305 réponses à ce sujet

[Merilsell]

Sabriana wrote...

No matter how much time has passed, DA 2 is still the only bioware game that I uninstalled after 1 1/2 play-throughs. I simply couldn't force myself to finish the 2nd one. Sad, really.

Same here. Then I went back to Origin's and stopped caring for DA2 altogether *shrug*

So indifference paired with occasional snarky comments are my current state for that game. Don't think it will ever change though, especially not with so many other good games I have still have left to play.

[JamesMoriarty123]

Just uninstalled DA2 today, after it being sat on my HDD for the last few weeks unplayed, I even installed the patch but I just couldn't get excited enough about it to want to spend my valuable time playing it through again...and for me, thats UNHEARD OF in a Bioware game. Every Bioware game I've got I've finished 3 times at least.

With DA2 one playthough (pre-patch) was enough for me. The recycled environs and host of other design choices still make the game stale regardless of the improvements the patch purports to take care of.

I bought Arcanum : Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura for £2.50, probably have a better time with it, at the very least I can be assured I'm playing a game where my format (PC) and what I want out of a game (a PC Game) was considered.

[billy the squid]

CaptainBlackGold wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Snipped for brevity

[/i]Sadly, I won't get my hopes up for DA3 even if it is released, particularly if Laidlaw is the lead designer as his views on DAO are largely the opposite of mine. I don't think he's a bad chap, I just think he is wrong in the direction he took the game. Luckily CDProjekt with Witcher2 looks to have filled the gap, though I will wait and see if it does deliver.

Snipped again for brevity

First, to your entire post may I say, "Hallelujah - preach it brother!" with no sarcasm intended.

*snip* I tend to ramble somewhat so to prevent huge blocks of text on a page for a singe post...

 -

I am unsure as to what extent he actually believed that the direction that was taken was correct or not, but I suspect that many of the games designs and art concepts of the game would be made at the developer level rather than by EA, it is more likely that EA gives broad strokes as to what they expect from their development studios rather than controlling every aspect of a game's development, so a Mr. Laidlaw had control even if it was within paramiters set by EA. The EA board themselves have bigger things to worry about, particularly the financial stability of the company, losses, shareholder meetings, cuts and reinvestment etc.

Regarding the interviews, I agree that he couldn't bash DA2 even if he wanted to, although I don't think he would want to, without his career comming to a short drop and a sudden stop as the legal department at EA get involved and I don't think many employers would take on designers who lay the balme at the publisher's door, even if it belongs there. In short I don't envy his position and to some extent I can sympathise even if I don't condone the approach that the design team took in both terms of game design at the basic level and art concepts all the way through to story and implementation.

As an added point EA's method of operation seems to be to acquire a development studio and its IPs who have some good will attatched to the name before cashing in and attempting to force mainstream concepts into all projects by the developer irrespective of whether it works or not, without understanding the draw to a particular developer is composed of different core markets eg: RPG style for bioware etc. rather than a single amorphous blob which the company seems to view the game market. Its baffling that EA doesn't acquire seperate developers and keeps each one distinct for each genre in an attempt to dominate the seperate game genre markets rather than shift all developers into the main stream and so come into competition in an already over crowded market.

I will continue a little later, but i must be off. tata
Back again!

Anyway regarding EA's business strategy, I'm not stating this as gospel, rather it's some of my musings on the subject. It appears to rather short term in its outlook, as acquiring development studios is an expensive affair, so the desire to crank as much cash out of the asset in as quick a time possible is understandable. But, ultimately misguided in its approach, as it destroys any credibility and market share that the developer had and damages future revenue streams for EA as a publisher, rendering the asset value lower than the initial face value at purchase, should EA choose to sell the developer off at a later date, possibly why westwood was closed down rather than hived off.

I think looking at EA fiscal reports certainly a large portion of its acquisitions are going to be via leverage hence the debt has to be serviced from earnings over the period, like many PLCs , but considering that it has posted losses for I believe at least the last 3 years, the acquisition of Bioware looks like a quest to "find the goose that lays the golden egg" i.e  developer with a well respected barnd name, good track record and lucrative IPs, potentially not over leveraged and has a core base different genres and will provide revenue to bring EA back into profit.
But as I have stated earlier, it misses the strengths of each developer/asset in what they do best and tosses them into the mainstream where the majority of the potential revenue is located, but is never realised as the developer either A) doesn't design games to appeal to it produces something like DA2, which flops or C) doesn't have the necessary staying power or core base to boost/ support sales and revenue figure

Finally as to the possibility of DA3 it is uncertain that EA may cancel it as the potential revenue/ market remains, but a question, with refrence to the above, is, will EA actually learn from the mistake and be content to leave Bioware as its key asset within the RPG market rather than forcing it to try and turn out a "golden egg" (game) which appeals to the mainstream and sells several millions. This I don't know, but the current approach and comments regarding multiplayer(in general) and ME3 dictates caution.
 
Regarding a single named character, Its rather a double edged, sword. The potential for the player to love or hate it is very real, for instance I liked Shepherd, prefered multiple unnamed PCs in Origins, but hated Hawke, infact I wanted to cave his smug head in, when it came to certain dialogues, such as on sundermount, "I want to be a dragon" really? this is what passes for dialoge choices, come on.

I think what I'm getting at is named characters can be very good if they are well done and implemented, if they aren't or you don't like the voice etc. it becomes very irritating.

Sorry for Babbling.

Modifié par billy the squid, 14 mai 2011 - 09:50 .

[Sabriana]

Ohhh, I know where you're coming from, Ali. I started a Mahariel, and that girl is one p'oed elf. So far she's just about utterly angry at anyone and everything, including Marethari and Merrill. I wonder where she'll be going. Will one of my girls finally be able to resist Zevran (the real one, not the ******-poor imitation)? I have to wait and see.

Perhaps she'll fall for Alistair. Oh my, the possibility is intriguing. She snapped at Cailan, and she's just about ready to take Duncan's head off.

This is what I miss so terribly in DA 2. My DA:O PCs are going places that develop with game-play. I can develop her and her companions the way I (yes, I can not only build up my PC, but the companions as well) want to. Most of that was taken away from me, and I really dislike it.

[LyndseyCousland]

I haven't even got through it the once. Still waiting on the next patch. Still grumpy about it.

[Zjarcal]

Sabriana wrote...
I can develop her and her companions the way I (yes, I can not only build up my PC, but the companions as well) want to. Most of that was taken away from me, and I really dislike it.

I'm sorry, with the exception of outfits, how was it different in DA2 than in Origins?

RE OP:

My thoughts after two months? The same. I love the game even if I do with it had spent an extra six months in development.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 14 mai 2011 - 06:40 .

[Zjarcal]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...

Sabriana wrote...
I can develop her and her companions the way I (yes, I can not only build up my PC, but the companions as well) want to. Most of that was taken away from me, and I really dislike it.

I'm sorry, with the exception of outfits, how was it different in DA2 than in Origins?

You can "harden" Leliana and Alistair's personalities.

You mean like how you can influence ALL the companions personalities in DA2 depending on whether you're friend or rival?

Modifié par Zjarcal, 14 mai 2011 - 06:44 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...

Sabriana wrote...
I can develop her and her companions the way I (yes, I can not only build up my PC, but the companions as well) want to. Most of that was taken away from me, and I really dislike it.

I'm sorry, with the exception of outfits, how was it different in DA2 than in Origins?

You can "harden" Leliana and Alistair's personalities.

How is hardening significantly different from the friend/rival system?

[jlb524]

The DA:O companion system always seemed a bit broken to me, given how you could still romance them/get them to like you by gifting the crap out of them.

Morrigan could hate and despise everything you did, but would jump in bed with you b/c you bought her a crap load of golden chains (and there definitely wasn't a shortage of gifts in the game probably for this very reason). That seems to be a bit hollow to me.

[Zjarcal]

Alistairlover94 wrote...
The F/R system is more about "agreeing to disagree", while hardening makes Leliana more like her old self, or Alistair more ambitious(he willingly becomes king at the Landsmeet) and much more confident in himself.

Merrill abandons blood magic and destroys the mirror as rival. Anders (in a non bugged game) can side with the Templars as a rival (and accept that his merger with Justice was a mistake). Fenris and Aveline can choose to fight by your side, instead of attempting to kill you, at the final battle depending on their disposition. Isabela will tell you that she will try to become a better person if you go full rivalry (and didn't give her the ship). Sebastian either stays in the Chantry or attempts to take over Starkhaven.

Sorry, but the F/R system does influence their personalities in the same way as the hardening mechanic did, and in my opinion it's much better, seeing how the hardening mechanic takes place in a single convo while the F/R system requires a consistent relationship with the companion.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 14 mai 2011 - 06:56 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

The F/R system is more about "agreeing to disagree", while hardening makes Leliana more like her old self, or Alistair more ambitious(he willingly becomes king at the Landsmeet) and much more confident in himself.

...while hardening friending makes Leliana Isabela more like her old self, or (rivaling) Alistair Sebastian more ambitious(he willingly becomes king at the Landsmeet Prince of Starkhaven) and much more confident in himself.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 14 mai 2011 - 06:57 .

[Persephone]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

The DA:O companion system always seemed a bit broken to me, given how you could still romance them/get them to like you by gifting the crap out of them.

Morrigan could hate and despise everything you did, but would jump in bed with you b/c you bought her a crap load of golden chains (and there definitely wasn't a shortage of gifts in the game probably for this very reason). That seems to be a bit hollow to me.

You can still romance them in DA2 if you disagree with their every philosophy, religious views, desires and ambitions. How is that any different?

A Rivalmance isn't the same as a Friendmance. They did that pretty well, esp, with Fenris and Anders. (They will refer to your disagreements etc.)

[Vicious]

Liked the game less as I played it. does a lot of stuff better than DA:O. Story and combat took a huge step back though.

[jlb524]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

The DA:O companion system always seemed a bit broken to me, given how you could still romance them/get them to like you by gifting the crap out of them.

Morrigan could hate and despise everything you did, but would jump in bed with you b/c you bought her a crap load of golden chains (and there definitely wasn't a shortage of gifts in the game probably for this very reason). That seems to be a bit hollow to me.

You can still romance them in DA2 if you disagree with their every philosophy, religious views, desires and ambitions. How is that any different?

It is b/c the romance dialog changes accordingly to fit these different paths. 

That's way different from just buying a bunch of gifts and the romance dialog stays the same.  If I'm a horrid evil person that kills small children, Leliana can still fall for me (with tons of gifts to make her happy) and the fact that we have different moralities or that I killed Conner and she really hated that is never brought up.

[Persephone]

Something I've grown to appreciate about DAII is how reactive NPCs are to my Hawke's tone. In Origins you also get several responses, yet often you get the same response from the NPC, no matter what you say to them (I recently created another city elf & just finished Ostagar). I stopped playing after Ostagar because no matter how snarky/snippy my CE was, nobody seemed to notice it.

[LiquidGrape]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Alistairlover94 wrote...

The F/R system is more about "agreeing to disagree", while hardening makes Leliana more like her old self, or Alistair more ambitious(he willingly becomes king at the Landsmeet) and much more confident in himself.

...while hardening friending makes Leliana Isabela more like her old self, or (rivaling) Alistair Sebastian more ambitious(he willingly becomes king at the Landsmeet Prince of Starkhaven) and much more confident in himself.

^


Thank you.

Personally, I do think the Friendship/Rivalry mechanic was a much more organic and less incongruous method of making a visual representation of ones relationships to the secondary characters.
That Origins actually featured a visible numeric scale which could be altered completely simply by bribing each respective companion with presents never rang true to me on any level.

And, like many have established before me, the dynamics of friendship and rivalry do quite profoundly affect the companions. Approach Merrill as a friend in one game and a rival in another, and you'll find two completely disparate developments.

Modifié par LiquidGrape, 14 mai 2011 - 07:07 .

[jlb524]

Persephone wrote...

Something I've grown to appreciate about DAII is how reactive NPCs are to my Hawke's tone. In Origins you also get several responses, yet often you get the same response from the NPC, no matter what you say to them (I recently created another city elf & just finished Ostagar). I stopped playing after Ostagar because no matter how snarky/snippy my CE was, nobody seemed to notice it.

I feel the same way.  They did a great job of weaving Hawke's personality into the dialog and NPC interactions.  That's why Hawke feels more alive to me, and not necessarily b/c s/he's voiced.

In Origins, the different options seemed to be there more for the benefit of having "many dialog choices", but didn't effect how others perceived you.

[Persephone]

jlb524 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Something I've grown to appreciate about DAII is how reactive NPCs are to my Hawke's tone. In Origins you also get several responses, yet often you get the same response from the NPC, no matter what you say to them (I recently created another city elf & just finished Ostagar). I stopped playing after Ostagar because no matter how snarky/snippy my CE was, nobody seemed to notice it.

I feel the same way.  They did a great job of weaving Hawke's personality into the dialog and NPC interactions.  That's why Hawke feels more alive to me, and not necessarily b/c s/he's voiced.

In Origins, the different options seemed to be there more for the benefit of having "many dialog choices", but didn't effect how others perceived you.

And NPCs as well as companions "forget" about things pretty quickly in DAO, even things that outraged them a minute ago. In DAII Anders recalls how I treated the mages from Starkhaven, Fenris remembers how things went down with Hadriana (As well as Hawke's involvement).... In DAO both Leliana and Alistair are upset if I kill Connor. They never bring it up again though, like it never happened. While entering a deal with Topor not only causes Anders to break up with Hawke, he remembers her being willing to deal with demons later.