738 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?

[flexxdk]

Perles75 wrote...

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.

I'd love to see where he said that, if he said that at all.

Anyway, I disagree with Laidlaw's mantra. DA2 was in some ways a success, but in more ways a failure. Basically, for me DA2 was this:
Everything that was broken is fixed, everthing that was fixed is broken. (Though some things that were fixed were improved.)
It is a very inaccurate stance, but I can't say anything better without letting the hate get hold of me.

DA2 was indeed rushed. It had many bugs when it was released.

I also think they might want to reimagine some parts of how the DA franchise is going to be. Not reinventing the wheel, of course. More like take all the good things from DAO and DA2 and put both together in a game.

Modifié par Whacka, 28 mai 2011 - 10:47 .

[Kroepoek]

No, it backfired in his face. Creating a sort of a hybrid game to appease two different audiences is going to angry a lot of people on both sides.

On another side I'd like to point out this wasn't (probably) Mike's idea at all. This decision to appeal to a wider audience has EA written all over it. Still, he is the one responsible for the product.

[Valus]

Nothing Laidlaw says seems to be untrue as he sees it. I'm not certain if that means it was successful or not. If the mission was to write a brief yet honest response to a bit of the critiquing gotten over DA2 yet defending the company he works for then I think it was a success. If you are judging it's success based upon whether or not they mention every single issue you had with the game then I doubt it could ever reach that expectation.

Anytime a manufacturer comes out publicly and says they screwed up or they recognize issues with a product ect. it should be encouraged, not analyzed to the point of absurdity. Encouraging them means they are much more likely to come talk to the community about their problems and not keep us in the dark because of incessant trolling. Thank them for their candor, remind them that proof is in the product and not the words, then move on.

I use CD Projekt red as a prime example of how to service a customer. They messed up a little with release (server, DRM, patch problems mostly). What do they do? Get on the community page, profusely apologize and start updating like mofos on every single step taken to remedy the problem and what they are doing to compensate the community.

Modifié par Valus, 28 mai 2011 - 11:28 .

[aliastasia]

From a software development point of view, I can totally understand the need for producing the BioWare games on the same platform, so it shouldn't really be much of an issue whether some of the ME-stuff, like the conversation wheel, was integrated into the DA games.

Having said that, I am sceptical to the game being touted a success. It sold - but a lot of those sales were apparent presales (me included), and I also think the game was far too rushed - I won't go into that here, it's been addressed too many places.

What piques my curiousity, though, is that if they wanted to reach a broader and different audience, why wasn't it marketed at a broader audience? I am basing the question on the assumption BioWare *does* have access to it's own and EA's very considerable marketing machine, and here in Europe, and also in my country specifically, I did not see the game advertised, reviewed, or touted in any other way than other RPGs or at another audience.
(barring the fact the game which was advertised was not the game I bought - I mean - I wasn't rising to power by any means necessary. Unless playing diplomatic, funny, or direct as mage rogue or warrior counted as such... )

So why rewrite the game first instead of spending longer time on the game and then try alternate marketing on release? I mean - sales for DA2 do prove the audience is there, and loyal up to a point. And that a new shiny UI or more blood and a poorly executed or cut storyline won't necessarily sell a game to a new audience.

I am also wondering - if the ME team could postpone ME3's release, how come DA2 was seemingly pushed so hard? Because doesn't that mean that it's BioWare, not EA setting the pace? Especially if DA:O was as long in the making as it seemingly was?

I picked up the Witcher2 the day it came out. One hour into the game, I could safely say it had the visual and storywise buckets full of awesome DA2 *was* aiming at.

Based on that, sales, and how DA2 was received by the fanbase, I'd say failure - it's gotten to the point BioWare can't even post potential DLC teasers ("We managed to land some high rez images that Mike Laidlaw claims he "found lying around." Are those griffins?"on Facebook without people *still* complaining about the game in a large part of the thread. That's bad. Swoopingly. 

/A
 

[Nameless2345]

In my opinion, the "mantra" as it was presented here is good, solid and the only way for AAA single player RPGs to survive. Implementation was a failure though. DA2 received only a fraction of necessary resources.

[thenemesis77]

I would bet that someone from higher up told Mike to make a statment and hope to shut some of the people up and all he has done was pull the rug out from peoples feet. They will continue with the same failed policies that lead to DA2 being lackluster. DAO was not a game that "Mike" thought was behind the times...it was not his vision and was Brent Knowles. That is why he will say next to nothing good of DAO,

I can undertand wanting to put your mark on a game but what MIke did was send everyone into freefall and no chance of return. WIth these same failed policies with both Mike and David, I would say that DA3 or any DLC with be just as streamlined and rushed out and it really never did matter whatever anyone thought of the game.

They have had this in the works and this is their vision and "you be dammed if you don't praise it".

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

It's the first step. The next one will be better. The one after that even more so.


Using purely hypothetical numbers, if BioWare can sell a million copies of a game using Dinosaur Game mechanics (like DAO/BG/NWN) and it takes them five years of time and effort, that game is a failure compared to one that sells 750,000 every 18 months.

Dinosaur game: 1million * $60 = $60 million for five years of time and effort
Fun RPG game: 750,000 * $60 = $45 million for a year and a half of time and effort.

In the time it took a company to make a dinosaur game, a second company could make three fun RPGs. That's $135 million for a fun RPG in the time it took a dinosaur game to make less than half the same amount of money. Guess which company is going to be hiring real actors to do voice work? Guess which company is going to be paying their talent better?


It's too early to call the "new vision" an enormous success, however I think it's going to be a long term success. We already know that the old formula is dying. There are barely any games like DAO or BG on the market anymore. Some guy posted a huge list in another thread trying to show how alive the RPG market is... but it was all hybrid games. RPGs need to change, RPGs have been changing, and DA2 is a great vision of what RPGs can be. It just needs another couple passes through the old buffing machine. (Also needs a central party management screen, have I ever mentioned that?)

A fun RPG like DA2 cuts out the stuff that bores the crap out of me. Bring on the fun RPGs. Bring on the huge sales. Bring on video games at the Oscars. Personally, I can't wait to see what comes next. :-D


I'll be afk most of the day, so go ahead and put some time into calling me a BioDrone Troll. :-)

[zsom]

What you don't seem to understand is that there are two paths before DA:
- they either reach the wider fanbase (like it or not.. that's the consoles)
- or they stop making fantasy rpgs.

No third way. There are tons of games that can reach a wide audience (ME for example), and if the Dragon Age team cannot match this success, then they won't receive any more funding.

So the question isn't whether to stick to the hard core rpg fanbase or "streamline" (god how I hate this word) it to get console players to buy it, it's "streamline" it, or quit.

[marshalleck]

They should probably quit with their dignity intact, then. Unless of course they're willing to fully commit to quality, as certain other developers have proven is possible within the constraints of the "action RPG" formula.

Modifié par marshalleck, 28 mai 2011 - 02:36 .

[Nerdage]

zsom wrote...
- they either reach the wider fanbase (like it or not.. that's the consoles)

Because everyone who plays PC games already plays DA? That seems to be the assumption around here; that the only audience they could be going for is on consoles, rather than a type of person on any platform. Not every 'rpg fan' plays on PC, just like not all of the new players Bioware want to pick up play on console.

[zsom]

If by certain other developers you mean CDPR, then yes, I agree. TW2 proves that you can make good RPGs and still have all the stuff people complain about in DA2. However TW1 and 2 are also superior to DAO, by a lot. (At least that is how I feel..) So the problem with DA2 isn't the consolification, it's... I don't know what it is honestly... The atmosphere is just wrong. Maybe the lack of an overarching story, or a truly great main protagonist. But something is missing, that is for sure.

[Ottemis]

In a way I see DA2 as a prototype of something that could still grow into something stellar yes. I do believe DA2's 'failure' comes from it being rushed.
I also think you could not easily have expected DA2 to have hit the same sales-numbers as Origins even IF it got the time it needed. I also think it was to be expected coming from a classic RPG DA2 would have recieved alot of backlash from it's fans which now also dissuades people from trying it out, which I would reckon hurts sales even more. Asmuch as you can anticipate those responces to some extend, I don't think you can ever know for sure how a game is going to be recieved.

I think DA2 got more backlash then it deserved.
Do I think, because of that, they should throw the concept out the window? No. But it needs to be polished yes.

I don't think the classic RPG genre is to be considered a dying breed, but I do think that with the development time those require and the effort going into story and lore, they are bound to remain a diamond in the rough.

My opinion on the change from classic to hybrid RPG was honestly also a logical one seeing DAO has a community of modders behind it that will probably keep creating content for DAO for years to come. So honestly, I don't think we needed another expansive classic RPG ala DAO so quickly after it's release.

I think the 'error' in alot of people's thinking was that DA would be a line of classic RPG titles; which would have set them up for disappointment. To me, that was never something I automaticly assumed for said reasons.

Also, and what people seem to forget about alot, is that a second Origins might not have been recieved half as well as some might expect it would have.
There are always those that have complaints or full-out hate changes made from one game to the next. What they did with DA2 was bold yes, I think that was commendable and they should stick with this vision.

Modifié par Ottemis, 28 mai 2011 - 02:58 .

[Merced652]

zsom wrote...

If by certain other developers you mean CDPR, then yes, I agree. TW2 proves that you can make good RPGs and still have all the stuff people complain about in DA2. However TW1 and 2 are also superior to DAO, by a lot. (At least that is how I feel..) So the problem with DA2 isn't the consolification, it's... I don't know what it is honestly... The atmosphere is just wrong. Maybe the lack of an overarching story, or a truly great main protagonist. But something is missing, that is for sure.

Seems like it has to be poor story and no player agency as reasons for why DA2 was an epic failure. I can agree with that. I didn't hate the story, but i didn't give a damn about it either. But its hard to say why exactly that is, perhaps its because i had no part to play in it other than spectating. So it seems its a combination of those two things, and not one on its own that made the game horrible. 

[Nerdage]

To be honest, one of the most important points he made was that you can't just draw a straight line between DAO and DA2 and follow it straight to DA3, that's just not how iteration works. More likely DA3 will be somewhere between the two, then DA4 will be between two of them, etc. There's a 'sweet spot' between Origins and 2, and they should get closer to it with each consecutive release. It's basically trial and error, and it requires a little patience.

[zsom]

nerdage wrote...
Because everyone who plays PC games already plays DA? That seems to be the assumption around here; that the only audience they could be going for is on consoles, rather than a type of person on any platform. Not every 'rpg fan' plays on PC, just like not all of the new players Bioware want to pick up play on console.

Well.. you don't have to be Cassandra from Troy to see that the entire console market is a bit bigger then what is left of the PC market. and as long as there are successful cross-platform games it is going to be very hard to get cash for a project neglecting a large part of the consumer spectrum.

Look at it from EAs perspective. They can finance a game that has the potential be successful on PC but only there, or they can pay for a game that might sell great on every platform. Which one would you choose? Bare in mind that the latter isn't just wishful thinking, other games have proven that it's possible.

[MikeP999]

Perles75 wrote...

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

His response was politically correct, no more no less.  Vague enough to allow you to draw your own conclusions.  It's his job afterall and one to protect at all costs.

[The Serge777]

I think Laidlaw's statements are reasonable and I agree with them. I've played most of Bioware's other games, including their PC classics, and I've played both ME and DAO on consoles. I've liked all for different reasons. I introduced strict console players to both the PC games and the console games, and they (unsurprisingly) preferred the console games. Like me, these players are professionals with many other commitments and want to easily have some fun from time-to-time. They don't have the time or resources to commit to games that have quests that take hours to complete (a la DAO or even ME1). The approach in DA2 allows for easier access, a quicker sense of achievement, and a more kinectic experience. It's designed to reach a broader audience in a faster period of time. In short, these console players enjoyed the game as much for its gameplay as for most elements of its story. It's the sort of adjustment necessary to meet the companies' financial needs so they have a reason to produce more quality games for us to play.

You'll note that I said my console-colleagues liked most aspects of the story. They loved the more intimate, politically-charged elements of the story far more than the "typical" end-of-the-world conflict. However, they both agree that they didn't feel the same level of "influence" on this game as they did with DAO.

The issue DA2 ran into is that the execution wasn't what it could have been. More kinetic gameplay does not mean weaker stories or a reduction of options. In addition to the frequent complaints of reused maps and so forth, my major issue with this game was that my choices didn't seem to matter (which might have been one of the game's points) to the degree that they should have. I think this is where DA2 is weakest despite the story concept being superior to that of DAO (inasmuch as the story is more personal and contemporary when one looks at the hoary cataclysmic world ending dark lord that has to be defeated). This is the one area of significance that DA2 misses the mark that even console players who are inclined to play RPGs noticed. All the nonsensical talk of linear gameplay or fixed endings aside (no different from DAO or BA2, people), DA2 needed a stronger focus on diversity of player-influenced storytelling.

So, I think Laidlaw is right... DA2/Bioware has to reach a wider audience in order for us to have RPGs. Those RPGs will NOT (and would argue, CANNOT) be like those of yesteryear if that's the case. Changes are necessary. This should not mean, however, that we should accept a reduction in reactive storytelling that remains a central element of American RPGs. We all accept that at the end of the game, there will be a final battle, but how we get there and how we influence the elements of that final battle -- particularly in a more personal story like that of DA2 -- requires greater attention to how our decisions affect that conclusion.

I do think this "new vision" will be a success IF Bioware addresses some of the clear shortcuts (reused maps and such) and the story execution. The superficial complaints of Companion appearance and voiced PC and all that are irrelevant. The issue is whether or not the story and game play are excellent. DAO had the former, but was not as successful with the latter; we experience the reverse with DA2. Now, Bioware has the opportunity to get it right in their next fantasy game. We, as fans, just need to give them chance. We need to be respectful AND thoughtful in our criticisms if we want them to be heard. The vociferous and, quite frankly, rude and personal attacks don't encourage them to listen to us. Reasoned, reasonably objective reflection does.

[aliastasia]

@RinpocheSchnozberry

fff
//

I don't think any of us mind hybrid games - For me the issue w DA2 wasn't that at all - for me the issue was the fact it was buggy, had a storyline with holes you could drive a tank through, did not have the interaction you could have with the characters as in Origins, and had antiseptic and crazily repetitive levels. All that has nothing to do with hybridisation and all to do w gameplay and design.

Also - you spend time designing and generating a first edition of a game, so you can build up your franchise later, so in that respect DA:O - the dinosaur did was it was supposed to - it built a baseline canon to generate future RoI.

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.

I had fun with the fighting in the game - especially as I could breeze through on the more difficult settings. However, for a company who is touted as the HBO of gaming, the immersion into DA2 wasn't all that great, despite Gaider & co's efforts, and basically, it was less of a good gaming experience than DA:O and ME2.

// Edit to correct: I left out Laidlaw as one of the three leads for Origins - but i still maintain it's his first solo flight as lead.
/A

Modifié par aliastasia, 28 mai 2011 - 03:34 .

[Nerdage]

zsom wrote...

Well.. you don't have to be Cassandra from Troy to see that the entire console market is a bit bigger then what is left of the PC market. and as long as there are successful cross-platform games it is going to be very hard to get cash for a project neglecting a large part of the consumer spectrum.

Look at it from EAs perspective. They can finance a game that has the potential be successful on PC but only there, or they can pay for a game that might sell great on every platform. Which one would you choose? Bare in mind that the latter isn't just wishful thinking, other games have proven that it's possible.

That's really what I'm trying to say, the idea that 'reaching a wider market' means just making a game more console-friendly, when what it should mean is making the game more player-friendly, regardless of platform.

[Nerdage]

MikeP999 wrote...

Perles75 wrote...

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

His response was politically correct, no more no less.  Vague enough to allow you to draw your own conclusions.  It's his job afterall and one to protect at all costs.

His job is lead designer, he's under no obligation to come on these forums as far as any of us know, nor did he owe us explanation, regardless of how much we shout.

[Scimal]

Perles75 wrote...

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).

Name these RPG elements which are downplayed, how they differ from DA:O, and by how much - please.

If you don't, it's left open to interpretation - and since your argument more or less hinges on these elements, they should be concretely provided.

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

I don't actually know. I would guess not, but I would tag the failure more towards the basic assumption that there are distinct and different audiences.

I own an Xbox on which I play ME and Halo. I have a PC on which I play Portal, TF2, Starcraft, and DA.

I already play FPS, RTS, TPS, and RPG games.

From what I've read and seen, the multi-genre player is pretty common, and the single-genre player is fairly rare. There are just a disproprtionate amount on these forums for obvious reasons.

Of course, many people on these forums remain completely adamant that anything other than playing RPGs on the PC is a simple-minded task better suited to highly trained monkeys.

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?

I think it's a problem of rushing. I didn't find that much wrong with DA2, much less a "simplification" of "RPG Elements" (whatever those are and that actually means, since nobody has given me a firm definition in my many, many weeks of asking).

I don't mind the direction DA2 took, and think it will provide a fine base for DA3 - given time.

[MonkeyLungs]

DA2 is an inferior game to DA:O in every way except armor models, thanks primarily to the very well designed Champion Armor.

DA series needed a REFINEMENT not a REBOOT.

Why the F REBOOT a game in part 2 of the series when part 1 was wildly successfull and praised by both fans and critics. Origins consistently outscores DA2 by fans and critics all over the web.

Mike Laidlaw and Bioware have gone beyond the point where talking about their games is going to convince me of anything. They spout PR drivel and refuse to talk straight. The fact that so many of you just parrott back the PR hype is amusing and disturbing. The amount of people that latched on to the whole 'evolution of rpg's' and 'they hate change' memes is extremely depressing.

[zsom]

The Serge777 wrote...

I do think this "new vision" will be a success IF Bioware addresses some of the clear shortcuts (reused maps and such) and the story execution. The superficial complaints of Companion appearance and voiced PC and all that are irrelevant. The issue is whether or not the story and game play are excellent. DAO had the former, but was not as successful with the latter; we experience the reverse with DA2. Now, Bioware has the opportunity to get it right in their next fantasy game. We, as fans, just need to give them chance. We need to be respectful AND thoughtful in our criticisms if we want them to be heard. The vociferous and, quite frankly, rude and personal attacks don't encourage them to listen to us. Reasoned, reasonably objective reflection does.

Agree 100 + 1 %

[zsom]

nerdage wrote...
That's really what I'm trying to say, the idea that 'reaching a wider market' means just making a game more console-friendly, when what it should mean is making the game more player-friendly, regardless of platform.

Oops sorry, I misread your. Yes, let's hope we will have a DA3, and that it will be a success on all platforms.