738 réponses à ce sujet

[Chiramu]

"Failure" is a very harsh word to use OP.

Dragon Age 2 never failed. And it has opened to a much wider audience which is good; sticking to old things is a good way to stagnate. You need to explore the waters and expand your horizons, that's what this game is about. It's testing the waters, and exploring to see how much Bioware can achieve and what they can do different.

[Killer3000ad]

The problem is that his vision of DA2 is not what i want. I want Brent Knowles vision of DA, which was executed well in DA:O.

[marshalleck]

Chiramu wrote...

"Failure" is a very harsh word to use OP.

Dragon Age 2 never failed. And it has opened to a much wider audience

Has it? Proof?

[TheRealJayDee]

Chiramu wrote...
Dragon Age 2 never failed. And it has opened to a much wider audience which is good; sticking to old things is a good way to stagnate. You need to explore the waters and expand your horizons, that's what this game is about. It's testing the waters, and exploring to see how much Bioware can achieve and what they can do different.

I'm still not convinced about the "opened to a much wider audience" argument at all. Did it really? And about the old things/stagnating part: Dragon Age isn't a long running franchise with multiple, very similar games. There was ONE game, which isn't even two years old, and it was tremendously successful in all ways imaginable (sales, professional reviews, awards, word of mouth etc). Following this with a numeric sequel that is "testing the waters", as you describe it, is... a bold move. I'm not sure sure I'd say it was a complete fail, but I do know I'm not the only one who doesn't feel his horizon was remarkably expanded coming from DA:O to DA2...

[NedPepper]

All I can say is that they tried something different. Whether or not it lived up to expectations is completely subjective. I say it was a great game. I don't really care about the respawning enemies. My only complaints are the reuse of maps and the narrative kind of unravveling in Act 3. These are minor issues, though. All you can ask for in a game is whether or not you as a player were ultimately satisfied. So did Mike live up to his "mantra"? (I love how people try and twist Laidlaw"s words to fit their own agenda.)

I'd say he did. It was a fun, interesting, ballsy game that really pushed the Dragon Age lore into a new and EXCITING direciton. Were there issues? Yes. But, I rarely play a game that doesn't have issues. I love Origins, but it has its own set of issues. I loved both Mass Effect and ME2 and they have issues.

And I'm so disappointed that Laidlaw came to talk to this supposed "fanbase" finally in a back and forth and some of you acted like psychos (really, I mean it) and kept YOUR mantra of demanding his apology or blood or whatever the hell is wrong with some of you. This is just not healthy. I know this is a complete aside from the topic, but the Thank You thread was a chance to for this place to act professional and courteous even in disagreement. And it turned right back into the hate filled cesspool that it's been. I have to ask SOME of you; If you don't like ME2, Dragon Age 2 and you've complained about Bioware for the last two games (or even Origins) they've released....it's time to move on. Go away. Maybe, just maybe, you ARE NOT the fanbse anymore. It's brutal and it's hard, but if you can't find some kind of enjoyment out of anything Bioware produces, you're just wasting your time. END RANT.

[NedPepper]

Killer3000ad wrote...

The problem is that his vision of DA2 is not what i want. I want Brent Knowles vision of DA, which was executed well in DA:O.

Brent Knowles doesn't work for Bioware anymore.  SO, is this realistic?  Are you saying you want them to rehire the guy?  Well, start up a thread about rehiring Brent Knowles.  Otherwise...what's the point?

[Chiramu]

marshalleck wrote...

Chiramu wrote...

"Failure" is a very harsh word to use OP.

Dragon Age 2 never failed. And it has opened to a much wider audience

Has it? Proof?

Proof that it hasn't?

[Merced652]

Chiramu wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Chiramu wrote...

"Failure" is a very harsh word to use OP.

Dragon Age 2 never failed. And it has opened to a much wider audience

Has it? Proof?

Proof that it hasn't?

ROFL. I love it. 

The only logic in your post is you owning yourself with logical fallacies. 

Modifié par Merced652, 29 mai 2011 - 12:37 .

[Chiramu]

Merced652 wrote...

Chiramu wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Chiramu wrote...

"Failure" is a very harsh word to use OP.

Dragon Age 2 never failed. And it has opened to a much wider audience

Has it? Proof?

Proof that it hasn't?

ROFL. I love it. 

The only logic in your post is you owning yourself with logical fallacies. 

And you haven't answered the question, you hypocrite.

[Merced652]

Chiramu wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

Chiramu wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Chiramu wrote...

"Failure" is a very harsh word to use OP.

Dragon Age 2 never failed. And it has opened to a much wider audience

Has it? Proof?

Proof that it hasn't?

ROFL. I love it. 

The only logic in your post is you owning yourself with logical fallacies. 

And you haven't answered the question, you hypocrite.

I'm not making unprovable assertions, which is a logical fallacy, and then defending them on the basis that someone can't refute you exactly because its not able to be proven, which is also a logical fallacy. Why should i accept your assertion? For the same reason you're not required to accept that the game did fail in its goal of bringing in a wider audience. The only difference between the two is that popular opinion, such as we can measure it, indicates that da2 wasn't very good or popular. Its a logicall fallacy to state it as fact, but supporting evidence shouldn't be ignored wholesale based on that either. 

[Aaleel]

Seeing how bad the sales are, it didn't retain the group that it had, nor did it bring in a new one.

[MonkeyLungs]

Chiramu wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Chiramu wrote...

"Failure" is a very harsh word to use OP.

Dragon Age 2 never failed. And it has opened to a much wider audience

Has it? Proof?

Proof that it hasn't?

DA:O has sold better than DA2. It has also been reviewed better by both critics and fans all across ther web. Who exactly is this mythical larger audience parrots like you envision?

It is MYTHOLOGY that to reach a wider audience an RPG needs to be streamlined. Pure mythology created by people believeing marketing PR.

Modifié par MonkeyLungs, 29 mai 2011 - 01:01 .

[Kroepoek]

Chiramu wrote...

"Failure" is a very harsh word to use OP.

Dragon Age 2 never failed. And it has opened to a much wider audience which is good; sticking to old things is a good way to stagnate. You need to explore the waters and expand your horizons, that's what this game is about. It's testing the waters, and exploring to see how much Bioware can achieve and what they can do different.

So in other words, you would be fine if they kept producing games such as DA2 just to 'explore waters', see what they can achieve and how much money they can nickle and dime from you before you realise it isn't going anywhere.

You're saying that appealing it to a wider audience is good. I beg to differ. It is indeed possible, but you won't be doing so by turning it into a hybrid and ****** off people on both sides. You don't take an Italian pizza, and try to sell it to Chinese people by saying it's Chinese.

Furthermore, why would Bioware do things different if they had a working formula with Dragon Age: Origins? Why felt they it was needed to rehash the whole game into an action hack & slash world of wonders. Simplifying things, the re-use of three whole maps. I'd say that falls well into the category of what they can do different.
Bioware would have been better off with a refinement process. Build further on, on what made DAO such a great game.

And here you're saying, with all the possible potential they have and neglecting the fact it was a rush job for a quick cash-in, that it's good to 'explore waters'? I'm sure you just love the game for the simple fact it has a Bioware signature.

Modifié par Fix1o0, 29 mai 2011 - 01:21 .

[Aaleel]

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.

RPGs are a very unique genre, where a lot of people play for story, and dialogue before action. The group they're going after wants action first, second and third, with just some story thrown in to keep the game moving.

Modifié par Aaleel, 29 mai 2011 - 01:28 .

[_Aine_]

If they needed 1/3 the sale to meet the cost of DA2, they are MORE successful financially than if DAO cost them 1/2 of what they made on DAO.

My point? Success to them may be solely financial. To us, it is enjoyment.

Long term? Enjoyment by the majority changes the long term success financially. ( not short term though, of course.)

If it goes down to simple math, they could release cheap crap in a year and still profit. Would it be smart long-term financially? No, of course not. It all depends on how long you want something to remain alive and viable.

I don't think the creators themselves say " Oh, I only need to put X amount of effort into this." but in the end their work hours are determined by a budget.

Is that cynical or realistic? Tonight I don't know. I do know, that the people I listen to often from Bioware DO care about their work and put 125% of themselves into it, within their constraints. I don't think many of us are privy enough to those restraints to be able to state 100% that we know what that is.

My *personal* opinion is to remain true to whatever the original vision of the STYLE and MOOD of your game series would be. Tweak the delivery but not the overall intent. My opinion of course, remains useful to no-one but myself as it has no money riding on it...which of course makes it easier for me to state it without recourse

[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 .

[Cutlass Jack]

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.

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.

You had me at Wasteland.

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.

[Hurrrr]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

Till I see you MAKING OUT with the boxes, I question your passion.

[Persephone]

Hurrrr wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

Till I see you MAKING OUT with the boxes, I question your passion.

Disturbing IMAGES.....in my head.........

And besides, those boxes promised eternal love to ME!

Hmph, no fidelity from game boxes these days.

[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.

[Scimal]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

Winnar winnar chicken dinnar.

[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.

[Ottemis]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

Haha well, very happy to hear that about party-based RPG's =)
Also, it would be quite a silly thought for you to not have love for RPG's but be on the teams which (in my humble opinion) brought out some of the best RPG games this decade.

I'd like to say again, and I know it might not mean much.. keep doing what you're doing Mike.
Asmuch as people doubt you there's also those that have faith you can make this work.

[Everwarden]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
 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. 

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