738 réponses à ce sujet

[Persephone]

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!) 

[Redcoat]

If you love something, it's totally understandable that you want to share it with the world. I love heavy metal, and nothing would please me more than seeing everyone in the world headbanging to Iron Maiden and Judas Priest. But that's never going to happen because some people just don't like the genre of heavy metal. And you won't reach that audience by forcing bands like Iron Maiden and Judas Priest to water down and soften their sound into bland, radio-friendly pablum. All that will accomplish is angering existing fans who hate the new direction they've taken, and making new listeners wonder what was so great about these bands in the first place, as they now sound like every other band on the radio.

//is presently listening to Judas Priest's Painkiller
//this album is made of 100% distilled awesome.

[Everwarden]

Maverick827 wrote..
I rest my case.  How haven't you been banned yet?

Your case isn't very strong, I think a reasonable judge would throw it out and hold you in contempt of court.

Have I broken any rules? Which ones? Is disagreeing with Mr. Laidlaw against the rules now? 

Modifié par Everwarden, 29 mai 2011 - 04:18 .

[_Aine_]

Maverick827 wrote...
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.

True, it is why I appreciated the Aveline's in my party.  She seemed quite agreeable when we were on the same side, but they did a wonderful job of giving her a voice when she thought you were being a big ass but respected you anyway.  

=)  I enjoyed that aspect of DA2 a great deal.  What was there made them seem like real people. The problem was you talked to them so little and heard from them ( not including you ) so often that there was a wedge of distance between you.  We all scream MOAR all the time of course, especially when something works.  Perhaps though if there was *more* of what makes Bioware unique and is one of their strongest suits ( the characterizations and humanity of the characters) and we were given more opportunity to interact and initiate ( not passively witness) people would feel more inherently connected to the story.  

Modifié par shantisands, 29 mai 2011 - 04:17 .

[Persephone]

Everwarden wrote...

Have I broken any rules? Which ones? Is disagreeing with Mr. Laidlaw against the rules now? 

As my dear late Grandpa used to say...."Kiddo, it's the TONE that makes the music." 

Modifié par Persephone, 29 mai 2011 - 04:17 .

[Ottemis]

Everwarden wrote...
Your case isn't very strong, I think a reasonable judge would throw it out and hold you in contempt of court.

Have I broken any rules? Which ones? Is disagreeing with Mr. Laidlaw against the rules now? 

Oh snap snap. Shush ><

Modifié par Ottemis, 29 mai 2011 - 04:20 .

[Everwarden]

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. 

[Hurrrr]

I guess the argument in its purest form is that you seem to have a cause when you made DA2, whereas with the older games it seemed like the company was just out to make a great game.

Most of us don't really care about evangelizing the RPG, yet it was the keynote that was talked about again and again by Bioware pre-release.

[LobselVith8]

Beerfish wrote...

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. 

It was missing a lot in terms of roleplay. Hawke's dialogue options often stated one thing while the voice actor said something entirely different.  DA2 ignores Hawke if he's a mage for most of the storyline and a bloodmage entirely. Hawke does nothing regarding Bethany at the end of Act I. Hawke does not investigate the evidence he found from Quentin in Act II. Hawke does nothing for three years between Act II and Act III despite his status. It was devoid of a lot of roleplay elements, and even the endings are virtually identical except for some superficial differences.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 29 mai 2011 - 04:20 .

[neppakyo]

..I like seeing numbers fly by in combat. Gimmie more NWN1/2 style combat logs. I hate ambiguously vague icons. "oh, that winking eye with a squiggly line means that theres a 25% resistance to slashing damage? Huh."

[Brockololly]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
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.

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?





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.

[Merced652]

Hurrrr wrote...

I guess the argument in its purest form is that you seem to have a cause when you made DA2, whereas with the older games it seemed like the company was just out to make a great game.

Most of us don't really care about evangelizing the RPG, yet it was the keynote that was talked about again and again by Bioware pre-release.

Agreed! Which is why i have to wonder who, or what exactly is pushing so hard for this wider audience. 

[_Aine_]

Redcoat wrote...

If you love something, it's totally understandable that you want to share it with the world. I love heavy metal, and nothing would please me more than seeing everyone in the world headbanging to Iron Maiden and Judas Priest. But that's never going to happen because some people just don't like the genre of heavy metal. And you won't reach that audience by forcing bands like Iron Maiden and Judas Priest to water down and soften their sound into bland, radio-friendly pablum. All that will accomplish is angering existing fans who hate the new direction they've taken, and making new listeners wonder what was so great about these bands in the first place, as they now sound like every other band on the radio.

//is presently listening to Judas Priest's Painkiller
//this album is made of 100% distilled awesome.

But, but you could layer Judas Priest over some heavy electronica and then overlay some gothic choir!  THREE markets, all in one.  No really you could! 

You may get new fans too.  Of course, the Heavy metal people, the electronica people and the choir people may all think you have lost your marbles. OR they will all think you are a genius.  

Ah, the price of innovation.  THAT kind of mix rarely works unless society is ready for it. The question is, is it? 

:innocent:

[Ottemis]

I am I am!
I'm seriously getting psyched now, and then I gotta still wait for DA3 to be released, darn-it =(

[Lumikki]

I think the new vision is only way to Bioware to success. How ever, execution of DA2 wasn't so good. They made too many general mistakes, even without considering what kind of the game it is.

People should not mix execution of game design and direction of game design. If execution doesn't go well, that doesn't mean direction wans't right one.

In general my opinion is, that redusing statical elements of classic RPG is right way to go, but over simplify everyting isn't. Because people still need customation and choises in RPG. I mean game industry in general is going more in cinematic direction and less about statical numeric gameplay in RPG.

Modifié par Lumikki, 29 mai 2011 - 04:25 .

[Merced652]

Brockololly wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
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.

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?

*snip*



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.

Well said, Brock. Your reference to CA and Total Wars seems apt to me given i still play Medieval 2 despite having both Epire and Shogun 2. Seems thier innovation hasn't quite captured that magic. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

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

Since I am confused at what exactly is the DA team's direction, can you elaborate on what you mean by middle ground between Origins and DA2?

"Middle ground" gets tossed around way too much (I remember something like DA2 supposedely being the middle ground between Origins and ME) that it loses its meaning.

I would be grateful if you could translate that into specific points. Just so that everyone's clear on what direction the team is taking.

Thanks.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 29 mai 2011 - 04:28 .

[Persephone]

Ottemis wrote...

I am I am!
I'm seriously getting psyched now, and then I gotta still wait for DA3 to be released, darn-it =(

Expansion! Expansion! Expaaaaaaaaaaaaansion!

Mike......can you give us....something? 

[adneate]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
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.

Then I would start by mentioning some of the specific elements from Origins that should be brought back after being cut out in DA2. For months we've been listening to nothing but Origins being hammered on again and again while DA2 was held up as the solution to all the problems that Origins was plagued with. Now post release there are people who would say (myself included) that Origins was far more in line with what they wanted from a Dragon Age game than DA2. I'm sure they'd be more than interested in the fate of things like non-combat skills, class specific dialogue, race selection, the isometric camera angle and a toolset for the PC version. Then at least we'd know that Origins and some of it old school influenced elements are getting the same fair shake that the action RPG elements the DA2 are clearly getting.

[devSin]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

But is that the reason they are people "who normally would not play RPGs"? My sense is that these are people who don't want all that talking and people who don't want fantasy. And how are these elements any different than the spoke you're currently focused on? You think there's a way to present all the text and dialogue to people who have no interest in it? To mask the fantasy setting that they look down on?

Or do you really believe that there's a whole segment of gamer out there who wants the talking and loves the elves and dwarves but just can't stand the attack roll?

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

The problem I had with cross-class combos is that I never felt compelled to even bother. Maybe on the hardest difficulties, but on normal or less, it just never seemed to come up (sort of like harmonic combos... waste of time when they'll die a few seconds later anyway). So maybe you think it speaks for itself, but I couldn't hear it at all.

Working together, we are greater, but not because we coordinated our attack; the greatness is simply because we were all fighting against the same group of ruffians, delivering them to the red showers of great justice.

Modifié par devSin, 29 mai 2011 - 04:30 .

[Merced652]

Lumikki wrote...

I think the new vision is only way to Bioware to success. How ever, execution of DA2 wasn't so good. They made too many general mistakes, even without considering what kind of the game it is.

People should not mix execution of game design and direction of game design. If execution doesn't go well, that doesn't mean direction wans't right one.

In general my opinion is, that redusing statical elements of classic RPG is right way to go, but over simplify everyting isn't. Because people still need customation and choises in RPG. I mean game industry in general is going more in cinematic direction and less about statical numeric gameplay in RPG.

Since you're extrapolating i'll use that as license for my own.

When games and movies as a media converge, as you suggest, don't you think there is going to be a substantial market segment that isn't looking for that? 

"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

Modifié par Merced652, 29 mai 2011 - 04:30 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

*cheers and waves a little Silver Serpent flag!*

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.

*more cheering, and possibly a 'whoop'!*

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.

And I for one am behind any attempt to get more people into RPGs, especially party-based RPGs. It's just that I (and others, I think) have started to worry that appealing to fans of other genres equates to diluting or outright removing the traditional RPG elements we love or have come to expect, essentially changing what some of your core fans *want* in order to entice people who prefer genres that have nothing to do with RP.

Nothing against the idea of enticing new players, simply...worried about the execution. And worried that the RPG elements will get further watered down to lure players of other genres, while the RPG enthusiasts might wander off from one of the only companies who makes RPGs worth a damn. :/

But all that said, interested to see where Bioware goes from here.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 29 mai 2011 - 04:33 .

[Brockololly]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

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

Since I am confused at what exactly is the DA team's direction, can you elaborate on what you mean by middle ground between Origins and DA2?

Middle ground gets tossed around way too much (I remember something like DA2 supposedely being the middle ground between Origins and ME) that it loses its meaning.

I would be grateful if you could translate that into specific points. Just so that everyone's clear on what direction the team is taking.

True enough. Its like how people say "Oh, if DA3 just takes the best from DAO and DA2 it will be AWESOME!" Problem is, the stuff I might view as the "best" from either of those games might be what Laidlaw or the devs think is the worst. Hell, thats already the case in the transition from DAO to DA2 in killing the silent PC as I really liked that in Origins and the benefits that brought.


But yeah, I have no idea what is meant when people say a "middle ground" between DAO and DA2. It could mean anything really depending on your perspective.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

I find this response awkward. You respond to adneate's observation (which is shared by more fans) about simplification that the product has somehow "complexity and depth". And that the simplification is there for that new audience. You can't have it both ways: Complexity and simplicity are mutually exclusive.

I am not an old school RPG fan. My roots lie with flight simulators and first person shooters. I love the Battlefield series, because the two genres meet. But what DICE still was able to do was keep the core gameplay clean. The franchise is without doubt first and foremost a first person shooter. For RPGs this is much more complex, because it already has sub-genres which are more or less well defined. A hack and slash game (I love Magicka, BTW) has very different gameplay than WRPGs or JRPGs. What happens when you push the game into the more action geared variations is that the game will lose its identity. DA2 has become a hack and slash game with a linear story (the cosmetic dialogue changes don't count) much like a JRPG.

In my opinion BW is not innovating the RPG genre. It is watering down that genre to attract an audience that does not exists. ME can marry the RPG genre and the third person shooter because they are totally different genres. An RPG game in a medieval setting simply doesn't have that luxury.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 29 mai 2011 - 04:35 .

[Mike Laidlaw]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I would be grateful if you could translate that into specific points. Just so that everyone's clear on what direction the team is taking.

I cannot at this time, but will attempt to do so in the future.