3 réponses à ce sujet

[KilrB]

This is not intended as a rant thread, nor a discussion of all that is right or wrong with DA2.

There are more than enough of those currently, and sure to be many more.

I would like to see some reasoned discussion on what can be done about it.

Yes, I know there are other threads about that too.

If there is one thing clear above all else in these fora, and elsewhere, it is that the direction taken in DA2 has

caused a great divide among us.

It has alienated many of us who consider ourselves "old-school" or "hard-core" ©RPG players.

We can argue about whether either term truly applies to DA:O elswhere.

The response from EAware, to this point, has done nothing but exacerbate these feelings of outrage and alienation.

They cannot, or will not, admit they have made a big mistake.

On the other hand there are those who like the game in spite of, or because of, those elements that others see as

flawed.

I could wish that EAware abandon this new direction and get back to making ©RPG's with the next DA release but that is

not only extremely unlikely to happen but would inflict the same feelings I have about DA2 upon those who like it.

Add to this that EAware has not attracted the new customers, and their cash, that they had hoped for and it would seem

that (imo) they have painted themselves into a corner.

They need their, formerly, loyal customers.

They need new customers.

How can they please both and still make a profit?

I offer a possible solution.

EAware has expressed it's intent to make it's IPs generate year round income.

Many have taken this to mean yearly releases, with dlc content between releases.

IF this is so, and IF EAware cares, my proposal would be two developement teams.

One team to work on a more ©RPG centric game in the fashion of DA:O and the other to continue with the current

direction of DA2 in the action game venue.

They would have releases in alternate years, thus providing a 24 month developement cycle.

Plot and story could be interwoven between the two, along with dlc.

Yes, I know that some of you will bristle at the latter but, if GOOD STORY dlc for one genre were linked to the purchase

of a game from the other genre I would buy it. I will not purchase "horse armor".

I believe this would adequately satisfy both the fans and EAware.

Then again, I may not be able to see the forest for the trees.

I look forward to your critiques and, if necessary, rants.

[Stanley Woo]

Sure, it's all well and good to compare us to other, similar games, but please keep in mind that different developers will have made their games from different starting points and they will have necessarily different priorities. If Dragon Age II had had photorealistic graphics as one of its goals from the beginning, well, then you can betcha that we would have done our level best to achieve that goal. But photorealistic graphics--or, indeed, any particular style of graphics--are not an objective measure of game quality.

I find that it's just as misguided as measuring people's intelligence by the longest paper they've ever submitted to a teacher or deciding an applicant's value as a potential employee by how much he's spent on his interview suit..

Using photorealistic graphics and a subjective mark of quality (ie. a preference for such graphics) is perfectly understandable, but not every game uses (or requires) such fidelity in their visual imagery. Many people in this forum have touted Baldur's Gate to be one of, if not the best RPG they've played, and yet that game was not even in 3D, and the technology of a decade ago was somewhat primitive and expensive compared to today. Yet folks continue to use it as a benchmark of RPG quality.

Yes, there is likely a lot that BioWare could learn about other developers and how they make games, but it is just as valid to say that other developers have things they could learn from us. It just may not be the same things you are thinking of.

[Stanley Woo]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

No, of course not, and I think most of us would agree that no objective measure of quality exists beyond simple and obvious things like bugs.

Really, the main thing is probably that people enjoy it and buy it - those are the best measures we can get, and neither is really and truly the same thing as "quality".

Agreed. Games are meant to be entertaining and enjoyed. At their heart, they are, after all, games!

I find that it's just as misguided as measuring people's intelligence by the longest paper they've ever submitted to a teacher or deciding an applicant's value as a potential employee by how much he's spent on his interview suit..

It wasn't perfect, but it was certainly very very good. Baldur's Gate 2, by the way, better than BG, that's simple irrefutable objective fact.

Better in terms of quantifiable numbers, absolutely. Better in the subjective sense can be inferred, but may not necessarily be true. I have seen posts from people who seem to prefer BG graphics. Strange to you and me (and millions of others), I know, but then, some people like brussels sprouts, too.

In the meantime, The Witcher 2 is something we can all (tentatively) look forward to, including no doubt some of the developers and testers an BioWare.

Absolutely. It's looking like it will be an awesome game. The degree of success of The Witcher 2 ultimately has no bearing on whether or not the individual gamer liked or did not like Dragon Age II.

[Stanley Woo]

Since we're no longer discussing Dragon Age II in this thread, I'm shutting it down.

End of line.