738 réponses à ce sujet

[Persephone]

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.

That was actually one of my FAVORITE additions to the party mechanics. Right up there with the Friend/Rival system and Hawke's dialogue options/tone changing based on her/his tone and actions (Including former dialogue, thus creating a personality). Please, PLEASE continue based on that, it's pure gold IMHO. RPG gold, the best kind!

[Mike Laidlaw]

Everwarden wrote...

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

Hyperbole: it's what fuels the internet.

[_Aine_]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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 think many people's fear lies in the "expanding" part of it, equating that with a watered down version of each and every RPG element that they hold dear in order to appeal to the masses.  I am not saying that is the case of course, I am just saying I see that perception out there, correctly or not.  

Pandering to the needs of, or alleviating the fears of, the hard-core rpg-er is probably not easy (nor should it be necessary perhaps).  Still, it is nice to hear from an official point of view specifically about the commitment to party-based RPG...  

EDIT:  I came into DA:O from a very action oriented gaming background.   I didn't consider DA:O to be a dice-rolling, overtly-nichey, rule dependent sort of game, personally.  I found it refreshing in its complexity.  Fantastic in its portrayal of choice and humanity.  And I loved having companions I could utilize and get to know. Those made it special and unique to me in a world full of action or FPS games. I was *not* an RPG fan really, before DA:O.  It drew me in because of the detail, time and variety it had.  *shrugs*  It was unique in a gaming environment full of games trying to emulate each other. 

Modifié par shantisands, 29 mai 2011 - 03:57 .

[Hurrrr]

Mark, can DA3 be played while drinking a coffee?

[Everwarden]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Hyperbole: it's what fuels the internet.

That and it's true, and not hyperbole. Dragon Age 2 was half a step away from being a poor copy of Devil May Cry, honestly. A really, really poor copy.

Didn't Bioware just delay Mass Effect 3 to give it more 'mass market appeal'? That just means it's going to be a shooter. Woo. We don't have enough shooters on the market today. (Okay, in all honesty I know the real reason for the delay is Skyrim, but still)

[AngryFrozenWater]

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.

From your response it looks like you are dedicated to the RPG genre. From my perspective (when comparing DA:O and DA2) it looks like you are pushing the genre in the direction which you don't want it to be in: The action game. This is very confusing, Mr Laidlaw, and therefor I take your response with a grain of salt.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 29 mai 2011 - 03:53 .

[Merced652]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

Thats all well and great, but at what point is the risk not worth the reward? Is the mandate succeed or perish? The core rpg audience has only grown since the days of ultima as computers have become more mainstream right along with gaming in general. It hasn't grown at the rate of a game like MW2 which cannot be repeated without an overall focus on multiplayer. Does the typical dynasty warriors game out sell DAO in to absolute shame?

The whole point i'm getting at is that there is a point, and arguably you've already met and crossed it, where it stops feeling like a rpg and more like action game. Personally thats how DA2 came off to me, the hyperspeed combat, the electro slide animations, the corpse explosions, and waves obliterated any chance i might have had becoming immersed, or at least feeling like i was playing an rpg. This is why ME2 was successfull despite its removal of core rpg elements. ME never really had the core feel of a rpg because you spent no less than half your time in a third person gun battle. Thats fine, it works for them. If they go a more action oriented route it would almost feel like a natural progression so long as the story elements were retained. 

To shift gears a little bit, can you outline specifically what changes were made to try and capture this wider audience? Was it the corpse explosions, the hyperspeed combat, and waves? Or were those consequences of something else? I'd contend that even good yet blatant action games don't typically incorporate even 2/3rds of those. 

Modifié par Merced652, 29 mai 2011 - 03:53 .

[Ottemis]

I don't see how something can't be one thing, and also be another.
That's the idea of a hybrid after all isn't it..

Modifié par Ottemis, 29 mai 2011 - 03:53 .

[Hurrrr]

Everwarden wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Hyperbole: it's what fuels the internet.

That and it's true, and not hyperbole. Dragon Age 2 was half a step away from being a poor copy of Devil May Cry, honestly. A really, really poor copy.

Didn't Bioware just delay Mass Effect 3 to give it more 'mass market appeal'? That just means it's going to be a shooter. Woo. We don't have enough shooters on the market today. (Okay, in all honesty I know the real reason for the delay is Skyrim, but still)

To be fair thats also hyperbole, its wasn't really like DMC.

I felt that where DA2 faired poorly was that it felt very gamey, mechanics id seen before far too much etc..

Personally I feel GREAT GAMES transcend the normal genre boundaries for audience, thus I try and not look at games from the perspective of genre, and instead from mechanics. 

DA2 had too few mechanics for most of us, and poorly implemented certain ones (the spawn points/frequency for example).

[LobselVith8]

Laidlaw said they were taking into account the complaints that were being made - the lack of choice having an impact, the waves of enemies - and I suppose we'll see whether this will be corrected with the DLC we saw screenshots of in his thread. I'd like to see Hawke as a proactive and intelligent character. When we see Hawke constantly reactive to everything around him and how he seems not to care about what happens to Bethany when he does nothing about it, it makes me feel that he isn't a good protagonist. I'd like to see the DLC show that Hawke can make choices that have an impact and that he possesses intelligence.

[Merced652]

Hurrrr wrote...

Everwarden wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Hyperbole: it's what fuels the internet.

That and it's true, and not hyperbole. Dragon Age 2 was half a step away from being a poor copy of Devil May Cry, honestly. A really, really poor copy.

Didn't Bioware just delay Mass Effect 3 to give it more 'mass market appeal'? That just means it's going to be a shooter. Woo. We don't have enough shooters on the market today. (Okay, in all honesty I know the real reason for the delay is Skyrim, but still)

To be fair thats also hyperbole, its wasn't really like DMC.

I felt that where DA2 faired poorly was that it felt very gamey, mechanics id seen before far too much etc..

Personally I feel GREAT GAMES transcend the normal genre boundaries for audience, thus I try and not look at games from the perspective of genre, and instead from mechanics. 

DA2 had too few mechanics for most of us, and poorly implemented certain ones (the spawn points/frequency for example).

I feel the same way. But doesn't that preclude the idea that one must pander to a distinctly different audience in order to gain market penetration? Wouldn't just making a really good game that blew away reviewers and the core audience accomplish the same thing?

[adneate]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
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.

What's the end result of that? Even more simplification so that everyone who doesn't play that style of game can play it without having to learn the basic skillsets of the sub-genere? There's a point where the desire to be all inclusive actively damages the game itself, DA2 tried so hard to be an action game that it was a pretty terrible tactical RPG. Without a tactical overhead camera I couldn't make heads or tails of what was going on when trash mobs flew out of nowhere, everyone was flying around the screen so fast I couldn't form a skirmish line or keep my weaker party members out of the frontlines. It's was markedly harder to control every aspect of my party to the point where I just gave up and let them take care of themselves and just played it as the sub-par hack and slash that it is. If you're giving up so much of what defined the sub-genre in order to make it more "appealing" then haven't you just killed it anyway?

The old school party-based RPG is like an old whiskey, it has a strong bite and it's not for everyone in it's purest form. However it's that unforgiving taste that makes it what it is and watering it down to take the edge off robs it of it's charms. It's not as bitter anymore but it's not as complex and deep either.

Modifié par adneate, 29 mai 2011 - 03:58 .

[Aaleel]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

It's not the action though.  People either want to experience a lot of story, dialogue, character development in their games or they don't.  If people don't, no matter how the rest of the game is wrapped up they won't like it.  Even with COD, or any other game like it, the game it barely 7-8 hours and the playing value comes from multiplayer and co/op playing.

So I still think you will have to go all in, and add those elements.

If they made a COD where you went through the life of a marine, spent blocks of time with the family on leave, then got called to duty, where you rose through the ranks, and followed the story of that marine's life outside combat.  Then had no multiplayer, the fans of this genre wouldn't buy it, they would say it was boring, not enough action.   I don't see how you could package up an RPG to appeal to them, and still have it be an RPG.

Modifié par Aaleel, 29 mai 2011 - 04:02 .

[Maverick827]

Everwarden wrote...

That and it's true, and not hyperbole. Dragon Age 2 was half a step away from being a poor copy of Devil May Cry, honestly.

As a huge Devil May Cry fan: no. No it was not.

The Witcher is more Devil May Cry than Dragon Age will ever be. The core gameplay of DMC is active damage avoidance: dodging, teleporting, running along walls, jumping, etc. The Witcher has this in spades, though I unfortunately feel that the controls are far too unresponsive to properly support this type of gameplay, but I digress.

Dragon Age is, first and foremost, none of those things. Sure, they changed the targeting mechanics so that if you're not in the area of impact of a large, hurled rock, for instance, then you wouldn't take damage. That is more of a move to support logic than it is to support an active avoidance paradigm like Devil May Cry or The Witcher.

At its heart, Dragon Age still supports the "tank" character, which can inexplicably take a large number of hits, never having to move or actively avoid anything, but instead relying on passive avoidance system of dodge, block, parry, hit points, and armor. This is entirely not Devil May Cry. You are correct about one thing, though: typically things that you say aren't hyperbole, they're just downright lies, misinformation, and trolling.

[Cutlass Jack]

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.

That was one of the improvements I really enjoyed this time around. I loved that my party participated more in many quest conversations and that I participated more in their conversations. I really felt tightly connected to my team this time around. I felt like I had some actual relationships with these people rather than them being slaves to my whim.

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.

[Everwarden]

Maverick827 wrote...
 You are correct about one thing, though: typically things that you say aren't hyperbole, they're just downright lies, misinformation, and trolling.

Aww, you're breakin' my heart. 

[_Aine_]

adneate wrote...

The old school party-based RPG is like an old whiskey, it has a strong bite and it's not for everyone in it's purest form. However it's that unforgiving taste that makes it what it is and watering it down to take the edge off robs it of it's charms. It's not as bitter anymore but it's not as complex and deep either.

that is an interesting (and apt) way of putting it.  

It would seem to me ( tell me if I am wrong) that they believe the old way is not a way that will exist into the future, so in order to maintain it even remotely, they are modernizing it for future consumption.  

Like I said, that is just what I am getting out of it, not what i personally believe or disbelieve as truth.  

Reminds me a bit of old religion.  Taking old pagan stories and creating saints out of them in order to integrate the masses to the new ways/ old ways.  It is interesting.    WIll be very interesting to see how it plays out for RPGs in general.  Technology advancing so quickly in terms of 3d design and animation makes for big changes/advancements.  It isn't so much HOW much it is changing that we feel, rather than how those changes are implemented.  Hmmm.  

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.  

Modifié par shantisands, 29 mai 2011 - 04:05 .

[Maverick827]

Everwarden wrote...

Aww, you're breakin' my heart. 

I rest my case.  How haven't you been banned yet?

[Mike Laidlaw]

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

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

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

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

[Mike Laidlaw]

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

Agreed.

[Ottemis]

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

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

[Mike Laidlaw]

Ottemis wrote...

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

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

Well, there's a first time for everything!

[Ottemis]

Awww =)

[Maverick827]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

That was one of the improvements I really enjoyed this time around. I loved that my party participated more in many quest conversations and that I participated more in their conversations. I really felt tightly connected to my team this time around. I felt like I had some actual relationships with these people rather than them being slaves to my whim.

I felt the same way.  I've always believed that these types of games lost something by giving the player character carte blanche over every little aspect of their party.  Not only does this diminish the characters themselves, but also I believe this diminishes the player character as well.  I want a team of people whose opinions I value, and who are as valuable to the group as I am, not mindless pawns who pale in comparison to my almighty player character.  I also don't want my character to have to be the dictator of our little band of travelers.

That said, there always needs to be a reason why you get to call the shots, and why you take charge of a majority of the dialog, so you're always slated to be the leader.  There might be a good way to write and design around this, but I can't think of one.

[Beerfish]

Everwarden wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Hyperbole: it's what fuels the internet.

That and it's true, and not hyperbole. Dragon Age 2 was half a step away from being a poor copy of Devil May Cry, honestly. A really, really poor copy.

Didn't Bioware just delay Mass Effect 3 to give it more 'mass market appeal'? That just means it's going to be a shooter. Woo. We don't have enough shooters on the market today. (Okay, in all honesty I know the real reason for the delay is Skyrim, but still)

Sheer and utter nonsense.  What is your definition of an rpg that is step one.

DA2 - A nice roster of interesting companions that you can treat in different ways and they will react to you in different ways over the game depending how you act.
Quests that you can partake in or not, your choice. 
Two main factions that you can support or not during the game.
Romances you can approach in two very different ways.
The abililty to affect the end game for companions by your decisions.
A variety of classes you can play, essentially 5 different types that will give you a different game experience when you play.
A variety of ways you can develop those different class types.
A great difference in difficulty levels, from the people who are not adept or don't care about combat to nightmare that is real challenge to many,

DA2 was by no means perfect, its flaws are well documented but the people indicating it was devoid of roleplay are totally out to lunch.