738 réponses à ce sujet

[neppakyo]

Lord_Valandil wrote...

The key word here is: time.
Enough time to polish and improve everything. To make something excellent.

Ahh, you called for a video? Here you go! 

[Persephone]

Shirosaki17 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Shirosaki17 wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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

Agreed.

How is he wrong there? You think more player initiated dialogue is a BAD idea?

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

Well, that's where I thing you are actually wrong.

But then again........:innocent:

[_Aine_]

Redcoat wrote...

I suppose you could mix two completely different genres, say classical music and gangsta rap, and be successful in that endeavour, but it would take a musical genius on the level of Mozart to pull it off.

I guess I'm probably biased since a lot of genres I love, such as heavy metal or hardcore flight sims like Falcon 4.0. One of my favourite albums is Moonsorrow's Viides Luku - Hävitetty. Now, this album has only two songs: one that is 30 minutes long, the other 26 minutes. And the lyrics are entirely in Finnish. A lot of people might be turned off by those characteristics, but for me it makes the album great. It makes it feel authentic - that the band had a singlular artistic vision of what they wanted to do, and didn't compromise that vision for the sake of selling more albums.

But back on topic. Did DA:O have problems handling newcomers to the RPG genre? You could say that; the game's difficulty ramped up very quickly and combat was rather poorly introduced. But DA2 took the wrong approach, I think. Take the way backstabbing using a rogue works. In Baldur's Gate or DA:O, if you wanted to backstab someone, you had to have one of your party members get the attention of enemies, so their backs would be facing you, and then maneouvre your rogue into position for the backstab. In DA2, to do a backstab all you do is...push a button. Sure it's easier and simpler, but now you've removed an element of tactical play.

For another example, take the ability of enemies to inflict status effects on party members and the tactical considerations the player had to make in reaction to those effects. In Baldur's Gate, if you were facing Mind Flayers, you had to use a particular strategy for dealing with them. Likewise if you were facing Beholders. Or trolls. Or demons. DA:O wasn't much different. Some enemies could pin a party member to the ground, requiring another party member to free them. Revenants could yank your ranged attackers off their feet and into its melee range, and you had to think of a strategy to deal with it. Some enemies were immune to certain types of damage. And so on. In DA2, that was mostly taken away. Now most enemies have nothing beyond basic melee or projectile attacks. Sure, it might make things easier for newcomers, since now ogres can't snatch up your character and punch him to death (something I'm sure caused a lot of controllers to be thrown against the wall in frustration), but at the same time it made combat feel mindless and repetitive.

But I see I'm ranting, and I should stop now.

First off. I listen to a lot of german music.  I speak such limited german that essential I may as well say that I can't.  I like it.  Perhaps that also explains a) why I understand a bit what you were saying and agree.  

Just because something is NEW doesn't mean it is not a good idea or too hard.  Saying you have to rid it of complexity early on implies that new players are stupid.  They aren't stupid, they have just been playing different games. (ok, some are probably stupid).  

I come from a heavy mmo background.  I played rogue. A lot.  To backstab, I either had to have a) a tank holding aggro   attack from invis from behind before they detected me or c) use some sort of stun.   These are logical. Any fit because it is logical.  

You know one thing that disappointed me?  Spells and abilities not failing.  WHAT?  What kind of thing is every 100% sure?  I liked the act of random failure ( as well as the possibility of random critical success).  Why on earth would that be removed?  =(   

I don't know. I was new to RPG and I managed fine.  Maybe my opinion is skewed because of this.  But before DA:O I played primarily mmorpg, FPS and cinematic-action-ish game, with a  sports/racing game or two thrown in for good measure.  I am probably very close to the sort of market expansion type, if you don't factor in that I am female ( which I don't think is who they are looking at, honestly).   

*shrugs*  My opinion obviously differs from the mainstream though I guess on what an RPG should be in order to get new devotees.  I don't think it has to be easy. I think they need to make complexity accessible and fun.  Maybe I am a harsh mistress, could be that.  

Modifié par shantisands, 29 mai 2011 - 05:15 .

[LobselVith8]

Ottemis wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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

Does this mean DLC and future games will acknowledge a mage protagonist being a mage like Origins did? One of the issues with DA2 was that no one seemed to recognize that Hawke was a mage for most of the storyline, even when he performed magic in front of them. Also, not one of the companions ever realized or acknowledged that he was a blood mage, which is odd since Anders and Fenris berate Merrill often because she's one.

I don't think they'd do that for DLC:
"You're a MAGE! Now.. even though I should logicly toss you in the Gallows.. continue on your merry way; I'm the templar that still believes in purple unicorns."

For future games, yeah agreed, that'd be grand.

Is what the templars currently do any better? What we get is:


From the Motivational Posters thread.

[Sanunes]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Corto81 wrote...

So why, at the same time, do you guys think it has elements that are a barrier to people?
Honest question.

Yes, I do. To use one example, I know that there are people who fire up a game like Origins, see either character generation or a big wall of stats to pick and they immediately turn it off again. I also am cognizant that there are people who see that big wall of stats and get really excited.

I believe that there are more of the former than the latter. It doesn't mean either side is wrong, and it sure as hell doesn't mean we should cut stats, it just means that, perhaps, opening the game with a big wall of them is not ideal.

Using your example would there be a way to have something like an install method for software for my computer.  Express for the people that don't have the background in RPGs or don't mind what their stats are and an Advanced option like Origins for the people that enjoy that.

I know its impossible to please everyone all the time, but having "old school options" even if it has to be unlocked with beating the game or importing a save from an older Dragon Age game so novices to the game won't accidently get confused would go a long way for the people that are really looking for the older style RPG experience.

Now if you will excuse me I have to tell some youngins' to get off my lawn.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

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.

They are, but I would argue that complexity can be added into an existing product. People hate when I draw this comparison, but the opening experience as a level 1 World of Warcraft character is significantly more simple than the experience as a raid-level character.

The game itself is complex, but the opening moments of it are not. I would argue that we did not do a good enough job of adding layers of complexity and challenge into the later stages of DAII, both in terms of combat and choice/consequence. Therefore we should do a better job of both in the future.

Why should you want to have more simplification when all it does is push it into one of the sub-genres like hack and slash or JPRG? There isn't much space there. A game like TW2 has a lot of elements that are found in DA2, yet it is a challenge to play, because of its complexity and difficulty - even in the tutorial chapter. That game also had to adapt the user interface to the console version (to be released soon). Somehow all that doesn't seem to upset their fans. I have the feeling that BW thinks that console players aren't capable of playing complex games. I really doubt that and simplification in the hope to attract more of an audience that may not be even there does more damage than good.

If you want to strike a perfect balance in the future then all I can do is wait and see. Like I posted before in another thread I don't have much faith when I see earlier promises (like decisions which would determine the story plot) turn into hollow marketing slogans. It takes a long time to gain people's trust, but it can destroy it at an instant when not telling the truth. I don't have much faith left in the company.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 29 mai 2011 - 05:20 .

[Ottemis]

LobselVith8 wrote...Is what the templars currently do any better? 

No I didn't say that, I just think it's not something easily fixed, and not something I think they will even attempt to fix in this game. I'd think it important enough to want to fix it for any future games though, so agreed.

[Fortlowe]

Aaleel wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

I play both, but I don't want a game that's a mix of the two, I like to play one or the other.  It's the whole Jack of all trades master of none thing.  Unless it's done perfectly, you lose too much of both when you try to make it appeal to different crowds.

You assume it's different crowds, because your own situation.
I'm not different crowd and still I play mix and not mixed just fine.

What game have you played that's a cross between COD and DA?  What game have you played that's a mix between DA and AC or GTA even.

I just finished playing through the AC franchise (very late to the game, I know) and I was impressed, to say the least. Frankly, I was often struck with the thought Why didn't Bioware come up with something like this, first? A rich far reaching narrative. A Codex?!

It'll get called a clone and a attempt to 'catch up' but if Bioware were to make and openworld action game in the vein of AC, it would be a hit. Stealing can work out. Ask Cliffy B.

[Ottemis]

Ey! I need that codex yo, we're keeping it!

Modifié par Ottemis, 29 mai 2011 - 05:14 .

[neppakyo]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

If you want to strike a perfect balance in the future then all I can do is wait and see. Like I posted before in another thread I don't have much faith when I see earlier promises (like decisions which would determine the story plot) turn into hollow marketing slogans. It takes a long time to gain people's trust, but it can destroy it at an instant when not tellin the truth. I don't have much faith left in the company.

Personally for me, DA2 pretty much did what you said. Any BW game coming out is going to be a few weeks before I deceide to purchase or pass it by. From now on I will check out other gamers who played it and see their opinions. Also with EA sticking their nose and other appendages in, makes me very leery. EA's track record of aquired studios is horrible.

[lobi]

neppakyo wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

If you want to strike a perfect balance in the future then all I can do is wait and see. Like I posted before in another thread I don't have much faith when I see earlier promises (like decisions which would determine the story plot) turn into hollow marketing slogans. It takes a long time to gain people's trust, but it can destroy it at an instant when not tellin the truth. I don't have much faith left in the company.

Personally for me, DA2 pretty much did what you said. Any BW game coming out is going to be a few weeks before I deceide to purchase or pass it by. From now on I will check out other gamers who played it and see their opinions. Also with EA sticking their nose and other appendages in, makes me very leery. EA's track record of aquired studios is horrible.

Lying in my bed I hear the clock tick,
and think of you
caught up in circles confusion--
is nothing new
Flashback--warm nights--
almost left behind
suitcases of memories,
time after--

[Demon Velsper]

The idea of making RPGs for people who don't play RPGs sounds about as sane as making a card collecting game for people who don't like to collect cards.

Then again, coming from the guy who's mantra is "button = awesome!!!!!!!" why am I surprised?

[Lord_Valandil]

neppakyo wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

If you want to strike a perfect balance in the future then all I can do is wait and see. Like I posted before in another thread I don't have much faith when I see earlier promises (like decisions which would determine the story plot) turn into hollow marketing slogans. It takes a long time to gain people's trust, but it can destroy it at an instant when not tellin the truth. I don't have much faith left in the company.

Personally for me, DA2 pretty much did what you said. Any BW game coming out is going to be a few weeks before I deceide to purchase or pass it by. From now on I will check out other gamers who played it and see their opinions. Also with EA sticking their nose and other appendages in, makes me very leery. EA's track record of aquired studios is horrible.

Yuuuup.
DA2 was a blind buy for me. I was so sure that it was going to be a masterpiece.
I learned my lesson, I guess. Now I shall wait before shelling out a single cent. Pity.

[Lord_Valandil]

Demon Velsper wrote...

The idea of making RPGs for people who don't play RPGs sounds about as sane as making a card collecting game for people who don't like to collect cards.

Then again, coming from the guy who's mantra is "button = awesome!!!!!!!" why am I surprised?

Like baking cakes for people who don't like cakes.
But maybe, somewhere there's an awesome cake. If you try it, something awesome will happen!

[Shirosaki17]

This is going to be annoying.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Corto81 wrote...

So why, at the same time, do you guys think it has elements that are a barrier to people?
Honest question.

Yes, I do. To use one example, I know that there are people who fire up a game like Origins, see either character generation or a big wall of stats to pick and they immediately turn it off again. I also am cognizant that there are people who see that big wall of stats and get really excited.

I believe that there are more of the former than the latter. It doesn't mean either side is wrong, and it sure as hell doesn't mean we should cut stats, it just means that, perhaps, opening the game with a big wall of them is not ideal.

That just means you need to work on the tutorial or give detailed descriptions of what stats do. You can also add in auto stats for each class or recommend certain stats for classes. That way it's easier on new players and you're not stripping stats out of the game.

Look at the FPS genre. It improved over time. It didn't strip out a bunch of components. It added components and features and the genre's fanbase grew larger.

Why do you think you need to remove RP elements out of games to sell more copies? You don't. You should be improving and adding features. Adding more choices and consequences in the story. Adding more class choices and builds. Adding replay value.

You never needed to go in a more simplistic approach. You should have just focused on growing the RPG fanbase by improving the genre. Not stripping things out. If you keep going in this direction you will continue to lose customers.

[Ottemis]

Lord_Valandil wrote...

Demon Velsper wrote...

The idea of making RPGs for people who don't play RPGs sounds about as sane as making a card collecting game for people who don't like to collect cards.

Then again, coming from the guy who's mantra is "button = awesome!!!!!!!" why am I surprised?

Like baking cakes for people who don't like cakes.
But maybe, somewhere there's an awesome cake. If you try it, something awesome will happen!

Some 'don't like' stuff because they've never had it, they'd be undecided. Impartial to the product from the get-go.
It's not like he's saying he wants to change people's minds about RPG's. It's about introduction, not conversion.

Modifié par Ottemis, 29 mai 2011 - 05:26 .

[Tommy6860]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Corto81 wrote...

So why, at the same time, do you guys think it has elements that are a barrier to people?
Honest question.

Yes, I do. To use one example, I know that there are people who fire up a game like Origins, see either character generation or a big wall of stats to pick and they immediately turn it off again. I also am cognizant that there are people who see that big wall of stats and get really excited.

I believe that there are more of the former than the latter. It doesn't mean either side is wrong, and it sure as hell doesn't mean we should cut stats, it just means that, perhaps, opening the game with a big wall of them is not ideal.

Well Mike, I can only ask for a few easy requests because I think you can only cover so much here and I appreciate your efforts. I've read your posts here and in the "Thank You" threads, and I am still skeptical, I think rightfully so. A few of your talking points just plain clash with inconsistency and I don't want to cover them since I read from those who already have mentioned them, and you replied to those effects already. I like what you have to say, but I am very reserved still through reading here.

All I ask, when you are able to do so, is to give us updates on the future gaming style of the DA fanchise. I also request that whatever style of game DAIII turns out to be, that the DAIII website and Bioware promos in any form, exhibit the game to be how it is going to play. I still think the DA2 website is near completely misleading to how the game actually plays and to put it mildly, I am still stinging by that misrepresentation. Seriously, I would view Bioware and your words with less skepticism, if I get true to your words commentaries and game info regarding the franchise. I don't want my skepticism to turn out to be true with the future of the game being along the lines of another DA2, as my thoughts of Bioware will then be that of cynicism. I think you do see where the past has come to bite back, at least I hope so anyway. Just tell it like it is, please.

Cheers

[Redcoat]

shantisands wrote...

First off. I listen to a lot of german music.  I speak such limited german that essential I may as well say that I can't.  I like it.  Perhaps that also explains a) why I understand a bit what you were saying and agree.  

Just because something is NEW doesn't mean it is not a good idea or too hard.  Saying you have to rid it of complexity early on implies that new players are stupid.  They aren't stupid, they have just been playing different games. (ok, some are probably stupid).  

I come from a heavy mmo background.  I played rogue. A lot.  To backstab, I either had to have a) a tank holding aggro   attack from invis from behind before they detected me or c) use some sort of stun.   These are logical. Any fit because it is logical.  

You know one thing that disappointed me?  Spells and abilities not failing.  WHAT?  What kind of thing is every 100% sure?  I liked the act of random failure ( as well as the possibility of random critical success).  Why on earth would that be removed?  =(   

I don't know. I was new to RPG and I managed fine.  Maybe my opinion is skewed because of this.  But before DA:O I played primarily mmorpg, FPS and cinematic-action-ish game, with a  sports/racing game or two thrown in for good measure.  I am probably very close to the sort of market expansion type, if you don't factor in that I am female ( which I don't think is who they are looking at, honestly).   

*shrugs*  My opinion obviously differs from the mainstream though I guess on what an RPG should be in order to get new devotees.  I don't think it has to be easy. I think they need to make complexity accessible and fun.  Maybe I am a harsh mistress, could be that.  

I should add that making some accessible to new players does not necessarily entail simpifying the actual mechanics or "dumbing things down" as people say.

Look at Baldur's Gate for example. That game bandies about concepts such as THAC0, Armour class, Saving Throws, etc.; things that rather unintuitive for someone who is unfamiliar with tabletop RPGs. But what do those concepts mean, really? THAC0 is basically your chance to hit an enemy. Armour class is your chance to avoid getting hit. Saving Throws represent your chance to resist certain effects. I think it'd be possible to take these concepts and present them in an intuitive manner so that people don't have to think about dice-rolls, yet without sacrificing any depth or complexity. It's all about how things are presented to the player.

[Merced652]

Shirosaki17 wrote...

This is going to be annoying.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Corto81 wrote...

So why, at the same time, do you guys think it has elements that are a barrier to people?
Honest question.

Yes, I do. To use one example, I know that there are people who fire up a game like Origins, see either character generation or a big wall of stats to pick and they immediately turn it off again. I also am cognizant that there are people who see that big wall of stats and get really excited.

I believe that there are more of the former than the latter. It doesn't mean either side is wrong, and it sure as hell doesn't mean we should cut stats, it just means that, perhaps, opening the game with a big wall of them is not ideal.

That just means you need to work on the tutorial or give detailed descriptions of what stats do. You can also add in auto stats for each class or recommend certain stats for classes. That way it's easier on new players and you're not stripping stats out of the game.

Look at the FPS genre. It improved over time. It didn't strip out a bunch of components. It added components and features and the genre's fanbase grew larger.

Why do you think you need to remove RP elements out of games to sell more copies? You don't. You should be improving and adding features. Adding more choices and consequences in the story. Adding more class choices and builds. Adding replay value.

You never needed to go in a more simplistic approach. You should have just focused on growing the RPG fanbase by improving the genre. Not stripping things out. If you keep going in this direction you will continue to lose customers.

Well said, and i agree. I was going to address that post of his but i didn't think i could do it without possibly insulting him over the deplorable approach that was taken in DA2. I mean i started out the game literally playing someone elses character.

[neppakyo]

lobi wrote...

Lying in my bed I hear the clock tick,
and think of you
caught up in circles confusion--
is nothing new
Flashback--warm nights--
almost left behind
suitcases of memories,
time after--

Maybe that song can be the theme of a spurned bioware fan.

[Serpieri Nei]

Aaleel wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

People don't assume so extreme situation everytime. Like it's between hard core classic RPG player and fanatic first person shooter player. There is a lot more people out there and even between them. Like example adventure game players.

Bioware said they were going after the call of duty audience since the progression elements are similar, but they just don't look at them as RPGs.

Question: Do you think there are people here in this forum who like to play RPG's and have also played Call of Duty?

Point is, it's not just one or other, there is a lot of different "gray" taste and some people have more wider taste too.

I play both, but I don't want a game that's a mix of the two, I like to play one or the other.  It's the whole Jack of all trades master of none thing.  Unless it's done perfectly, you lose too much of both when you try to make it appeal to different crowds.

Agreed.

Instead of trying to hybridize different game genres, one should concentrate all their time and resources in making a single genre the best that it can be. Hybrid games are shells of what they could have been because each element strives to reach it pinnacle but falls short since resources are split between the different elements.

If I want to play an FPS, I’ll launch Crysis, Mordern Warfare, or CoD on my PC. When I want to play an action game, I’ll turn on PS3/Xbox and play God of War, Bayonette, or Red Dead Redemption. If I want to play an RPG, well I’m sure you get the idea. And if that so called RPG has elements from an MMO, an action game, fps, and so on. I’ll go play a game that isn’t confused from a company  that does their genre proud.

Modifié par Serpieri Nei, 29 mai 2011 - 05:28 .

[Shirosaki17]

Ottemis wrote...

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

How is he wrong, are you on speaking therms with all of them? You have them all over for sunday tea or something?
Sure, it's an assumption, it's not an illogical one is it?

Yes, because most of the complaints about DA2 had nothing to do with it. Some did ask for it or didn't like not having it but most that complained didn't complain about that specifically. There was so much wrong and bad with DA2.

Yes it's a good feature to have, but that one feature wouldn't have appeased a large portion of people who didn't like DA2.

Modifié par Shirosaki17, 29 mai 2011 - 05:30 .

[_Aine_]

Redcoat wrote...

I should add that making some accessible to new players does not necessarily entail simpifying the actual mechanics or "dumbing things down" as people say.

Look at Baldur's Gate for example. That game bandies about concepts such as THAC0, Armour class, Saving Throws, etc.; things that rather unintuitive for someone who is unfamiliar with tabletop RPGs. But what do those concepts mean, really? THAC0 is basically your chance to hit an enemy. Armour class is your chance to avoid getting hit. Saving Throws represent your chance to resist certain effects. I think it'd be possible to take these concepts and present them in an intuitive manner so that people don't have to think about dice-rolls, yet without sacrificing any depth or complexity. It's all about how things are presented to the player.

Well given that I understood what you said based on logic ( armour should of course imply chance to absorb/lessen damage received) and frankly don't have a flipping clue what THAC0 or saving throws etc are.... they could always just ask me if it makes sense to a relative RPG moron. LOL   That said, include that somewhere, make it fun for me to adapt and improve myself and my new skills and by the end of the game, I *would* know.  

and now it is 1:30am and I needto be up in way too few hours.  This was a great thread though, very interesting.  

[Ottemis]

Shirosaki17 wrote...

Ottemis wrote...

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

How is he wrong, are you on speaking therms with all of them? You have them all over for sunday tea or something?
Sure, it's an assumption, it's not an illogical one is it?

Yes, because most of the complaints about DA2 had nothing to do with it. Some did ask for it or didn't like not having it but most that complained didn't complain about that specifically. There was so much wrong and bad with DA2.

Yes it's a good feature to have, but that one feature wouldn't have appeased a large portion of people who didn't like DA2.

Aha. I remember a topic where people voiced concearn about this specificly.
And it's not presented as a fix is it? It would possibly be an improvement? Can't go wrong with something optional that would allow for more interaction with your companions, surely. I don't see why you're making an issue out of this.

Did he offer it by saying fixing that specificly would have made DA2 all rainbows and butterflies?
Where oh where are you getting from that he thinks that would be the end-all save-all fix?

Modifié par Ottemis, 29 mai 2011 - 05:35 .

[lobi]

neppakyo wrote...

lobi wrote...

Lying in my bed I hear the clock tick,
and think of you
...etc--

Maybe that song can be the theme of a spurned bioware fan.

That, or spurned lover by Marc Almond.