738 réponses à ce sujet

[Sister Helen]

I'm coming at this from a different perspective from what I suspect is the majority of the forum posters.  I suspect folks will flame me or accuse me of trolling or whatever the current lingo/slang is, but it is what it is.  

I buy (..maybe..) two or three computer games a year; the Husband buys a lot more.

When I play a computer game, I am doing it to enjoy myself.  If I enjoy the game, I might pick up others by the same company, IF the story on the back of the box sounds vaguely interesting, and IF my computer can run it, and IF the game doesn't have any vertigo-inducing graphics.  The last couple of years, I've been buying Bioware games.

If I dislike a computer game or stop playing it for whatever reason, I toss it in the corner and forget about it; I don't bother to remember the name of the company, because usually companies that put out bad games tend to vanish after a couple of years.  Bethseda is the exception; they produce good games, which I NEVER buy and go out of my way to avoid, due to the vertigo/nosebleeds thing that I got playing one of the recent Fallout games.

I've never met Mr. Laidlaw, and in fact, didn't even know who he was until I asked the Husband about it, after reading all the hate/love/constructive criticism/whatever posts that are aimed at the guy.

1)  Honestly, folks, Mr. Laidlaw's doing a job.  And no, you don't pay him to do it.  His company pays him to do it.  He has to do what his company tells him to do, or whoops! no job. That's the real world.  If you don't think the world works that way, feel free to tell your boss that you're not going to do something he/she is demanding that you do.  ... Yes, you paid $60.00 for your game, but you paid for a good, not Mr. Laidlaw's specific services.    

     You may not like it, or like what the end product of his particular job is, but the overwhelming outpouring of emotion (love, hate, constructive criticism, whatever) directed at that one man is out of proportion to what he actually has power to change.  Even I know, from the limited experience I had in editing computer software and debugging programs in the private sector--wince, a very  long time ago--most of what you see as a final product is a creation by committee.  No single person puts out a computer game.  (The old joke is that the giraffe is what a committee of angels came up with to be the ideal animal.)

2)  I'm a civil servant, and let me tell you, having been on the other side of the angry mob of folks who are mad because of their circumstances or frustration with certain rules being enforced, you tend to feel a bit of empathy for the guy you see in the same situation.  But it's a job, and at the end of the day, you wash the spit out of your hair, file that incidence report, kiss the Husband on the forehead, and play a computer game to forget the crap that is your work day.  

   If I get mad, it's at the spitter and the rules that exist that I cannot change.  The last thing I am going to do is get angry at the folks who designed the computer game. 

 

Modifié par Sister Helen, 29 mai 2011 - 01:54 .

[Nerdage]

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...

The problem is, he's still trying to push in the same direction, just a little less than what Dragon Age 2 did. 

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

Are you making things up to suit your purpose, Jabba? I think you are.. Naughty, naughty.

[KnightofPhoenix]

nerdage wrote...

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...

The problem is, he's still trying to push in the same direction, just a little less than what Dragon Age 2 did. 

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

Are you making things up to suit your purpose, Jabba? I think you are.. Naughty, naughty.

Until we get a detailed and specific explanation on what he means by "middle ground", that's just words for now.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 29 mai 2011 - 01:52 .

[JabbaDaHutt30]

Sister Helen wrote...

I'm coming at this from a different perspective from what I suspect is the majority of the forum posters.  I suspect folks will flame me or accuse me of trolling or whatever the current lingo/slang is, but it is what it is.  

I buy (..maybe..) two or three computer games a year; the Husband buys a lot more.

When I play a computer game, I am doing it to enjoy myself.  If I enjoy the game, I might pick up others by the same company, IF the story on the back of the box sounds vaguely interesting, and IF my computer can run it, and IF the game doesn't have any vertigo-inducing graphics.  The last couple of years, I've been buying Bioware games.

If I dislike a computer game or stop playing it for whatever reason, I toss it in the corner and forget about it; I don't bother to remember the name of the company, because usually companies that put out bad games tend to vanish after a couple of years.  Bethseda is the exception; they produce good games, which I NEVER buy and go out of my way to avoid, due to the vertigo/nosebleeds thing that I got playing from one of the recent Fallout games.

I've never met Mr. Laidlaw, and in fact, didn't even know who he was until I asked the Husband about it, after reading all the hate/love/constructive criticism/whatever posts that are aimed at the guy.

1)  Honestly, folks, Mr. Laidlaw's doing a job.  And no, you don't pay him to do it.  His company pays him to do it.  He has to do what his company tells him to do, or whoops! no job. That's the real world.  If you don't think the world works that way, feel free to tell your boss that you're not going to do something he/she is demanding that you do.  ... Yes, you paid $60.00 for your game, but you paid for a good, not Mr. Laidlaw's specific services.    

     You may not like it, or like what the end product of his particular job is, but the overwhelming outpouring of emotion (love, hate, constructive criticism, whatever) directed at that one man is out of proportion to what he actually has power to change.  Even I know, from the limited experience I had in editing computer software and debugging programs in the private sector--wince, a very  long time ago--most of what you see as a final product is a creation by committee.  No single person puts out a computer game.  (The old joke is that the giraffe is what a committee of angels came up with to be the ideal animal.)

2)  I'm a civil servant, and let me tell you, having been on the other side of the angry mob of folks who are mad because of their circumstances or frustration with certain rules being enforced, you tend to feel a bit of empathy for the guy you see in the same situation.  But it's a job, and at the end of the day, you wash the spit out of your hair, file that incidence report, kiss the Husband on the forehead, and play a computer game to forget the crap that is your work day.  

   If I get mad, it's at the spitter and the rules that exist that I cannot change.  The last thing I am going to do is get angry at the folks who designed the computer game. 

 

Brent Knowles refused to work on Dragon Age 2 and BioWare assigned him to work on the console version of the project ( Origins ).

Modifié par JabbaDaHutt30, 29 mai 2011 - 01:55 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Lumikki wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

RageGT wrote...

No, meaning he has the same perception of DA2 as I have. DA:O is a Symphonic playing a Masterpiece. DA2 is a midi keyboard playing Lady Gaga!

And the art, really. Origins may not have the best ever design what what they did with elves, darkspawn, zevran, trolls.. would boarder a really bad taste joke if it weren't so so sad!

I did not think DAO was masterpiece of anyting, just normal good game what Bioware has made, that's all. Mostly I did find DAO more like annoying. NO, I don't mean DAO hasn't have good design there too, I do, but masterpiece. Far from it.

Compared to DA2? It IS a masterpiece imo, even with the flaws Origins had. Choices mattered, character and party development mattered. All the core trappings one would expect from a CRPG mattered.

Now? not so much.

Yeah, but this is based what you people self value in games. How you want to see situation. Both games has good and bad points. I would say DA2 has more mistakes than DAO have, but just because these games are different, doesn't make one better than other.  The design mistakes and short cuts drops DA2 general value. Like you self sayd, you expect CRPG as how you see it.  Meaning not all what you think was good, was good to "all" other people.

No, it's based on the genre, past bioware titles and what one comes to expect from a game that says its an RPG where you're choices matter. 100% of the marketing for DA2 stated this, and it can't be further from the truth, since the player's choices over the course of the game matters zero. The idea that people are ok with that, and encourage that for future titles, is nothing short of astounding to me.

That's without mentioning the reused art, the massive lore retcons on a whim, the fact that voice overs for the PC make every playthrough pretty much identical.  There are so many reasons why DA2 is not a good game yet a core group just wants to pretend isn't the case. Almost as if they have fingers in their ears going LA LA LA I can't hear you!.

[Master Shiori]

RageGT wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

RageGT wrote...

No, meaning he has the same perception of DA2 as I have. DA:O is a Symphonic playing a Masterpiece. DA2 is a midi keyboard playing Lady Gaga!

And the art, really. Origins may not have the best ever design what what they did with elves, darkspawn, zevran, trolls.. would boarder a really bad taste joke if it weren't so so sad!

I did not think DAO was masterpiece of anyting, just normal good game what Bioware has made, that's all. Mostly I did find DAO more like annoying. NO, I don't mean DAO hasn't have good design there too, I do, but masterpiece. Far from it.

If you don't have 10 full completionist playthrough with the game, with all classes, races, origins and builds, don't think your opinion matters to some maniac like me that after 20 full completionist runs still wants more. DAO is another league compared to DA2. Much much superior! I can't finish my 6th run with DA2 because it makes me sick after 5. And I bet many people didn't think Van Gog, Picasso, Beatles or Led Zep are masterpieces of anything too.

Whether his/her opinion matters to you is irrelevant. But every opinion voiced here matters to Mike and Bioware.

Both of you payed the full price for the game and, as such, are equaly important to Bioware, regardless of how many achievements you collected or how many times you finished the game.

Modifié par Master Shiori, 29 mai 2011 - 02:03 .

[devSin]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

I think the problem I really have with the approach, or at least with the tendency to suggest that changes are beneficial because they open the game to a wider audience, is that it seems to reveal that the focus of development was largely on expanding the player base. When a change is made, according to the defense that you sometimes mount, it's good for the game because it increases the potential reach of the game.

More people playing the game is a great thing. Courting gamers who maybe aren't hardcore RPG enthusiasts or BioWare fans is a good thing. But I don't want to hear that something is considered an ideal result, because it brings the game closer to being palatable by people who previously weren't interested. That something is a candidate for change just because the possibility exists that it's an impediment to those who didn't like or didn't try Origins.

I think it would have been a much, much different situation if the defense you had been able to mount was that the changes you made were done because you honestly feel that they are better. Because Origins had flaws for all players, and because there are a large number of possibilities that couldn't have been realized without some significant changes. When you look at design for Dragon Age III, your priority, I feel, should be to ask how can you make the game better for the people who actually want to play it. How can you improve it for the people who have purchased, played, and enjoyed games in the franchise (and yes, this includes people who greatly prefer Origins). What parts are candidates for change because they're simply not good enough, period.

After that list, then, I think is the appropriate place to really court new customers. How can you... and how can this be done so that it also doesn't create further or eliminates existing barriers to entry. What parts are candidates for change... and is there a beneficial change to make that can also provide less restrictive gameplay. The people who don't even want to play the game do deserve a seat at the table. Absolutely. But I think it's a huge disservice to the existing audience to give them all the best seats.

I will continue to enjoy Dragon Age II. I will buy the DLC (I'm not the most timely customer, sorry, but I do get it all eventually). I will continue to hope for but not expect full expansions. And I will be in line for DA3 regardless. But I continue to think something has been lost in the move from Origins. Maybe it's because the focus was too much on how to widen the audience. Maybe it's because there simply was not enough time.

Whatever the case, I don't think the idea of now focusing on how to "bridge" the two audiences in a never-ending balancing act of what complexity can safely be added back without forcing too much a compromise on the people who are possibly driven away by it is going to give you anything substantially better in DA3. (Not to say that this will be at all how you approach it, but I think some of your defense of DA2 suggests this is at least part of how you're looking at it.) I'm hoping for better, and knowing your capabilities, I'm very much expecting you to deliver it.

Modifié par devSin, 29 mai 2011 - 02:15 .

[Nerdage]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

nerdage wrote...

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...

The problem is, he's still trying to push in the same direction, just a little less than what Dragon Age 2 did. 

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

Are you making things up to suit your purpose, Jabba? I think you are.. Naughty, naughty.

Until we get a detailed and specific explanation on what he means by "middle ground", that's just words for now.

Words suggesting one thing is still worth more than assumptions suggesting the opposite.

[Tommy6860]

Sister Helen wrote...

If I dislike a computer game or stop playing it for whatever reason, I toss it in the corner and forget about it; I don't bother to remember the name of the company, because usually companies that put out bad games tend to vanish after a couple of years.  Bethseda is the exception; they produce good games, which I NEVER buy and go out of my way to avoid, due to the vertigo/nosebleeds thing that I got playing from one of the recent Fallout games.

Good points and I respect your opinions, though I may disagree on a few, but I have to ask. You state Bethesda makes good games, but you avoid them, because One Fallout game was cause for you to experience vertigo and nosebleeds?

Modifié par Tommy6860, 29 mai 2011 - 01:57 .

[Lumikki]

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...


Brent Knowles refused to work on Dragon Age 2 and BioWare assigned him to work on the console version of the project ( Origins ).

Breat Knowles is important how?

[KnightofPhoenix]

nerdage wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

nerdage wrote...

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...

The problem is, he's still trying to push in the same direction, just a little less than what Dragon Age 2 did. 

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

Are you making things up to suit your purpose, Jabba? I think you are.. Naughty, naughty.

Until we get a detailed and specific explanation on what he means by "middle ground", that's just words for now.

Words suggesting one thing is still worth more than assumptions suggesting the opposite.

That's what I thought, but then we had the marketing for DA2.

[JabbaDaHutt30]

Lumikki wrote...

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...


Brent Knowles refused to work on Dragon Age 2 and BioWare assigned him to work on the console version of the project ( Origins ).

Breat Knowles is important how?

He didn't get fired for not working on Dragon Age 2. He quit. 

[Corto81]

Lumikki wrote...

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...


Brent Knowles refused to work on Dragon Age 2 and BioWare assigned him to work on the console version of the project ( Origins ).

Breat Knowles is important how?

Because story goes Knowles was the main designer for Origins and it was more in line with his picture of an epic RPG.

[Dragoonlordz]

Sister Helen wrote...

1)  Honestly, folks, Mr. Laidlaw's doing a job.  And no, you don't pay him to do it.  His company pays him to do it.  He has to do what his company tells him to do, or whoops! no job. That's the real world.  If you don't think the world works that way, feel free to tell your boss that you're not going to do something he/she is demanding that you do.

I do that all the time thanks, thats where being extremely good at what you do gives you leg room in making decisions, if your a mediocre worker with shoddy work and try it your going to get fired but if your truly great at what you do, you have the ability to stand up and make your case with great success more often than not regarding decisions. If your not being listened to then go find another bloody job one that appreciates your input or stay there and be a miserable sod the rest of your working life. You can look for another while do that crappy job so there is no excuses.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 29 mai 2011 - 02:03 .

[JabbaDaHutt30]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

nerdage wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

nerdage wrote...

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...

The problem is, he's still trying to push in the same direction, just a little less than what Dragon Age 2 did. 

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

Are you making things up to suit your purpose, Jabba? I think you are.. Naughty, naughty.

Until we get a detailed and specific explanation on what he means by "middle ground", that's just words for now.

Words suggesting one thing is still worth more than assumptions suggesting the opposite.

That's what I thought, but then we had the marketing for DA2.

We also had a lot to see there, though. 

[Sister Helen]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Sister Helen wrote...

If I dislike a computer game or stop playing it for whatever reason, I toss it in the corner and forget about it; I don't bother to remember the name of the company, because usually companies that put out bad games tend to vanish after a couple of years.  Bethseda is the exception; they produce good games, which I NEVER buy and go out of my way to avoid, due to the vertigo/nosebleeds thing that I got playing from one of the recent Fallout games.

Good points and I respect your opinions, though I may disagree on a few, but I have to ask. You state Bethesda makes good games, but you avoid them, because One Fallout game was cause for you to experience vertigo and nosebleeds?

Heh.  The Husband loves Bethseda games.  So they must be good. 

Just because I can't play them doesn't mean that they aren't good. 

[AngryFrozenWater]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

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.

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.

I'd love to know what brought Mike to this conclusion. because judging by how the majority of people felt about DA2's dumbing down, not only here but on other game sites like Blues News and Evil Avatar for example, any DA2 thread has about 99% negative responces because of what Mike says right in this quote. Then when you look at the sales data in comparison to Origins or other deeper CRPG's, its not a contest. So I'm a bit puzzled how the devs are getting this scenario as truth. Perhaps all those "data collectors" within titles, they're using these days either don't work well or they're only looking at console player data who knows.

Does Bioware want to make deep CRPG's at all at this point? Or yearly action game iterations ala the call of dutys of the world? The way it comes off, certainly sounds like the latter.

There is not much room left to dumb down the game even further. When the game mechanics are even more streamlined than they are now it might as well be called an adventure with a nice story and flashy combat.

I agree with Sarah. Who is it that BW tries to gather for? And does that audience really exists? The shooter fans can be lured into the ME franchise. I can understand that bit. No matter what audience, whether they play on PC or console, I believe that gamers don't want to be treated like they can't think.

[Tommy6860]

Sister Helen wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

Sister Helen wrote...

If I dislike a computer game or stop playing it for whatever reason, I toss it in the corner and forget about it; I don't bother to remember the name of the company, because usually companies that put out bad games tend to vanish after a couple of years.  Bethseda is the exception; they produce good games, which I NEVER buy and go out of my way to avoid, due to the vertigo/nosebleeds thing that I got playing from one of the recent Fallout games.

Good points and I respect your opinions, though I may disagree on a few, but I have to ask. You state Bethesda makes good games, but you avoid them, because One Fallout game was cause for you to experience vertigo and nosebleeds?

Heh.  The Husband loves Bethseda games.  So they must be good. 

Just because I can't play them doesn't mean that they aren't good. 

That's cool and I wasn't criticizing, but you didn't answer the question, which I find interesting. Why do Bethesda games cause vertigo and nosebleeds?

[Ottemis]

 

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.

Nonsense, it was still there, you just had to wait 30 minutes for it.
Also, you believing something is true does not make it factual. It can be true to you, however.

[JabbaDaHutt30]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

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.

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.

I'd love to know what brought Mike to this conclusion. because judging by how the majority of people felt about DA2's dumbing down, not only here but on other game sites like Blues News and Evil Avatar for example, any DA2 thread has about 99% negative responces because of what Mike says right in this quote. Then when you look at the sales data in comparison to Origins or other deeper CRPG's, its not a contest. So I'm a bit puzzled how the devs are getting this scenario as truth. Perhaps all those "data collectors" within titles, they're using these days either don't work well or they're only looking at console player data who knows.

Does Bioware want to make deep CRPG's at all at this point? Or yearly action game iterations ala the call of dutys of the world? The way it comes off, certainly sounds like the latter.

There is not much room left to dumb down the game even further. When the game mechanics are even more streamlined than they are now it might as well be called an adventure with a nice story and flashy combat.

Fable 3? 

[Dragoonlordz]

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

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.

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.

I'd love to know what brought Mike to this conclusion. because judging by how the majority of people felt about DA2's dumbing down, not only here but on other game sites like Blues News and Evil Avatar for example, any DA2 thread has about 99% negative responces because of what Mike says right in this quote. Then when you look at the sales data in comparison to Origins or other deeper CRPG's, its not a contest. So I'm a bit puzzled how the devs are getting this scenario as truth. Perhaps all those "data collectors" within titles, they're using these days either don't work well or they're only looking at console player data who knows.

Does Bioware want to make deep CRPG's at all at this point? Or yearly action game iterations ala the call of dutys of the world? The way it comes off, certainly sounds like the latter.

There is not much room left to dumb down the game even further. When the game mechanics are even more streamlined than they are now it might as well be called an adventure with a nice story and flashy combat.

Fable 3? 

Is fable 3 really that bad? I was going to get it on PC after the complete overhaul they did on its interface and graphics and some mechanics in porting it.

[Master Shiori]

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...


Brent Knowles refused to work on Dragon Age 2 and BioWare assigned him to work on the console version of the project ( Origins ).

Breat Knowles is important how?

He didn't get fired for not working on Dragon Age 2. He quit. 

And the end result is different how exactly?

Regardless of how he left the company, he is no longer closely involved with designing it's games and, therefore, cannot say if there was or wasn't less dialogue in DA2 since he wasn't involved with the development of said game anyway.

I'll gladly consider him an authority when it comes to project he actually did work on, but DA2 isn't one of those.

[Ottemis]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

RageGT wrote...

No, meaning he has the same perception of DA2 as I have. DA:O is a Symphonic playing a Masterpiece. DA2 is a midi keyboard playing Lady Gaga!

And the art, really. Origins may not have the best ever design what what they did with elves, darkspawn, zevran, trolls.. would boarder a really bad taste joke if it weren't so so sad!

I did not think DAO was masterpiece of anyting, just normal good game what Bioware has made, that's all. Mostly I did find DAO more like annoying. NO, I don't mean DAO hasn't have good design there too, I do, but masterpiece. Far from it.

As many of us on here think the opposite and that DAO was a better game, you think DA2 was better by sounds of it. The question is which group has the most people in it. I think the former and even you I doubt think the latter has more. Therefore the former takes precedent.

Hmno heh, the question is where does Bioware wish to take it.
They have heard you all you know. If they still, and despite of it, don't want to go back to Origins purely, that's the way it is, isn't it. Whatever will be, will be.