738 réponses à ce sujet

[Solo80]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

Statistics can be used for anything, and if you'll allow me a quick reductio ad absurdum, the fact that most people live in Asia doesn't mean all studios should start making JRPGs, change the default language to chinese and watch crazy game shows in their spare time. It seems to me that on a basic level, you fail to grasp that WRPGs inherently have a limited audience. Perhaps that audience is potentially larger than it currently is, and perhaps something can be done to appeal to a broader audience, but at what cost?

Games will never be regarded as art in the same way as, say, movies, unless there's room for the David Lynch/Terence Malick kind of studio.  You'd never, ever see those two trying to make a Michael Bay type movie, even though the potential audience is vastly higher for the latter.

I think what a lot of the disappointment stemmed from was this feeling that Bioware as a studio has always had an identity as one that made deep, immersive RPGs, and DA2 plays like a pubertarian identity crisis. And your biggest mistake, bar none, was changing course 180 degrees in the middle of an established series. If you'll excuse the continued use of movie analogies, this wasn't just David Lynch making a Michael Bay type movie, this was as if, after "The Dark Knight", Chris Nolan would decide to go back to Arnold as "Mistah Freeze" for the next one - bat-nipples, painful puns, enlarged codpieces and all - to "appeal to a broader audience" (which was, in fact, the reasoning for the way "Batman and Robin" turned out, after the rather good Tim Burton films).

I'm not saying you should accept the status quo or stop trying to push the envelope, but please try doing so without losing the identity Bioware has spent the last 20 years or so trying to build up. I don't go to a gas station to buy furniture, I don't watch a David Lynch movie to see explosions and scantily clad women, and I don't buy a Bioware game to play "Diablo 2.5".

Modifié par Solo80, 29 mai 2011 - 12:15 .

[JabbaDaHutt30]

wildannie wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

I never thought a single word could make me THIS happy. I felt that, even though beautifully written, the dialogue with party members kinda got pushed into the background too much.... Don't get me wrong, the Questioning Beliefs conversations were very well done........but there was only one of them per act.... Maybe opening topics up as the friendship/rivalry progresses or as certain quests unfold could be an option? Oh, and some LI exclusive stuff.... I for one loved being able to kiss my LI any time I liked in DAO. Maybe adding dialogue once they move in? (Puppy had his mansion quest too, after all!) 

Well, this kind of made my afternoon :happy:

It made me skip lunch. Not eating it ( I already did that ), but the digesting part.

[MDT1]

Honestly, I would have implemented an info screen before you can distribute you stat points. A lists with the possible weaponry for the character you choose (as warrior: 2hand, dw stenght, dw agi, ranged, sword&shield) and then listed the skills after importance for each build and what they do in this build.
The stat system itself was already quite simplified in DAO, but allowed significantly different builds for a class wich ultimatly added fun and replayability for me.

Modifié par MDT1, 29 mai 2011 - 12:32 .

[Cutlass Jack]

Shirosaki17 wrote...
He's wrong because he thinks that would make old school RPGers happy. Laidlaw agreed with it, so I assume he thinks the same thing. If you took DA2 and just added player initiated dialogue with companions, it wouldn't fix it, nor would it appease most of the people upset and disappointed by it.

First, I said many, not all. Secondly I never said it was they only thing needed, just that many would enjoy seeing more of it. Entirely different concepts. So feel free to run Scrubs clips at yourself for bad reading comprehension.

[BomimoDK]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

Yes. People rage/confusequite a lot when it came to this. And i'm gonna sound rude now, but if you guys had documented this, like, at all in-game or in a manual, people would have had a chance to understand. The big error was that WE had to compile a Ruleset-wiki from loose quotes from devs on this board to even fathom the difference between dual-wield daggers VS dual-wield long-swords.

People firing up Origins and not getting it at all was ENTIRELY your (Biowares) mistake. I mean, all we had were the basics and you can hardly expect every customer to even bother looking for the Dragon Age wiki. People who see big walls of stats and get excited do ONLY get excited if they've got documentation (translation) that puts it into an understandable perspective. BG had a huge, expensive (and tough on the trees) manual with the full ruleset and such. Elaborate descriptions and figures for everything. DAII had these same things but at a lower, more focused "this is what you're looking for" level. Everything was plain and clear, easy to understand. DA:O was more vague than Jesus after the final supper. Y'know. "This is a freeze spell. It freezes people" Great. How much DMG, how much does magic stat improve upon it?

I'm sorry for bawing your ears to pieces about a problem that was fixed, but i just had to set this straight. I personally think that people being confused about this was that not enough proper information was conveyed. I really think you're being awesome about this. It's nice that you're out here discussing again we're all being proper about communicating.

[wildannie]

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...

wildannie wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

I never thought a single word could make me THIS happy. I felt that, even though beautifully written, the dialogue with party members kinda got pushed into the background too much.... Don't get me wrong, the Questioning Beliefs conversations were very well done........but there was only one of them per act.... Maybe opening topics up as the friendship/rivalry progresses or as certain quests unfold could be an option? Oh, and some LI exclusive stuff.... I for one loved being able to kiss my LI any time I liked in DAO. Maybe adding dialogue once they move in? (Puppy had his mansion quest too, after all!) 

Well, this kind of made my afternoon :happy:

It made me skip lunch. Not eating it ( I already did that ), but the digesting part.

glad to hear it! 

[Cutlass Jack]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

It is to me.

I enjoy  detailed character creation myself. I love it. But I can also appreciate the notion of not frontloading all those choices before the player has a chance to get some context in game as to what all those stats/abilities/whatever mean.

So I get the intent behind the exagarrated opening sequence, even though I hated it. There are more graceful ways to let the player get their feet wet while still feeling they are creating a character and not having one forced upon them.

But creating your face should always, always, always happen before seeing your character. ME2 had a reasonable workaround by having your helmet stuck on during the opening. But obviously that wouldn't work in Dragon Age.

[The Serge777]

Everwarden wrote...

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

I hope that's true, and not just you trying to appease angry forum monkeys that won't get off your back. 

Wow.  I know I've returned late to this party, but this is precisely the kind of tone I was talking about on my earlier posts.  Laidlaw comes in here and comments,acknowledging that at least some of our concerns are valid, and some folks are still rude.  If I were him, I wouldn't bother post.  

Really, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with him or questioning his sincerity; there is a way to do so without sounding (if not outright being) rude and childish. 

[RangerSG]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Alistairlover94 wrote...

It is to me.

I enjoy  detailed character creation myself. I love it. But I can also appreciate the notion of not frontloading all those choices before the player has a chance to get some context in game as to what all those stats/abilities/whatever mean.

So I get the intent behind the exagarrated opening sequence, even though I hated it. There are more graceful ways to let the player get their feet wet while still feeling they are creating a character and not having one forced upon them.

But creating your face should always, always, always happen before seeing your character. ME2 had a reasonable workaround by having your helmet stuck on during the opening. But obviously that wouldn't work in Dragon Age.

I'll say something crazy here, I have always liked the Elder Scrolls method of character generation, where they start by having the guard ask your name, then a bit later someone talks about how you look and you generate your appearance, and then at the end, after playing a little tutorial to learn the skills, you get to pick them to satisfy your interest. I think that's an effective way to navigate the "stat wall" to give it to the player in chunks they've seen practically applied already, rather than as a wall of text. I thought Morrowind in particular did that well, and I think something like that would be more effective than the DA2 opening.

[The Serge777]

So, the key to refining the presentation to bring in this mythical mainstream Action gamer is an opening level that looks like Poo Poo Mountain with enemies under such high pressure they explode when you look in their general direction?

How is this different from chunking monsters and enemy NPCs in Baldur's Gate and related franchises?  I'm assuming you hated this sort of thing then too?

Expanding the audience is fine and great, truly. But at what point do the people that maybe enjoy the numbers flying off people's heads and enjoy a tactical game that feels like chess, end up being left out in the strive to go for this different action gamer audience? Its like playing a Total War game or something where you get so focused on taking over one distant territory you neglect your home base, only to have your home base invaded and snatched away cause you were too busy trying to expand. 

I just feel like with DA2 the "RPG elements" weren't just under the hood, they were practically 6 feet under.

I don't know... I felt this was as much of an RPG as older PC games.  To me, what you're referring to are a bunch of superficial things that are not necessarily important to an RPG.  Numbers flying over heads, % flying across the screen, and so forth... These don't mean RPG to me.  Hell, I used to see this stuff in JRPGs and I never felt such things made them anymore RPG-like than BG (which I never set up to show the numbers).  And the lack of a tactical approach...  Does that mean that most JRPGs aren't RPGs since you never really worried about positions in your combat?

In short, I'm part of Bioware's home base, and I don't feel as though anything's been snatched from me other than than a reactive story. I am interested in immersion and that's that.  Numbers flying across screens...?  Not immersive; rather, it becomes a number's game.  Being completely, 100% aware of my position relative to everything else going on in a hectic combat situation?  Not really immersive (although, this being a game, I admit to missing this one thing, but not much). 

As I said before, if Bioware did a better job ensuring that the story was stronger and more dependent on player decision, I don't think most of the complaints on these and other boards would be as vociferious. 

[The Serge777]

I'm sure they'd be more than interested in the fate of things like non-combat skills,

Would love to see this return.  Still, how many people didn't take things like Persuasion in almost every play through?
 

class specific dialogue,

 Uhhh...  We had this in DA2.  Granted, I only remember it with mages...

race selection,

...   ...  Sorry, but this one makes me wonder if you and other people asking about it ever played Planescape: Torment.  Not Bioware, per se, but still...
 

the isometric camera angle and a toolset for the PC version

If these two points are part of the same clause in reference to the PC version, fine (since there's not a comma before the "and").  If not, I'd say the first request is not an essential RPG component unless you're only going to market to a PC audience which, as we can see with DAO, isn't necessary to ensure success.

Modifié par The Serge777, 29 mai 2011 - 01:08 .

[Tommy6860]

aliastasia wrote...

Sorry for late response - Different timezone fun :-)

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

The fact you own those boxes, and have played the games, implies, but does not autoequate a love for the genre. Especially not taking the way DA2 turned out into consideration. But fair enough - I'll take the retort into consideration.
I stand corrected

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
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.

You can't say that without giving us context, because it implies someone wanted the game fundamentally changed. And even though EA has a fairly abysmal history, I am not entirely convinced they'd want to change some of the fundamentals in a solidly selling and critically acclaimed game straight out of the buyup starting gate.

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.

I don't think any of us mind EA/BioWare expanding the user base. Neither do we mind new stuff, or changes being made. It's how you stay in business. What it does boil down to, for most of us, is that we were not given what was advertised:

<snipped>

* Working in SWE myself, the game looks as if considerable compromises were made to make a hard deadline. As we're seeing DA3 is in the works, would it be possible to say something specific, non-hyperbolish about *how* you're going to take user feedback into consideration`? And whether this time around it will be given time to actually *be* developed?

/A
 

This^^ Excellent post ! What I am seeing since Mike hit the boards again two days ago are these issues here; people not getting what was advertised. I cannot stress how much I didn't get from what I was lead to think I was buying.

[Cutlass Jack]

Autolycus wrote...
The problem there though Cutlass is.....that RPG players don't mind, we like it. Thus proving in intself, that Laidlaw/EA did not want to make an RPG at all....the fact cannot be argued anymore....he does not want to crate a game for the very people who pay his wage.

I'm not sure I entirely agree there. I mean sure on second playthroughs and such when you know the game and how stats work and the like its near gleeful to go into it with a build in mind. Also true on games that use rulesets you know (like D&D based games)

But if you completely go in blind you probably don't know which stats are good or which abilities you'll find fun etc. So I don't really feel the notion of taking a character for a 'Test Drive' is somehow inherently anti-RPG. I certainly recall making a few terrible starting choices in Origins because certain things sounded way better than they were.

Like I said though, there are more graceful routes to handle it than they picked this time around. And many choices in character development I would not have made, particularly where stats are concerned. Skill trees were improved I felt, but limiting everyone to only two real stat choices was a very bad call.

If anything had to be frontloaded into a game, as an RPG lover I'd prefer it were Roleplaying choices. I like detailed stats and abilites, but I'm fine with being eased into it. Which should not be translated into me thinking I thought either of those were handled well in DA2's intro. (Which was my least favorite segment of the game)

[Dragoonlordz]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

Isn't that what Final Fantasy titles are about? Whether better or worse not my point but when said that phrase the image that popped into my head was not DA2 but FFX and XIII. What defined DA to me after DAO was DA being grand epic fantasy adventures that had a vast amount of choices and consequences that led to the end feeling that you had been on an amazing journey where your choices mattered (regardless of illusion or not). This was NOT what DA2 was about hence why the overall dissapointment not even going into the fine points about aspects but the overall product.

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.

Thats only part of it obviously there is much more than that needed to make me or us 'happy' than just the interactions alone.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

This statement I am happy with especially the latter part which was incredibly lacking in DA2 when compared with that (superior) game that people hate being mentioned as a comparrison on these boards TW2.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
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.

It's not that people are put off with stats and picking races, classes and skills that stops them playing it's merely the pace of the game, combat and story progression. I would say in fact everyone likes choices at start middle and end of game they like choices in general the only difference is god forbid the term used "instant gratification" is what in general action players want hence the term 'action'. Unfortuantly most of us like the slow burn effect of story progression where it takes time to see the results of your choices and not combat that is naruto based jutsu feel to it with exploding parts and gore like mortal kombat. Where we prefer slower paced tactical approach and the others who you may have tried to bring in like the instant gratification of hack and slash or beat em ups and I personally think ME series was your action RPG franchise that appeals to that crowd I don't see why you had to make a second franchise into that same action RPG experience. You had two types and now you have one imho the only difference being one is scifi based the other is fantasy..

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 29 mai 2011 - 01:37 .

[JabbaDaHutt30]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Shirosaki17 wrote...
He's wrong because he thinks that would make old school RPGers happy. Laidlaw agreed with it, so I assume he thinks the same thing. If you took DA2 and just added player initiated dialogue with companions, it wouldn't fix it, nor would it appease most of the people upset and disappointed by it.

First, I said many, not all. Secondly I never said it was they only thing needed, just that many would enjoy seeing more of it. Entirely different concepts. So feel free to run Scrubs clips at yourself for bad reading comprehension.

Please don't post that smiley again.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

The Serge777 wrote...

I'm sure they'd be more than interested in the fate of things like non-combat skills,

Would love to see this return.  Still, how many people didn't take things like Persuasion in almost every play through?

*raises hand*

Didn't have Coercion for half my warrior's game, but she still tried persuade checks because she wasn't an intimidation type of person...and of course usually failed.

Good RP.

Though I missed flirting with Teagan and couldn't understand until my second game what all the squeefuss was about.

[Dubya75]

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).

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?

I think you've lost the plot, mate. You make a lot of assumptions.

[Nerdage]

Autolycus wrote...

I enjoy detailed character creation myself. I love it. But I can also appreciate the notion of not frontloading all those choices before the player has a chance to get some context in game as to what all those stats/abilities/whatever mean.

The problem there though Cutlass is.....that RPG players don't mind, we like it. Thus proving in intself, that Laidlaw/EA did not want to make an RPG at all....the fact cannot be argued anymore....he does not want to create a game for the very people who pay his wage.  

But why would 'RPG players' (don't know why you're speaking for a group you're also arguing with but oh well..) mind the stats not being first? There's no down-side to giving the player context before throwing stats at them, and the plus side is making the game more accessible, the stats are still there after all. Stop being so petty.

Incidentally, his wage is paid by (or 'is justified by', I'm guessing he recieves a wage before the game ships..) whoever buys the game, not some kind of hardcore RPG player tax, so his wage is indeed paid by the people the game was made for; the ones who bought it. If you don't want to be paying his wage, don't buy the game, there's nothing forcing you.