could have come up with, the fact that they consciously decided to put a 2 behind the name of the game should have narrowed down the amount of change they wanted to incorporate.

Which sounds fair and all. They should have just built on what was good and improved what wasn't. Focused on trying to make DA2 better than DAO.

Like making combat less stiff. Making it more fluid, dymanic and exciting.
Making tactics between party members more important in combat.
Producing less classic "tank, heal and dps"-fights and adding some more excitment and thought behind it.
Not rehashing the same old "save the cheerleader kill the big bad, save the world"-plot.
Expanding on the character and role of the companions.
Continue with making the dialogue fun and engaging.
Improve the graphics and arts of the game.

See where I am going with this?
The things they changed were all things that were either good in DAO ("building on the good things") or were flawed and in need of improvement ("improve what wasn't good").
Some complaints are of course about things that weren't good enough... but most of those are due to a lack of resource rather than an intentional change and would have happened regardless. As much as we'd like to think so... they don't have infinity resources and no matter how they would have made the game... some things would still be low priority and in the same stage as they are.

Everyone is free to like or dislike parts of or all of the changes as they please. But they were changes that were to be expected to be made in a sequel. Better yet, they were changes that we (the collective) asked for.

[bEVEsthda]

And there is one thing I'd like to put in, concerning COD. If one envy the success of that franchise, one should perhaps have a feel of why it has succeeded, and have a feel for the COD community feelings for the franchise. The last is said because gamers just aren't so universally enthusiastic about where COD is going, as some publishers and marketing people assume. So take this from a COD gamer (yes I confess):

Many (theory based on me and everybody I know) COD players complain about exactly the same thing as players here complain about: Dumbing down instead of evolving. People keep buying the games because they know what they're getting, and they enjoy it enough. But the only thing that evolves in COD is graphics.
I have all the COD games. I have played all of them completely through and out. But I have not played a single full campaign twice.
Very important parts of COD is multiplayer and competition. These parts are enough to motivate a purchase of next game, in order to stay in touch with the community. This is true for both competitive players, and social players.

This should mean little to a RPG developer (outside the MMORPG perspective)
Mature RPG players are not (in my estimate, at least) very competitive. Competing is not the enjoyment they seek in RPGs. They may well be social, but online game societies tend to be rather dreadful experiences. Often they are dominated by teenagers sacrificing school, future professional life, offline social life, for a few years of full dedication to a game. Those teenagers often tend to be an abbrasive experience, at least to older players. 

That people keep buying COD does not mean that they're happier with COD4 than COD1. It does not mean that they approve. Just that they want more of similar experience.
The quality of the first COD was atmosphere and historical accuracy. It had loads of that. As a single campaign shooter it was rubbish. And COD have not changed in that regard. If anything they've gotten worse, with streamlining like auto health-regeneration etc. A COD game is so linear and scripted that the main gameplay element is guessing what the developers intended you to do next. If you don't do that, the script and game will not progress.
What has happened with COD is that many of the games have abandoned historical and realistic accuracy for 'awesome'-effects. And that the background stories have gone totally overboard in idiotic absurdity. (Don't even get me started on Black Ops  or Modern Warfare 2 ).
So how long will people keep buying COD games? I don't know. I'm certainly starting to get tired of what I see as diminishing 'seriousness' and realism of gameplay and story.

The COD franchise success is based on word of mouth and a clear recognition of what a COD game is. IMO, Dragon Age could have duplicated that success just by staying on coarse with DA:O. And done so on nice budgets and shedules, simply by keeping a lot of stuff. Instead they rushed Awakening, and trashed Witch Hunt, all so they could rush out a completely different Dragon Age 2 to a non-existant market.

Exactly what I've come to expect from EA , but still mindbogglingly stupid.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

EternalPink wrote...

Linear unchangeable plot - Wrong

Slightly OT : but why is waffling on rather than concise posts to make a point in vogue at the moment?

Waffling makes me sound intelligent. Plus it hides the rather low signal to noise ratio of my posts.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 01 mai 2011 - 01:06 .

[Foolsfolly]

So take this from a COD gamer (yes I confesshttp://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/blushing.png):

Many (theory based on me and everybody I know) COD players complain about exactly the same thing as players here complain about: Dumbing down instead of evolving. People keep buying the games because they know what they're getting, and they enjoy it enough. But the only thing that evolves in COD is graphics.
I have all the COD games. I have played all of them completely through and out. But I have not played a single full campaign twice.

Man, go to gamer sites period. Just gamers. Not genre specific sites. EVERY gamer complains about dumbing down stuff for the "noobs" or that dreaded term the "casual gamer."

**** those ****s! They're destroying our media! We lost our complexity and games are turned into too easy crap!

Gamers are like that. Gamers are really elitist. You're not a 'true gamer' or an 'RPG fan' if you don't agree with everything I say. You're a 'casual fan' a 'noob' a 'console gamer' or whatever else gamers use to talk down to other gamers.

[Stegoceras]

Sir JK wrote...
Which sounds fair and all. They should have just built on what was good and improved what wasn't. Focused on trying to make DA2 better than DAO.

Like making combat less stiff. Making it more fluid, dymanic and exciting.
Making tactics between party members more important in combat.
Producing less classic "tank, heal and dps"-fights and adding some more excitment and thought behind it.
Not rehashing the same old "save the cheerleader kill the big bad, save the world"-plot.
Expanding on the character and role of the companions.
Continue with making the dialogue fun and engaging.
Improve the graphics and arts of the game.

See where I am going with this?
The things they changed were all things that were either good in DAO ("building on the good things") or were flawed and in need of improvement ("improve what wasn't good").
Some complaints are of course about things that weren't good enough... but most of those are due to a lack of resource rather than an intentional change and would have happened regardless. As much as we'd like to think so... they don't have infinity resources and no matter how they would have made the game... some things would still be low priority and in the same stage as they are.

Everyone is free to like or dislike parts of or all of the changes as they please. But they were changes that were to be expected to be made in a sequel. Better yet, they were changes that we (the collective) asked for.

Haha, when you say it like that your 100% right, I disagree about 100% with you of course, but opinions differ and I'll leave it at that, further discussion about it isn't going to be much more constructive I think.

Everything is fair enough, except the bold bit would be up for debate, as apparently you did, but (if you read back our back and forth posting) I didn't.

[bEVEsthda]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Man, go to gamer sites period. Just gamers. Not genre specific sites. EVERY gamer complains about dumbing down stuff for the "noobs" or that dreaded term the "casual gamer."

And you think, somehow, that makes them not right? (in the sense that publishers have lost touch with what gamers actually want) A lot of recent games don't sell as well as expected. Nor is their streamlining appreciated. Meanwhile a totally different game like Minecraft pops out of the void.

Gamers are like that. Gamers are really elitist. You're not a 'true gamer' or an 'RPG fan' if you don't agree with everything I say. You're a 'casual fan' a 'noob' a 'console gamer' or whatever else gamers use to talk down to other gamers.

That's your theory. Actually, you're just trying to generalize people along some imagined stereotype. For what purpose is as of yet shrouded in mist, but generally when people do this, it's in order to dismiss something, so they can stick to their own old perception. What's yours?

[Foolsfolly]

And you think, somehow, that makes them not right?

Yeah. I do.

They've been complaining about that since the first net forum about games. Gamers are elitists, in general. They're the best of the game you're currently playing, they totally know everything about it, and then when the new game comes out and changes something (like say, all the units march at the pace of the slowest unit) then EVERYTHING IS RUINED FOREVER BECAUSE IT'S NOT WHAT I WAS GOOD AT BEFORE!

Or anything that streamlines a UI is somehow gamebreaking and dumbing down.

This has existed since I've had a net-presence. And good, even great, games have come out that people have mercilessly bashed for any reason and no reason at all. And about 70% of it comes down to blaming other gamers for existing.

[Naughty Bear]

Dragon Age 2 and Assassins Creed Brotherhood i believe had the same dev length.

AC: B turned out great, the story was perfectly woven into real history which would take me a great deal of time to get right, gameplay was perfect, graphics were improved over AC: 2 and overall is better.

[element eater]

good article thanks for putting it up it pretty much mirrors my own opinions regarding how sequels should be approached

[EternalPink]

Foolsfolly wrote...

And you think, somehow, that makes them not right?

Yeah. I do.

They've been complaining about that since the first net forum about games. Gamers are elitists, in general. They're the best of the game you're currently playing, they totally know everything about it, and then when the new game comes out and changes something (like say, all the units march at the pace of the slowest unit) then EVERYTHING IS RUINED FOREVER BECAUSE IT'S NOT WHAT I WAS GOOD AT BEFORE!

Or anything that streamlines a UI is somehow gamebreaking and dumbing down.

This has existed since I've had a net-presence. And good, even great, games have come out that people have mercilessly bashed for any reason and no reason at all. And about 70% of it comes down to blaming other gamers for existing.

lol so in the gaming industry unlike every other industry in existance it would be better if they ignore the customer.

When i first started using the net in 96 to play mechwarrior 2 on mplayer home internet connections were a rarity (in the UK atleast you had to pay for the call charge on your 28/56k dial up modem) so there were no casual gamers yet phrases like noob/newbie/nib (term used to define someone new to the game) were still used generally with "son" at the end of a sentence

although it was used to depict someones current level of skill at the game rather than a end all arguement winner as it seems to be used in most online games now

Modifié par EternalPink, 01 mai 2011 - 02:01 .

[jerst]

Foolsfolly wrote...

And you think, somehow, that makes them not right?

Yeah. I do.

They've been complaining about that since the first net forum about games. Gamers are elitists, in general. They're the best of the game you're currently playing, they totally know everything about it, and then when the new game comes out and changes something (like say, all the units march at the pace of the slowest unit) then EVERYTHING IS RUINED FOREVER BECAUSE IT'S NOT WHAT I WAS GOOD AT BEFORE!

Or anything that streamlines a UI is somehow gamebreaking and dumbing down.

This has existed since I've had a net-presence. And good, even great, games have come out that people have mercilessly bashed for any reason and no reason at all. And about 70% of it comes down to blaming other gamers for existing.

Well... It is not really about gamers, you'll see exactyl the same kind of topic about sport, books, tv-shows, movies, cooking recipes, dictionnary, language, cloths, music and so one.

Humans are elitist, and we were long before the mighty Internet. It's just that now, you're only one clic away from a different point of view.


And it is not a bad thing. It may sound silly and boring, but that's one of the core component of creativity.

[bEVEsthda]

Foolsfolly wrote...

And you think, somehow, that makes them not right?

Yeah. I do.

They've been complaining about that since the first net forum about games. Gamers are elitists, in general. They're the best of the game you're currently playing, they totally know everything about it, and then when the new game comes out and changes something (like say, all the units march at the pace of the slowest unit) then EVERYTHING IS RUINED FOREVER BECAUSE IT'S NOT WHAT I WAS GOOD AT BEFORE!

Or anything that streamlines a UI is somehow gamebreaking and dumbing down.

This has existed since I've had a net-presence. And good, even great, games have come out that people have mercilessly bashed for any reason and no reason at all. And about 70% of it comes down to blaming other gamers for existing.

You've painted yourself into a corner which you're never going to get out of. I mean, how are you going to ever learn what gamers appreciate about games with your mindset?

You're adding a lot of garbage into the discussion here. Yes, every game has its critics. That is certainly nothing strange or unexpected? What has that to do with anything?
You're also trying to use that to accociate arguments with me, which I never made, and and re-phrase my points for me.  

[Alex Kershaw]

Agreed

[Foolsfolly]

You've painted yourself into a corner which you're never going to get out of. I mean, how are you going to ever learn what gamers appreciate about games with your mindset?

I didn't know I was painting. I thought I was pissing time away on a forum. I have no responsibility to enlighten anyone.

Well... It is not really about gamers, you'll see exactyl the same kind of topic about sport, books, tv-shows, movies, cooking recipes, dictionnary, language, cloths, music and so one.

Humans are elitist, and we were long before the mighty Internet. It's just that now, you're only one clic away from a different point of view.

True enough. Reminds me of the definition of ignoramus in the Devil's Dictionary:

IGNORAMUS, n. A person unacquainted with certain kinds of knowledge familiar to yourself, and having certain other kinds that you know nothing about.

[Foolsfolly]

lol so in the gaming industry unlike every other industry in existance it would be better if they ignore the customer.

There's a saying taught to writers. "Tell your own story, if the audience knew what story they wanted to hear they'd write it themselves."

[Anathemic]

Sir JK wrote...

Stegoceras wrote...
Of course, Perhaps poor choice of words on my part, but I wasn't talking as DA2 sharing the fundamentals of any bioware game, but sharing the fundamentals of it's predecessor DA:O. Then perhaps fundamentals is the wrong word to pick here (non-native english speaker here) what I ment to say is that whatever the case may be an sequel tends to feel similar in play and feel as the predecessor whose name it carries, DA2 in my opinion and may only presume a fair few other felt that DA2 did not feel that way. If they wanted to change the game they should have done so in a new line or a spin-off line or whatever they could have come up with, the fact that they consciously decided to put a 2 behind the name of the game should have narrowed down the amount of change they wanted to incorporate.

Which sounds fair and all. They should have just built on what was good and improved what wasn't. Focused on trying to make DA2 better than DAO.

Like making combat less stiff. Making it more fluid, dymanic and exciting.
Making tactics between party members more important in combat.
Producing less classic "tank, heal and dps"-fights and adding some more excitment and thought behind it.
Not rehashing the same old "save the cheerleader kill the big bad, save the world"-plot.
Expanding on the character and role of the companions.
Continue with making the dialogue fun and engaging.
Improve the graphics and arts of the game.

See where I am going with this?
The things they changed were all things that were either good in DAO ("building on the good things") or were flawed and in need of improvement ("improve what wasn't good").
Some complaints are of course about things that weren't good enough... but most of those are due to a lack of resource rather than an intentional change and would have happened regardless. As much as we'd like to think so... they don't have infinity resources and no matter how they would have made the game... some things would still be low priority and in the same stage as they are.

Everyone is free to like or dislike parts of or all of the changes as they please. But they were changes that were to be expected to be made in a sequel. Better yet, they were changes that we (the collective) asked for.

I agree with the point you are trying ot make, but those changes you listed were really controversial if you remember pre-DA2. Not exactly a wise descision at a beginning of a franchise. ME2 might have succeeded but it doesn't mean that DA2 will (and it didn't).

I see you keep bringing up the "lack of resources." I'm pretty sure BioWare had all the resources it needed, the one thing they didn't have was development time. I don't know if it was EA who set the development time or BioWare being arrogant, either way it's the truth.

How do I know BioWare has sufficient resources? Well for one, they are under EA, y'know the one major game publisher competing with Activion Blizzard? And 2, look at their other current projects, Mass Effect and SW:TOR.

And to add on to it. If a Polish indie game dev can release TW1 back in 07 with BioWare's own Aurora Engine with not even a fourht of the budget for DA2 and make a great success.... yeah...

[Foolsfolly]

I see you keep bringing up the "lack of resources." I'm pretty sure BioWare had all the resources it needed, the one thing they didn't have was development time.

Time is a resource and even if it wasn't if they had more level designers we would have gotten more levels in that amount of time. I mean, nothing spectacular but can you imagine having at least another mansion level? Or if the Rose had its own layout?

I mean, a decently skilled modder can knock that out in a weekend.

I think the game was rushed. I don't think that's debatable. But I also think they didn't have enough resources. I'm reminded of a Gaider post where he said he wanted Fenris to be topless have the love scene and the artists saying they'd have to cut something else to make time to make that model.

I really think they didn't have the time or resources.