738 réponses à ce sujet

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

F/R is an adaptation of reputation system in Alpha Protocol. Or a re-imagining of the A/D system of Origins... which was an adaptation of the influence system in KotOR II and NWN II.

So yeah, in that particular mechanic, Obsidian > Bioware.

A lot of the mechanics and elements of Dragon Age 2 are neither unique or innovative. I will say that personality tracking is the only one I can think of from the top of my head. Everything else, I have seen done better elsewhere, whether it's Mass Effect, Alpha Protocol.... hey wait, Alpha Protocol also enforced a "dominant personality" too, from three archetypes.

"Professional - Jason Bourne"
"Suave - James Bond"
"Aggressive - Jack Bauer"

Oh lolololol.

That's not to say that there weren't elements in Dragon Age 2 that I liked, I liked the concept of quite a few... but this idea of being innovative... for Dragon Age? Yes, definitely. Innovative period? Ehh... I'll get back to you later on that one.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 14 juin 2011 - 01:08 .

[CroGamer002]

I don't think they would be insane to say: "Our fans said DA2 sucked".


Also Obsidian is overrated, good but still overrated.

Modifié par Mesina2, 14 juin 2011 - 01:10 .

[Morroian]

mrcrusty wrote...

F/R is an adaptation of reputation system in Alpha Protocol. Or a re-imagining of the A/D system of Origins... which was an adaptation of the influence system in KotOR II and NWN II.

So yeah, in that particular mechanic, Obsidian > Bioware.

Its taking those type of systems to a diffferent level so yes it still qualifies as innovative.

[-Skorpious-]

Hardly surprising.

"What?! Are fans don't like rushed games with seven, yes seven, different environments? Preposterous I say, preposterous!"

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Morroian wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

F/R is an adaptation of reputation system in Alpha Protocol. Or a re-imagining of the A/D system of Origins... which was an adaptation of the influence system in KotOR II and NWN II.

So yeah, in that particular mechanic, Obsidian > Bioware.

Its taking those type of systems to a diffferent level so yes it still qualifies as innovative.

F/R in DA 2 isn't all that different to reputation in AP. I will say that the dialog changing on personality naturally was a pretty nifty and innovative feature, but the "innovation" regarding Dragon Age 2 as if it's too innovative for it's own good is beyond overstated.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Apollo Starflare wrote...

Good post Mer, definitely want the actual reasons DA2 fell down to be pinpointed and not have it 'fobbed off' so to speak, on the fanbase not understanding the changes. Some of the fanbase didn't, sure, but the bigger reason is the ones you state such as repeated environments and general rushed development. The writing was nigh perfect as usual.

Don't get the people hating on Hawke. These are probably the same people that hated him/her from the start because they couldn't play as their Warden again now using other, fairer, criticisms as a soap box for their own frustrations. Hawke wasn't remotely one of the problems with DA2 and I would happily play a game with him/her in the lead role again.

Good that you mention Hawke, AS, who I don't dislike, BTW, I am cool with new PCs.

There are a couple of things related: Hawke as an human only PC, companion armor, and PC origin. These three make the following cost savings possible: The armor found in loot has to fit a female or male human PC only, and does not need to fit a female or male elf, dwarf or quari companion; The human only PC saves developing story lines for non-human origins, it reduces race specific dialog and dialog related to a race specific origin. You can argue that the human only PC was chosen to fit the story, but that doesn't mean it wasn't advantageous.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 14 juin 2011 - 01:23 .

[Morroian]

mrcrusty wrote...

F/R in DA 2 isn't all that different to reputation in AP. I will say that the dialog changing on personality naturally was a pretty nifty and innovative feature, but the "innovation" regarding Dragon Age 2 as if it's too innovative for it's own good is beyond overstated.

Thats not what I took from what the EA Exec said.

[T764]

I think that there is something going on with EA/Bioware, i cannot see EA demanding that DA2 be developed and released quickly if they are then going to allow both the Medal of Honor and Battlefield franchises two years of development.

DA2 could have been an answer to pressure from EA for shorter dev times, a "this is what happens when we rush" type thing.

Or EA/Bioware wanted a Dragon Age game that fully utilises Kinect so they got DA2 out of the way.

The more i think the more i realise that there are any number of outlandish theories.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Morroian wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

F/R in DA 2 isn't all that different to reputation in AP. I will say that the dialog changing on personality naturally was a pretty nifty and innovative feature, but the "innovation" regarding Dragon Age 2 as if it's too innovative for it's own good is beyond overstated.

Thats not what I took from what the EA Exec said.

No, but it's an attitude I've seen some people take, literally the "you don't like it because you want the same old thing and you can't adapt to change or innovation" line. It's still a sentiment I see coming from the interview, if not outright.

Then again, this hinges entirely on my view that there was very little innovation in Dragon Age 2. Dialog changing according to personality was the big innovation for me in the game, but the rest from the story, to the framed narrative, to the F/R, to the voiced protagonist, to the dialog wheel, to the personal story, to the one city setting, to the fast paced combat, basically everything. Not innovative.

Nothing wrong with that. It doesn't matter if such elements and mechanics are implemented well enough, but there's no "novelty" or "unique" factor going on with Dragon Age 2. It just "grinds my gears" when people want to claim that DA 2 is innovative or new or unique. It's not.

For the sake of removing any stigma of partiality, I'll say that Witcher 2 is not very innovative either. Like DA 2, it has one big innovative draw, the branching narrative, but like Dragon Age 2, it's "innovation" is also overstated.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 14 juin 2011 - 01:29 .

[Eski.Moe]

I agree with the general sentiment that the game needed more time as has been reiterated numerously. I'm just hoping that that the team is being given whatever they need to come through.

I didn't mind the framed narrative so much as the fact that after it's all said and done, there are some insinuations that Varric might have told the absolute truth all the way through. That really annoyed me so much. To play a game and invest time into it and then to find out that there's a possibility that it all happened differently just doesn't sit well. I don't mind going ahead with a set canon but I don't want to be told that what I just experienced isn't what I just experienced (in terms of general revelations and the like).

[dheer]

Frank Gibeau said...
Innovations.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Brockololly]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I think that nearly everything "new" (like the streamlining and especially the things taken from ME) can be considered byproducts of a cost savings operation. There's more taken out than there are new things in the game. And I wonder what innovations they are talking about. I haven't seen any.

Yeah...most everything done in DA2 has been done better in other games before. There was very little "innovation" in it in terms of actual execution. Now maybe looking at the concepts they had proposed it looks innovative on paper, but as for the actual final product, no.

It just rubs me the wrong way in so many of these interviews how there is this underlying sentiment of "Oh well everyone that didn't like the game just can't handle our awesome innovation and change." While I do have some preferences and certain things I'd like from DA, many (but not all) of the problems with DA2 stem from lackluster execution.

I'm fine with innovative games, but DA2 sure as hell is not one of those.

[Persephone]

I'm rather happy with this:

"Ray [Muzyka] and Greg [Zeschuk] have built a long career being close to
their fanbase and understanding what they want. If they do something in
a direction that is innovative and fresh for some but not for others,
they'll take that into consideration as we think about the next design
and where the game goes from here."


Do you REALLY expect the devs to bash their own game? And if they did say "Well, this/that really didn't turn out well but we'll try harder the next time!" it would also be twisted into something it is not. Bioware has aknowledged that a part of the (vocal) fanbase wasn't happy and that they're listening/working with feedback. Good enough for me. I just hope than none of the things I loved about DAII will be tossed aside. Yeah, that's me, I'm selfish like that.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I don't think anyone is expecting Bioware to bash their own game. I certainly don't. I just go grizzly over EA and some Bioware devs talking about innovation as a reason as to why people don't like the game.

There's one feature in Dragon Age 2 that I find innovative and that's the dialog changing according to personality and most people like that. The other "innovations" aren't innovative at all, they are elements and mechanics adapted, or taken wholesale from other games, which do them better.

Even the innovation in DA 2's dialog based on personality is an adaptation of Alpha Protocol's dominant personality mechanic.

So tl;dr - Stop using innovation as an excuse for the game's negative/mixed reception EA/Bioware. It ain't that innovative.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 14 juin 2011 - 01:48 .

[Monica83]

Persephone wrote...

I'm rather happy with this:

"Ray [Muzyka] and Greg [Zeschuk] have built a long career being close to
their fanbase and understanding what they want. If they do something in
a direction that is innovative and fresh for some but not for others,
they'll take that into consideration as we think about the next design
and where the game goes from here."


Do you REALLY expect the devs to bash their own game? And if they did say "Well, this/that really didn't turn out well but we'll try harder the next time!" it would also be twisted into something it is not. Bioware has aknowledged that a part of the (vocal) fanbase wasn't happy and that they're listening/working with feedback. Good enough for me. I just hope than none of the things I loved about DAII will be tossed aside. Yeah, that's me, I'm selfish like that.

Why not? Cd-project admitted that the witcher 2 have some problems...And they working hard on them..
The real question is: Do you really think bioware that is now a part of EA crowd admit they released a garbage sequel?
Ea never do that before.. They had admit some problem and this mean DA2 isn't the great game they want to show us

[Persephone]

mrcrusty wrote...

I don't think anyone is expecting Bioware to bash their own game. I certainly don't. I just go grizzly over EA and some Bioware devs talking about innovation as a reason as to why people don't like the game.

There's one feature in Dragon Age 2 that I find innovative and that's the dialog changing according to personality and most people like that. The other "innovations" aren't innovative at all, they are elements and mechanics adapted, or taken wholesale from other games, which do them better.

Even the innovation in DA 2's dialog based on personality is an adaptation of Alpha Protocol's dominant personality mechanic.

So tl;dr - Stop using innovation as an excuse for the game's negative reception EA/Bioware. It ain't that innovative.

Only that wasn't the point of the article. This is marketing talk, they have to be careful in interviews. But no matter what they say re: DAII, it will be twisted into a reason to toss more vitriol their way.

[TheConfidenceMan]

Replace "innovations" with "idiocy" and this article would make a lot more sense.

[Oopsieoops]

Morroian wrote...

Corto81 wrote...

Hawke is just dull. And passive. And uninteresting.

Not my Hawkes. 

You don't have a Hawke, only Bioware has.

[Persephone]

Monica83 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

I'm rather happy with this:

"Ray [Muzyka] and Greg [Zeschuk] have built a long career being close to
their fanbase and understanding what they want. If they do something in
a direction that is innovative and fresh for some but not for others,
they'll take that into consideration as we think about the next design
and where the game goes from here."


Do you REALLY expect the devs to bash their own game? And if they did say "Well, this/that really didn't turn out well but we'll try harder the next time!" it would also be twisted into something it is not. Bioware has aknowledged that a part of the (vocal) fanbase wasn't happy and that they're listening/working with feedback. Good enough for me. I just hope than none of the things I loved about DAII will be tossed aside. Yeah, that's me, I'm selfish like that.

Why not? Cd-project admitted that the witcher 2 have some problems...And they working hard on them..
The real question is: Do you really think bioware that is now a part of EA crowd admit they released a garbage sequel?
Ea never do that before.. They had admit some problem and this mean DA2 isn't the great game they want to show us

I don't give a bloody damn what CDPR does. Their juvenile dissing towards Bioware made me dislike them anyway. (Still love the Witcher franchise)

They don't have to admit to anything because while it may be a "garbage sequel" to you, it isn't to everyone. Or would it be just perfect if those who love/support the game are insulted further by Bioware "admitting" that DAII is oh so awful? The negative crowd must be catered to because? They already are catered to by articles like this anyway.

[Brockololly]

Persephone wrote...

I'm rather happy with this:

"Ray [Muzyka] and Greg [Zeschuk] have built a long career being close to their fanbase and understanding what they want. If they do something in a direction that is innovative and fresh for some but not for others,  they'll take that into consideration as we think about the next design  and where the game goes from here."


Do you REALLY expect the devs to bash their own game? And if they did say "Well, this/that really didn't turn out well but we'll try harder the next time!" it would also be twisted into something it is not. Bioware has aknowledged that a part of the (vocal) fanbase wasn't happy and that they're listening/working with feedback. Good enough for me. I just hope than none of the things I loved about DAII will be tossed aside. Yeah, that's me, I'm selfish like that.

What, like how many of the things people liked about Origins were tossed aside?

That quote in particular about Muzyka and Zeschuk gives me doubts though really.  Because you read this entry on Brent Knowles' blog on design expectations and one of his comments below:

I think the change of direction is a combination of the general push  from above (the broadcast) with how individual leads & teams  interpret that broadcast. I think given how the changes move Dragon Age  towards being closer to Mass Effect a lot of this change is driven from  the message being broadcast down.

The *specific* implementation  would be the team (i.e., I don't think Ray and Greg said specifically  'remove this' or 'remove that'). The implementation would be a  refelction of what the team thought was needed to meet the goals/vision  of the company as stated mixed with their own preferences. The leads  team on Dragon Age 2 has little overlap with the leads team on DA:O.

So I'm guessing the drive to make DA more like ME in terms of cinematics, voiced PC, more action-RPG focus came from the Doctors who are supposedly more connected to the fanbase. I think thats a fundamentally flawed premise as a large part of what differentiated DAO from other BioWare games and every other RPG and game on the market was that it wasn't trying to be generic ActionRPG #364581, but a more traditional party based RPG which isn't seen very much any more. Yeah, I don't doubt some people liked DA2, but at the same time its leading to the homogeneization of BioWare games in terms of presentation and approach.

I just really have doubts as to whether the people in charge of DA2 and I guess DA as a franchise now, understand why so many people liked Origins.

Modifié par Brockololly, 14 juin 2011 - 01:56 .

[Persephone]

Oopsieoops wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Corto81 wrote...

Hawke is just dull. And passive. And uninteresting.

Not my Hawkes. 

You don't have a Hawke, only Bioware has.

Let's see... I have 7 finished Hawkes with Post Campaign saves. And I'm attached to them all. Can't say the same for all of my Wardens.

[Persephone]

Brockololly wrote...

Persephone wrote...

I'm rather happy with this:

"Ray [Muzyka] and Greg [Zeschuk] have built a long career being close to their fanbase and understanding what they want. If they do something in a direction that is innovative and fresh for some but not for others,  they'll take that into consideration as we think about the next design  and where the game goes from here."


Do you REALLY expect the devs to bash their own game? And if they did say "Well, this/that really didn't turn out well but we'll try harder the next time!" it would also be twisted into something it is not. Bioware has aknowledged that a part of the (vocal) fanbase wasn't happy and that they're listening/working with feedback. Good enough for me. I just hope than none of the things I loved about DAII will be tossed aside. Yeah, that's me, I'm selfish like that.

What, like how many of the things people liked about Origins were tossed aside?

Only if they do toss aside the things I love about DAII in DAIII, I won't be moaning about it three months later. I'll just play something else & move on.

And I missed several things from Origins myself, mind you. (Origins, finishing moves etc.)

[Monica83]

Persephone wrote...

Monica83 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

I'm rather happy with this:

"Ray [Muzyka] and Greg [Zeschuk] have built a long career being close to
their fanbase and understanding what they want. If they do something in
a direction that is innovative and fresh for some but not for others,
they'll take that into consideration as we think about the next design
and where the game goes from here."


Do you REALLY expect the devs to bash their own game? And if they did say "Well, this/that really didn't turn out well but we'll try harder the next time!" it would also be twisted into something it is not. Bioware has aknowledged that a part of the (vocal) fanbase wasn't happy and that they're listening/working with feedback. Good enough for me. I just hope than none of the things I loved about DAII will be tossed aside. Yeah, that's me, I'm selfish like that.

Why not? Cd-project admitted that the witcher 2 have some problems...And they working hard on them..
The real question is: Do you really think bioware that is now a part of EA crowd admit they released a garbage sequel?
Ea never do that before.. They had admit some problem and this mean DA2 isn't the great game they want to show us

I don't give a bloody damn what CDPR does. Their juvenile dissing towards Bioware made me dislike them anyway. (Still love the Witcher franchise)

They don't have to admit to anything because while it may be a "garbage sequel" to you, it isn't to everyone. Or would it be just perfect if those who love/support the game are insulted further by Bioware "admitting" that DAII is oh so awful? The negative crowd must be catered to because? They already are catered to by articles like this anyway.

SO da2 is a perfect sequel? :whistle::whistle:

Sorry but i prefear Witcher-awesome than button-awesome

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Persephone wrote...

Only that wasn't the point of the article. This is marketing talk, they have to be careful in interviews. But no matter what they say re: DAII, it will be twisted into a reason to toss more vitriol their way.

Had he said "changes" and not "innovations", I wouldn't get so riled up. It's my fault for taking marketing seriously, but I have seen people run with the idea that Dragon Age 2 is unique and innovative and dismiss criticism by taking the good old marketing "some fans can't deal with change and innovation" line. Which I just dispute so damn much...

Monica83 wrote...

SO da2 is a perfect sequel? [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/whistling.png[/smilie][smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/whistling.png[/smilie][smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/whistling.png[/smilie][smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/whistling.png[/smilie][smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/whistling.png[/smilie]

Sorry but i prefear Witcher-awesome than button-awesome

Fascinating tale, sis.

Let's not go full W2/DA2 in another thread, please.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 14 juin 2011 - 01:59 .

[Nozybidaj]

mrcrusty wrote...

I don't think anyone is expecting Bioware to bash their own game. I certainly don't.

At least till the marketing for the next game begins.

So tl;dr - Stop using innovation as an excuse for the game's negative/mixed reception EA/Bioware. It ain't that innovative.

Gotta use something.