12 réponses à ce sujet

[Perles75]

A word of caution: this thread is meant for a constructive discussion, not for ranting. Trolls and prejudiced haters please abstain.

What is the Laidlaw mantra, you may ask? In his many interviews and interventions, the last of which you can find in the "Thank you" thread here, Mike Laidlaw has always stressed a central point of his "Dragon Age vision", a vision that fully implemented in DA2: the aim of reaching a wider audience, beyond the typical RPG public. This aim was pursued by downplaying (or tuning down, sorry for my english!) some aspects of the classical RPG videogame and putting more stress on others, namely on a more combat-oriented game dynamics (with, in addition, a special care in personal relatioships between the player character and his/her companions).

So my question is: did he succeed in his purpose? did he actually reach a "wider audience" with DA2?

In my opinion: the answer is no. I believe that this new course for the "fantasy RPG as imagined by Bioware" is a failure. The expected new public was not attracted in large part (sales and reception show that), and as a bonus they alienated part of their fanbase.
I must say that I also do not agree with Laidlaw's premises of seeing the RPG community as a sort of caste locked in an ivory tower and impatient towards innovation, but that's another story.

So, I'm curious to hear about your opinion: do you think of the Laidlaw mantra as a failure or as a success? do you think that they should rethink their way of imagining the DA games, or it was just a problem of rushing the DA2 development?

[Mike Laidlaw]

aliastasia wrote...
Laidlaw comes from gaming journalism and was console editor for a gaming website before working on Jade Empire and Mass Effect 1. (and some additional design on ME2) Based on that, it seems this is his first gig as lead designer for a game on a genre he has no specific love for.

Woah woah woahhhh there.

I will not have my love of RPGs called into question without retort. As I type this I am looking at my displayed original boxes of Wasteland, Ultima 4, 5, 6, and 7 and the original Phantasie for the C64.

I like RPGs. I like them a lot. So much so that I will fight tooth and nail to keep party-based mechanics and gameplay viable in todays market, when it would have been infinitely easier for me to move Dragon Age to a single-character RPG or action game.

Now, as to this thread, which I find illuminating, let me quite clear: I am absolutely, positively, all about expanding the audience for party-based RPGs. I am shameless in wanting the entire planet to enjoy a genre I am passionate about. It is not an easy task, and I do not think we made a perfect move to do so in DAII; I have said as much already.

Modifié par Mike Laidlaw, 29 mai 2011 - 03:17 .

[Mike Laidlaw]

Aaleel wrote...

They won't accomplish what they want by straddling the fence. They either need to make a full blown RPG. Or just go all in action/adventure, throw in some Co/op, multiplayer, make the combat even more over the top, put even more enemies on the board.

I don't believe we need to straddle the fence, nor that there really need be a fence. I believe that there is a way to present rules-driven combat in a way that appeals to more people than it has in the past.

My thoughts are that we need to refine what we've done in terms of the game's overall presentation and responsiveness so that people who are expecting a more action experience are not immediately turned off by it. We need to continue to refine that presentation so that it continues to hold appeal to people that don't like the thought of dice being rolled and numbers flying off people's heads, even though that is exactly what is happening. I believe that there is a way to present deep RPG mechanics that will still hold immediate appeal for people who normally would not play RPGs, and I think that if we can find that sweet spot, we will be in great shape.

Of course, we need to continue to work on the other things I've mentioned regarding the narrative, the overall story arc, areas and so on. I stand by my promise to address the significant and legitimate concerns many players have, and you may judge the results as the series goes forward.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Cutlass Jack wrote...
And I was also quite surprised to see you posting here...and about your commitment to party based RPGs. That's a very interesting thing to read, and something I quite approve of.

I should think that integrating the chance for party members to act as persuades and the development of the first evolution of the cross class combo system speaks for itself. I think that the thing that defines DA is the sense of the party, of individuals working together to form something greater.

I think there is a -lot- of room for us to grow there, and trust me when I say that I see that growth as part of a distinctly RPG tradition.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Everwarden wrote...

Yup. Get people to play RPGs, by making them as little like RPGs as possible. I gotcha. 

Hyperbole: it's what fuels the internet.

[Mike Laidlaw]

adneate wrote...
What's the end result of that? Even more simplification so that everyone who doesn't play that style of game can play it without having to learn the basic skillsets of the sub-genere?

No, the end result is a product that has complexity and depth without a gigantic barrier to entry at the front so that someone who has never played an RPG before can gain those basic skillsets.

No, I do not think we did this perfectly in DAII. No, I do not think we got combats to be where we wanted them to be. So we have some work to do. And that work does not involve simplification.

There is a middle ground between Origins and II. Finding that middle ground is not an attempt to please the Call of Duty crowd. It is an attempt to let people who have never played an RPG and would never do so, normally, give it a whirl, without pissing off the old school RPG fans. And yes, I am well aware that there are many old school RPG fans who are currently pissed, and their assumption is that we will just get simpler and simpler until there's no RPG left in DA at all. Incorrect, but there's not much I can do to disabuse that supposition beyond posting here, at the moment.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Cutlass Jack wrote...
That said, I think this area needs to be built upon even further. Increasing the amount of player initiated dialogue with companions would make many of the old school RPGers happy. Without driving away the more action orientated sorts since it would be optional.

Agreed.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Ottemis wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
There is a middle ground between Origins and II.

I think you just said something there that will make a whole lot of people happy.

Well, there's a first time for everything!

[Mike Laidlaw]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I would be grateful if you could translate that into specific points. Just so that everyone's clear on what direction the team is taking.

I cannot at this time, but will attempt to do so in the future.

[Mike Laidlaw]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I find this response awkward. You respond to adneate's observation (which is shared by more fans) about simplification that the product has somehow "complexity and depth". And that the simplification is there for that new audience. You can't have it both ways: Complexity and simplicity are mutually exclusive.

They are, but I would argue that complexity can be added into an existing product. People hate when I draw this comparison, but the opening experience as a level 1 World of Warcraft character is significantly more simple than the experience as a raid-level character.

The game itself is complex, but the opening moments of it are not. I would argue that we did not do a good enough job of adding layers of complexity and challenge into the later stages of DAII, both in terms of combat and choice/consequence. Therefore we should do a better job of both in the future.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Lumikki wrote...

People don't assume so extreme situation everytime. Like it's between hard core classic RPG player and fanatic first person shooter player. There is a lot more people out there and even between them. Like example adventure game players. Situation is not so black and white.

If anything, I think the people most likely to want to play an RPG, but who may not know it yet, are the folks who love the Rockstar games. They're clearly not turned off by character-driven narrative.

Some elements of the Call of Duty crowd, I imagine, would not be into DA, ever. Which is cool. People have preferences.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Corto81 wrote...

So why, at the same time, do you guys think it has elements that are a barrier to people?
Honest question.

Yes, I do. To use one example, I know that there are people who fire up a game like Origins, see either character generation or a big wall of stats to pick and they immediately turn it off again. I also am cognizant that there are people who see that big wall of stats and get really excited.

I believe that there are more of the former than the latter. It doesn't mean either side is wrong, and it sure as hell doesn't mean we should cut stats, it just means that, perhaps, opening the game with a big wall of them is not ideal.

[John Epler]

Since this thread has long ago abandoned any attempts at constructive discussion and turned into the always-productive pastime of telling people that their opinions are wrong, I'm locking it. We have plenty of other threads to discuss everything that's being talked about right now.

Modifié par JohnEpler, 30 mai 2011 - 12:11 .