498 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

Akka le Vil wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

You'd think so (that Bioware saw this coming a mile away), but given the defensive reactions of the lead Dev and Writer(s), I doubt this. I really think that Mike Lailow sincerely thought that his "vision" would sway all doubters once it actually was 'tried' by the market in spite of what anyone else tried to tell him (and yes the repetative environments were deliberate and Laidlow's idea...he has flat out said so...it wasn't an artifact of rushed dev time).

This feels much more like "damage control" going into frenzy because the big bosses at EA forced it and you can't really say "these a-hole just destroyed our work" when talking about the ones handing out your paycheck, than genuine blindness, to be honest.

I don't think you're entirely wrong. I think there is a LOT of CYA (in Corp speak) going on and I think that EA's decision to rush the title had an unfortunate impact. However, I think that this is deep in but not at the heart of the issue. Again, Mike Laidlaw is a fine designer, he knows what he likes, and he does what he likes well. Unfortunately RPGs aren't it and the hard core (and almost cultlike core) of the Dragon Age market is the hard core roleplayer. As such instead of accepting the limited time and refining what DAO did well and going from there (which would have been well received I think by the key market demographic that buys Dragon Age), Mike decided that he wanted to make DA2 in HIS image and to heck with what his marketers told him. I also think this desire dovetailed all too well with EA's corporate directive to try to tap into the shooter/CoD crowd since that was a much bigger market.

The reason I think we're seeing (at least IMHO and from what I can tell) a bunker mentality is not because the Bioware teams wants to shield themselves from EA's wrath (or at least it's not JUST that). I am getting a feeling from the lead Devs and Writers that they are talking this poor reception personally and that argues for a major change in philosophy that the Devs feel is right and good and the audience doesn't.

Such mismatches almost never end well.....

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 07 mai 2011 - 11:21 .

[wowpwnslol]

They expected it, but didn't care.

[IanPolaris]

wowpwnslol wrote...

They expected it, but didn't care.

I disagree.  Read the recent interviews of Mike Laidlaw.  Talk and read the posts by him, DG, and others.  They clearly do care and care very much.  Otherwise they wouldn't be taking it personally.  I am concerned they might be caring  about it in the wrong way.

If they didn't care, you would hear defening silence from the compnay and the BW team both here and the media writ large.  That hasn't been the case.

-Polaris

[Jerrybnsn]

Mike Laidlaw generic quote: "Is it something we've seen a lot of feedback on? Absolutely. Is it something we're going to look at in the future? Sure -- nothing is set in stone. But what I do think was the success of it was,......"

[Jerrybnsn]

Can you also explain the process of why the dungeon assets seem to get re-used a lot? That is one of the more prominent and universal sticking points from both reviewers and consumers.

ML: Absolutely, and I think it's a fair critique, and it's not one that I'm going to leave unaddressed, frankly. What we ran into was the situation where we had the ability to have more plots, more content, some side stuff that we knew would be optional, but we didn't have the assets to create entirely new levels for. So we took a long look at that, and said, "Is it important to have more content in the game, or is it important that the content be 100-percent unique?" So we tried to strike a balance, and tried to evaluate a good way to use this. I think the one thing that caught us a little bit off-side was, with the caves having much more interesting features than just "generic cave with left bend," -- you know, having things like collapsed or old masonry and so on -- is that end up probably creating a larger sense of repetition than we thought would originally occur. And the end result is something I look at and go, "Okay, I think that is a shame, and that is a fair critique, and something we can easily address in the future."

http://www.1up.com/f...?pager.offset=4

[IanPolaris]

Those quotes speak for themselves. Kudos.

-Polaris

Edit:  I'll stand partially corrected on a point.  The repetative environments were in part an artifact of the short Dev time, but they COULD have had simplier and more varied dungeons and it was ML that made that call and didn't think it would be a problem.    Just trying to keep it real.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 07 mai 2011 - 11:43 .

[wowpwnslol]

IanPolaris wrote...

I disagree.  Read the recent interviews of Mike Laidlaw.  Talk and read the posts by him, DG, and others.  They clearly do care and care very much.  Otherwise they wouldn't be taking it personally.  I am concerned they might be caring  about it in the wrong way.

If they didn't care, you would hear defening silence from the compnay and the BW team both here and the media writ large.  That hasn't been the case.

-Polaris

Oh please. All they care about is the bottom line. Why did they abandon Origins' winning formula instead of expanding and improving upon it? Why did they consolize and dumb down the game, despite the concerns of their fans?. Why did they try to "expand their target audience" (exact quote) even going as far as attempting to draw FPS crowds to the game? Why was the game rushed?

You didn't need to be a genious to see how this game would alienate classic RPG PC gamers. The only reason you see these sob inducing interviews is as part of damage control, attempting to placate the gullible suckers.

Modifié par wowpwnslol, 07 mai 2011 - 11:41 .

[Jerrybnsn]

I'm curious: do you think there's still room for a more, "grognard"-driven RPG in the vein of BG2 in the modern marketplace?

ML: It presents an intriguing thought experiment: is it viable to have a game that's closer to Baldur's Gate 2 in terms of the raw mechanics and execution? I don't think there's anything preventing it. However, I do think that, as a genre, if RPGs can't evolve and can't change -- and I know people yell at me for daring to use the word "evolve" -- but if they can't change or experiment, then the genre itself is going to stagnate. Not only in terms of mechanics, like in rehashes and stuff, which I think we mostly manage to avoid, but the bigger problem is that if we don't have RPGs that present a different type of experience, then we kind of encapsulate our potential audience to people who enjoy just that experience, and we drive others away


no more traditional RPG...get over it people

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 07 mai 2011 - 11:45 .

[faneriewar]

Taking notes from folks I know, that played DA:O and DA2.

Most common reasons for disliking portions of the game.

• Limited number of plot changing choices (Less appeal for numerous playthroughs)
• Reusing Dungeons (Got used to it during my first playthrough)
• Respawing AI during combat

To be honest, the recycled dungeons didn't bother me, because the story/quest was more interesting.

Bioware knew they would receive a backlash, but not to this extent.

[wowpwnslol]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

I'm curious: do you think there's still room for a more, "grognard"-driven RPG in the vein of BG2 in the modern marketplace?

No. BG2 was built on relatively complex DnD mechanics, which needed to be studied if one wished to master the game. It also came with some frustration as part of the reward for completing tough quests.

An average game of today is self-entitled, wanting "here and now", instant gratification, reward with no risk and/or frustration factor.

Gaming companies of today simply cannot afford to put out a game which will cater to very limited audience, it must be mainstream in other words.

WoW, for example, is one such game that slowly got casualized - the game got worse, but Blizzard got way more subscribers.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

I'm curious: do you think there's still room for a more, "grognard"-driven RPG in the vein of BG2 in the modern marketplace?

ML:
It presents an intriguing thought experiment: is it viable to have a
game that's closer to Baldur's Gate 2 in terms of the raw mechanics and
execution? I don't think there's anything preventing it. However, I do
think that, as a genre, if RPGs can't evolve and can't change -- and I
know people yell at me for daring to use the word "evolve" -- but if
they can't change or experiment, then the genre itself is going to
stagnate. Not only in terms of mechanics, like in rehashes and stuff,
which I think we mostly manage to avoid, but the bigger problem is that
if we don't have RPGs that present a different type of experience, then
we kind of encapsulate our potential audience to people who enjoy just
that experience, and we drive others away


no more traditional RPG...get over it people ../../../images/forum/emoticons/devil.png

Lol.

At least we still have Obsidian.

Which is actually fine, but they really need to stop getting rushed in development and they really really need a better QA team.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 07 mai 2011 - 11:55 .

[IanPolaris]

wowpwnslol wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I disagree.  Read the recent interviews of Mike Laidlaw.  Talk and read the posts by him, DG, and others.  They clearly do care and care very much.  Otherwise they wouldn't be taking it personally.  I am concerned they might be caring  about it in the wrong way.

If they didn't care, you would hear defening silence from the compnay and the BW team both here and the media writ large.  That hasn't been the case.

-Polaris

Oh please. All they care about is the bottom line. Why did they abandon Origins' winning formula instead of expanding and improving upon it? Why did they consolize and dumb down the game, despite the concerns of their fans?. Why did they try to "expand their target audience" (exact quote) even going as far as attempting to draw FPS crowds to the game? Why was the game rushed?

*sigh*  They DO care first and foremost about the bottom line.  I have no issue with that.  They aren't making the game out of charity after all.  If EA and BW weren't trying to make money off of Dragon Age, I'd have very serious issues with both.  [Bad things happen in a different way when you let 'creative instinct' override the bottom line.]

As for expanding the market, that's not a bad idea either.  Any decent company should always be trying to broaden the appeal of their product.  This is also good for RPers in principle because it hypothetically exposes more people to the RP experience.  As for the game being rushed, it was and I also believe it was done largely to cash in on DAO's success.  I will hold no punches from EA for that decision.

I think that minor changes could have been done to the DAO engine and scheme that woule appeal to the broader audience (at least a little) WITHOUT alienating DAO's core fans.  This is where I believe that Bioware make their key mistake.  (And this WAS Bioware's fault.......it was Bioware and specifically Laidlaw that had the final say as to how DA2 would be structured.  EA stayed out of it after giving the marching orders.)  This is a case where I think (and it's only my opinion) Mike decided to make the game HE thought he's like to play and "adjusted" DA accordingly to make DA2 and that IMHO was a huge error that alienated the core market for DAO.

You didn't need to be a genious to see how this game would alienate classic RPG PC gamers. The only reason you see these sob inducing interviews is as part of damage control, attempting to placate the gullible suckers.

It's obvious to you.  Frankly it's obvious to me too.  I am guessing that you (like me) are a hard core RPer.  Apparently, however, Mike Laidlow is NOT and thus it may well not have been obvious to him and in retrospect I doubt it was (at least not to this extent).

-Polaris

[LyndseyCousland]

Doubtful. People read into things the way they want to. So even if we see a backlash there's no guarantee they will. You know, unless it turns into a faecal avalanche.

[IanPolaris]

LyndseyCousland wrote...

Doubtful. People read into things the way they want to. So even if we see a backlash there's no guarantee they will. You know, unless it turns into a faecal avalanche.

I hate to say it, but I have to agree.  The Dev and Writing team for DA have clearly (at least by my reckoning) adoted a bunker mentality.  There is no way they will accept even modest criticism on these points.  If anything I strongly suspect they will talk themselves into compounding their error (which is why I worry about the upcoming DA2 DLC) and convince themselves that they didn't change DA2 from DAO enough.  (Yes, that's asinine on the face of it, but that's how people think in a bunker mentality...which is why IMX it almost never ends well)

Either we'll see the predictable crash and burn, or EA management will step in and kill the Franchise.  I hope I'm wrong, but that's how I see it.

-Polaris

[abaris]

IanPolaris wrote...

If anything I strongly suspect they will talk themselves into compounding their error (which is why I worry about the upcoming DA2 DLC) and convince themselves that they didn't change DA2 from DAO enough.  (Yes, that's asinine on the face of it, but that's how people think in a bunker mentality...which is why IMX it almost never ends well)

Either we'll see the predictable crash and burn, or EA management will step in and kill the Franchise.  I hope I'm wrong, but that's how I see it.

-Polaris

EA management, according to recent interviews, seem to be quite happy with the course taken - and they want it for ME3 too, "taking opportunity for larger market ... PR blahblah" included..

As for DLCs - when has there ever been a DLC really worth its money? You can count them on the fingers of one hand. For me, only Lair of the Shadow Broker comes to mind, everything else for the whole product line was only clothing, armor, weapons and similiar reduntant stuff.

[IanPolaris]

abaris wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

If anything I strongly suspect they will talk themselves into compounding their error (which is why I worry about the upcoming DA2 DLC) and convince themselves that they didn't change DA2 from DAO enough.  (Yes, that's asinine on the face of it, but that's how people think in a bunker mentality...which is why IMX it almost never ends well)

Either we'll see the predictable crash and burn, or EA management will step in and kill the Franchise.  I hope I'm wrong, but that's how I see it.

-Polaris

EA management, according to recent interviews, seem to be quite happy with the course taken - and they want it for ME3 too, "taking opportunity for larger market ... PR blahblah" included..

As for DLCs - when has there ever been a DLC really worth its money? You can count them on the fingers of one hand. For me, only Lair of the Shadow Broker comes to mind, everything else for the whole product line was only clothing, armor, weapons and similiar reduntant stuff.

Yeah, I read that too.  It's exactly what I'm afraid of.  The "new direction" may even work for ME3...We'll see...since that was always a more hybrid game anyway, but for DA, Bioware is courting a crash and burn.   I can see it, but I'm a hard core RPer....and it worries me a bit.  As for the DLCs, I really think most are worth the money either, but they are proverbial "canaries in the coal mine" and as such will (at least for me) serve as an early indicator if the DA2 team is really in the bunker mentality I think they might be.

-Polaris

[Shadowbanner]

Eterna5 wrote...

There's like 10 people here who complain about Dragon age on a regular basis, the rest are trolls.

This "backlash" isn't that big.

You must be joking.

Here, read this thread if you speak Spanish; the hundreds of disappointed DA:O fans who write in it, are they also trolls?

I think not.

Consolizacion en Dragon Age II

Do you think these people even know what 4Chan is? Do you think they've been influenced as well by 4Chan? Do you think they care? Meristation is the most important website in Spanish. It is in fact an editorial that opens the discussion on DA2.

Think again. Hundreds and hundreds of posts criticising DA2.

Modifié par Shadowbanner, 07 mai 2011 - 12:23 .

[Aaleel]

Well wasn't their goal for this game 4.5- 5 million in sales?

And Mike Laidlaw said they shoot for a 90 metacritic score. So based on how far they're going to fall short of those goals, something must be going through their heads.

Surprised my be a better word than stunned though.  They had to know by making this many changes their would be upset people, but they're probably suprised by the extent.

Modifié par Aaleel, 07 mai 2011 - 12:28 .

[Phaedros]

They must have been really stunned..

..to make some of the design decisions they did...

[IanPolaris]

Aaleel wrote...

Well wasn't their goal for this game 4.5- 5 million in sales?

And Mike Laidlaw said they shoot for a 90 metacritic score. So based on how far they're going to fall short of those goals, something must be going through their heads.

Surprised my be a better word than stunned though.  They had to know by making this many changes their would be upset people, but they're probably suprised by the extent.

I agree, but I don't think that the Dev team (and especially Mike) have really bothered to try to understand WHY they've failed to meet those expectations.  I strongly suspect (bunker mentality) that Mike will assume and go with the notion that they didn't change the game enough.

*wince*

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Phaedros wrote...

They must have been really stunned..

..to make some of the design decisions they did...

No.  I think it's undestandable if you look at it the right way.  I think the design decisions were dictated by:

1. A stupid short dev cycle time.
2. The assumption (and I do blame Mike Laidlaw for this) that if Mike Laidlaw like a change to make the game better for him that the gaming audience in general would agree.  (Which honestly shows abysmal ignorance of the market he inherited as well as some rather IMO shocking arrogance)

-Polaris

[Maria13]

Re: Consolizacion...

Actually it was 176 posts but still, very literate and very well argued, repeating the same things many disillusioned posters on these forums have said... And the original Spanish article itself is an extremely balanced assessment. Perhaps I should translate it.

Modifié par Maria13, 07 mai 2011 - 12:39 .

[Shadowbanner]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Can you also explain the process of why the dungeon assets seem to get re-used a lot? That is one of the more prominent and universal sticking points from both reviewers and consumers.

ML: Absolutely, and I think it's a fair critique, and it's not one that I'm going to leave unaddressed, frankly. What we ran into was the situation where we had the ability to have more plots, more content, some side stuff that we knew would be optional, but we didn't have the assets to create entirely new levels for. So we took a long look at that, and said, "Is it important to have more content in the game, or is it important that the content be 100-percent unique?" So we tried to strike a balance, and tried to evaluate a good way to use this. I think the one thing that caught us a little bit off-side was, with the caves having much more interesting features than just "generic cave with left bend," -- you know, having things like collapsed or old masonry and so on -- is that end up probably creating a larger sense of repetition than we thought would originally occur. And the end result is something I look at and go, "Okay, I think that is a shame, and that is a fair critique, and something we can easily address in the future."

http://www.1up.com/f...?pager.offset=4

That is actually a great reply and he would've been right if he actually had upheld what he says.

BUT more than half of the side quests in all 3 acts are mindless fedex quests which take 2 minutes to complete and are mind-numbing ("thank you for the leg Serah"). What on earth was the point of that? May as well NOT include it in the game.

Seriously, can anyone come out and honestly say they enjoyed these fetch-type side quests that litter the whole game? That's the "more" content he promised? It's just re-used assets for God's sake.

Modifié par Shadowbanner, 07 mai 2011 - 12:41 .