1248 réponses à ce sujet

[UnspokenSoul22]

JohnEpler wrote...

It should be mentioned that there's always going to be a bit of reticence on our part to make wide, sweeping promises about what particular feedback we're going to take into consideration and exactly what changes will be made with future installments. If we say 'yes, of course we're going to do X to fix Y, because Y wasn't received well' and then, in the process of developing future content, we discover that 'oh crud, we can't do Y because of Z which we totally weren't considering' then we will (quite rightly) be taken to task on this failure to deliver.

And in the end, we can sit on this forum pouring honeyed words into your ears and telling you 'you know what, guys, we're going to fix X, Y and Z because we think you guys are just swell and aren't we awesome as a result?', but, like they say in pretty much every realm of human interaction - actions speak louder than words. Whatever we tell you we're going to fix will be, understandably, viewed with a certain amount of skepticism if you felt DA2 was not a product you enjoyed. And, to be fair, there are going to be some fans who will not enjoy our next product, even if we address some of the concerns that people had as a result of DA2. That's unfortunate, but anytime you make changes you have to be willing to deal with the consequences.

So, rather than saying 'guys, we're going to do this and this' we're going to let our products speak for us. Some of what people weren't happy with will be addressed. Some of it will not, because the list of 'everyone wanted these things addressed' items is very small, and items on the 'some people want these things addressed' list need to be viewed carefully in the perspective of the design philosophy as a whole, as well as the reasons for the negative reaction - some of which is a result of how the idea is presented, a concept every bit as important as the idea itself.

But it's not perfect, and we'll never please everyone. Heck, I doubt you can find more than a handful of things that everyone on the project agrees on. In the end, what we create will have to stand on its own merits. Some people will like it. Some people won't. And we'll, as always, look at what worked and what didn't and let that inform our design philosophy going forward.

~applauds~ Love this. Totally agree with what John's saying here. You can't please every gamer out there.

Thanks for the advice. I might just keep DA2, since I haven't played a male yet. After hearing this, I'm pretty excited over what this DLC has in store.

[John Epler]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

In Exile wrote...
I really hate the codex, so let me state my opposition: 

They are the epitome of tell and not show.

[snip]

I think the codexes need to die beause they're a low-cost excuse to avoid the technical problem of how to enrich your world actively.

Oh I definitely agree that they should not be a replacement to active story telling, and / or "showing".
Ideally, I'd much rather have the codices only report what was already told by characters, in case we forget. 

But what I was arguing is the practicality. I am not sure it would be possible to delve into a lot of detail concerning all issues just via characters, without it being expensive (VO and all).  But like I said, ideally, nothing would please me more than talking about lore, and seeing elements of the lore (for instance, I really loved Kal Hirol from Awakening. Or the dream sequences in TW2, or just the way the battle of Vergen was told and shown).

I think this is rather fair on both ends. Ideally, we'd like to show you the lore instead of tell it to you. In a perfect situation, you'd learn things along with your character, instead of 'You have a new codex entry' and then reading up on it. But, like everything else in videogame development, it's a question of resources. I'm not entirely sure how the process works (and no doubt one of the writers will correct me if I'm wrong, possibly using a blunt object), but I don't think there's anything necessarily 'critical' that's revealed in Codices. It's mostly flavour lore, things that may not be entirely relevant to your current situation but still provide a bit of flavour to the world and some context to your actions within.

Though again, this would be (ideally) shown through the game world, whether through conversation, through ambient dialogue or even just simply level events. But the cost versus benefit analysis has to always be made, and text is still one of the cheapest methods for conveying information. 

[In Exile]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Oh I definitely agree that they should not be a replacement to active story telling, and / or "showing".
Ideally, I'd much rather have the codices only report what was already told by characters, in case we forget. 

But what I was arguing is the practicality. I am not sure it would be possible to delve into a lot of detail concerning all issues just via characters, without it being expensive (VO and all).  But like I said, ideally, nothing would please me more than talking about lore, and seeing elements of the lore (for instance, I really loved Kal Hirol from Awakening. Or the dream sequences in TW2, or just the way the battle of Vergen was told and shown).

Think about it this way, though: codexes are a great source of "Whoops!" between the writer tasked on them (who, realistically, probably won't be one of the lead writers) and would need constant revision to make sure they're still in-line with the lore.

For example, let's take the qunari. Originally, before we knew their name, we called them themor (the mysterious other race). They were very different. They had tails. We thought they were lizardpeople. Then they had horns. Then the horns were cut because they messed with the helmets and they were too un-human.

The codex has to be current with whatever stage the game is in, so that all of the entries are consistent with each other and consistent with the version of the game that you're shipping.

It gets worse. Maybe you describe a codex entry in one way because that's how you imagine it (e.g. how the Fade is supposed to work). But there are technical limitations in executing your vision. It might cost too many zots (or it might be downright impossible) to get what you say something needs to look like down.

This can even be an issue with sequels - if you describe a place in a codex entry for the first game one way, you can easily run into consistency problems just when it comes down to actually executing the vision.

[snfonseka]

They really need to learn the meaning of the word "innovative".

[Aaleel]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Aaleel wrote...
I don't need NPCs stopping and saying "Do you know the history of this weapon" all throughout the game.  But it is nice to be able to read about the lore on my own time.

I actualy would like that personally. It would help make the ocmpanions feel mroe alive and responsive to what you do.

You would actually like spoken words and stories for every weapon you got a codex entry about?  Think back now lol.  You got some on weapons you took off dead bodies, like the Summer Sword in Origins.  I just can't see one of my companions, "I know that sword" and just breaking off into some story.

[In Exile]

Aaleel wrote...
But side things like the history of some things, or people,  or things that don't really tie into the game I still like to read about.  Like reading about the previous blights in Origins, or about a specific piece of armor or a weapon.

I don't need NPCs stopping and saying "Do you know the history of this weapon" all throughout the game.  But it is nice to be able to read about the lore on my own time.

I think I wrote (or at least wanted to write) that things like far off locations or history not featured in the game is totally what a codex should be for. I support that, because it's cool to learn about a foreign world. I'm just against anything being in a codex and not being in the game when it actually concerns what the game is about.

The Enigma of Kirkwall being a good example. Although I'm pretty sure that Hyubris the demon is supposed to be what they're talking about.

[Nerevar-as]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

In Exile wrote...
I really hate the codex, so let me state my opposition: 

They are the epitome of tell and not show.

[snip]

I think the codexes need to die beause they're a low-cost excuse to avoid the technical problem of how to enrich your world actively.

Oh I definitely agree that they should not be a replacement to active story telling, and / or "showing".
Ideally, I'd much rather have the codices only report what was already told by characters, in case we forget. 

But what I was arguing is the practicality. I am not sure it would be possible to delve into a lot of detail concerning all issues (especially ones not directly relevent to the plot) just via characters and quests, without it being expensive (VO and all).  But like I said, ideally, nothing would please me more than talking about lore, and seeing elements of the lore (for instance, I really loved Kal Hirol from Awakening. Or the dream sequences in TW2, or just the way the battle of Vergen was told and shown).

Depends. Besides giving the setting deph I like the Codex when it prevents the "as you know" conversations. Sometimes it´s so obvious a character should know what s/he´s being told it´s very jarring.

[KnightofPhoenix]

In Exile wrote...
This can even be an issue with sequels - if you describe a place in a codex entry for the first game one way, you can easily run into consistency problems just when it comes down to actually executing the vision.

But that's more of a problem vis-a-vis execution than codices perse.

I mean, I'd think that writers don't just put everything they have on paper (other than draft) and say "let's do it" before knowing whether they can put it in a game or not. If they do, I'd say it's more the fault of the writers for not having a consistent vision that is informed by everything else in the game than codices (though if I understand you correctly, the temptation is there).

Ideally, they should write codices only to supplement what's already in the game.  And yea in that sense, DA codices were not that ideal (I think there is a divide between the art and writing team).

[Aaleel]

In Exile wrote...

Aaleel wrote...
But side things like the history of some things, or people,  or things that don't really tie into the game I still like to read about.  Like reading about the previous blights in Origins, or about a specific piece of armor or a weapon.

I don't need NPCs stopping and saying "Do you know the history of this weapon" all throughout the game.  But it is nice to be able to read about the lore on my own time.

I think I wrote (or at least wanted to write) that things like far off locations or history not featured in the game is totally what a codex should be for. I support that, because it's cool to learn about a foreign world. I'm just against anything being in a codex and not being in the game when it actually concerns what the game is about.

The Enigma of Kirkwall being a good example. Although I'm pretty sure that Hyubris the demon is supposed to be what they're talking about.

No it talked about how the mages in the Circle in Kirkwall failed the Harrowing at a rate higher than other circles, and how more turn to blood magic.  Tevinters intentionally thinning the veil.  The veil being so thin that non mages could contact demons.  It would have explained a little why so many mages you met were blood mages, or outright crazy.

[In Exile]

Aaleel wrote...

You would actually like spoken words and stories for every weapon you got a codex entry about?  Think back now lol.  You got some on weapons you took off dead bodies, like the Summer Sword in Origins.  I just can't see one of my companions, "I know that sword" and just breaking off into some story.

I hate nothing more than looting Mystical Weapon of Epic Destiny + 5 from the anus of a dragon. But maybe that's just me.

Thinking about it, I'd like it if there were very few named, legendary weapons you were directly told about.  Like Vigilance in DA:O.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Aaleel wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Aaleel wrote...
I don't need NPCs stopping and saying "Do you know the history of this weapon" all throughout the game.  But it is nice to be able to read about the lore on my own time.

I actualy would like that personally. It would help make the ocmpanions feel mroe alive and responsive to what you do.

You would actually like spoken words and stories for every weapon you got a codex entry about?  Think back now lol.  You got some on weapons you took off dead bodies, like the Summer Sword in Origins.  I just can't see one of my companions, "I know that sword" and just breaking off into some story.

Wel obviously not just any weapon, like "oh look an iron sword. Do you know that iron is found in...". But  I dont' see why not with certain weapons and pieces of armor.

[In Exile]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
But that's more of a problem vis-a-vis execution than codices perse.

I meant it as a response to your comment on practicality. I think a codex custs cost, but it's not neccesarily more practical. You just bite the bullet elsewhere for cutting cost.

I mean, I'd think that writers don't just put everything they have on paper (other than draft) and say "let's do it" before knowing whether they can put it in a game or not. If they do, I'd say it's more the fault of the writers for not having a consistent vision that is informed by everything else in the game than codices (though if I understand you correctly, the temptation is there).

The thing is, having a consistent vision isn't a fair requirement. Things change. Games get designed on a schedule. Maybe something worked in principle but it has to get cut. The writers and designers have to do the best they can with what they have available.

A friend of the family worked for a game developer in Montreal (no names, but you can do the math) and talking to that friend really got me to appreciate the difficulty in just keeping a consistent vision in a game. It's why I'll never demand that a game be absolutely consistent with its own lore.

It's just possible to take the JRR approach and have the whole thing outlined from stratch and expect to be able to stick to it.

Ideally, they should write codices only to supplement what's already in the game.  And yea in that sense, DA codices were not that ideal (I think there is a divide between the art and writing team).

The thing is, when do you write them? Even the codex needs to get some QA.

[Aaleel]

In Exile wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

You would actually like spoken words and stories for every weapon you got a codex entry about?  Think back now lol.  You got some on weapons you took off dead bodies, like the Summer Sword in Origins.  I just can't see one of my companions, "I know that sword" and just breaking off into some story.

I hate nothing more than looting Mystical Weapon of Epic Destiny + 5 from the anus of a dragon. But maybe that's just me.

Thinking about it, I'd like it if there were very few named, legendary weapons you were directly told about.  Like Vigilance in DA:O.

I agree with this to some degree, the fewer named items you have the more special the ones that are named.  But it went to far with ring, ornate amulet, etc.  They could have at least put silver, gold, maybe some colors something in front of them. 

[In Exile]

Aaleel wrote...
I agree with this to some degree, the fewer named items you have the more special the ones that are named.  But it went to far with ring, ornate amulet, etc.  They could have at least put silver, gold, maybe some colors something in front of them. 

Oh, I don't think what DA2 did was good at all (superior robe, wtf?). But keep in mind I'm a fan of a minimalist inventory and believe strongly in character customization through a very detailed and complex level-up scheme with almost no emphasis on gear.

[hoorayforicecream]

Addai67 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
I know what it's like to develop games, because I've been doing so for a while now. I know how long it takes to enact certain changes, and to create content. Given what I know about their situation, I'm ok with what's going on. Bioware currently has a lot riding on TOR and ME3, so those two are the shining stars in their world. DA2 fixes and DLC are coming, but they may not come as soon as you like because of the focus on TOR and ME2.

Things take time. I'm doing other things while I wait, like playing other games. Perhaps you could do the same.

By "okay with it," do you mean you care about those other two games?  I suppose that would help the pill go down more easily.

Not necessarily (though I am looking forward to them). Right now TOR and ME3 are the big breadwinner projects, and DA2 is in more-or-less cruise control. The majority of Bioware's resources are being allocated toward TOR and ME3 for very good reason - the success of those projects directly correlates to the health of the studio. I don't believe that they will somehow shift priorities from either of those two projects toward DA2 DLC, but I do think that they genuinely wish to make things better for DA2. Every game developer I've ever met not only had an acute sense of every flaw in every system that developer had worked on, but also a bunch of ideas on how to fix them. I know I have a bunch of similar stories myself. The only question is when they get the time and manpower to do it. Once TOR and/or ME3 are in good places and can afford to transition people off of those projects, they'll be able to develop DA2 DLC in a much more reasonable time frame.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 17 juin 2011 - 09:58 .

[Thor Rand Al]

UnspokenSoul22 wrote...
~applauds~ Love this. Totally agree with what John's saying here. You can't please every gamer out there.

Thanks for the advice. I might just keep DA2, since I haven't played a male yet. After hearing this, I'm pretty excited over what this DLC has in store.

Oh playin a male Hawke I'm finding more entertaining then a female, I mean omg his voice  
Having a hard time going back to playing a female now, keep looking for excuses to keep playing my male

Modifié par Thor Rand Al, 17 juin 2011 - 10:01 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

In Exile wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
But that's more of a problem vis-a-vis execution than codices perse.

I meant it as a response to your comment on practicality. I think a codex custs cost, but it's not neccesarily more practical. You just bite the bullet elsewhere for cutting cost.

When it comes to issues and details that are not directly relevent to the plot, then cutting costs is practical. In the sense that you are not wasting resources on things that are not as relevent as others.

Which is not to say that everythign that isnt' directly related to the plot should just get codices, no. In DA:O, characters talked a lot about where they came from and what they do, which I liked.

But what I am saying is that if you want details on every issue to be potrayed via dialogue and quests, it's not going to be cost effective.

The thing is, having a consistent vision isn't a fair requirement. Things change. Games get designed on a schedule. Maybe something worked in principle but it has to get cut. The writers and designers have to do the best they can with what they have available.

Of course I am not saying they suck horribly for that.
I do think having some broad constitent vision is more or less necessary if planning to build a franchise (and here I think it's more the art team than anythign else). But of course it won't be perfectly so.

The thing is, when do you write them? Even the codex needs to get some QA.

I don't know, I have little idea how games are made.

[Nerevar-as]

In Exile wrote...

Aaleel wrote...
I agree with this to some degree, the fewer named items you have the more special the ones that are named.  But it went to far with ring, ornate amulet, etc.  They could have at least put silver, gold, maybe some colors something in front of them. 

Oh, I don't think what DA2 did was good at all (superior robe, wtf?). But keep in mind I'm a fan of a minimalist inventory and believe strongly in character customization through a very detailed and complex level-up scheme with almost no emphasis on gear.

I like both. But I like more getting items at longer intervals but that really make a difference, instea of the usual +1, half an hour later +2, etc. Kind of like The Witcher 1 with the swords and armor. There weren´t many and you had to work hard to get some.

I´d also like to be able to improve some equipment. It´s the same in both DAs, items such as Asala or Aveline´s shield are supposed to be significant to the character, but their stats are soon left behind by even generic items.

[Sylvius the Mad]

JohnEpler wrote...

I don't think there's anything necessarily 'critical' that's revealed in Codices.

I just wanted to take a moment to applaud your correct pluralisation of "Codex".

[Bejos_]

JohnEpler wrote...

It should be mentioned that there's always going to be a bit of reticence on our part to make wide, sweeping promises about what particular feedback we're going to take into consideration and exactly what changes will be made with future installments. If we say 'yes, of course we're going to do X to fix Y, because Y wasn't received well' and then, in the process of developing future content, we discover that 'oh crud, we can't do Y because of Z which we totally weren't considering' then we will (quite rightly) be taken to task on this failure to deliver.

[...]

But it's not perfect, and we'll never please everyone. Heck, I doubt you can find more than a handful of things that everyone on the project agrees on. In the end, what we create will have to stand on its own merits. Some people will like it. Some people won't. And we'll, as always, look at what worked and what didn't and let that inform our design philosophy going forward.

You seem like such a nice guy, Mr Epler. I really like (most) Bioware employees.

I hope whatever of mine it is you read, you don't think it's aimed at you.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

I don't think there's anything necessarily 'critical' that's revealed in Codices.

I just wanted to take a moment to applaud your correct pluralisation of "Codex".

Nice and intelligent. What a great guy!

Modifié par Bejos_, 17 juin 2011 - 10:10 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Look at it this way: DA:O took very many years to develop and involved a specific design philosophy that Bioware no longer executes. Put another way, Bioware doesn't want to design DA:O ever again. DA:O is a project like BGII, and it started in 2004 (or was it 2005?) when the game marketplace was dramatically different than in 2010. It started DA:O as an in-house project shopping around for a publisher, instead of as a subsidiary of EA.

It's really, really clear from games like KoTOR, JE, ME-ME2, that Bioware isn't in the business of making a game like DA:O. Losing the audience that won't cross-over from DA:O to the KoTOR - ME2 style of games isn't a loss, in the sense that Bioware doesn't want to cater to that group

I completely reject your analysis.

First, I don't see how KotOR is meaningfully different from DAO in terms of its overall design philosophy.  ME, ME2, and DA2 fall into a new category BioWare hadn't previously entered, with the possible exception of Jade Empire.

Second, we don't know what BioWare wants to do.  We don't know what BioWare will do.  All we know is what they have done, and at most we can extrapolate from that to determine what they can do, but what they will do will always be a mystery to us.

And third, I don't think it makes any sense to ascribe intent or preferences to BioWare as an entity.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I completely reject your analysis.

First, I don't see how KotOR is meaningfully different from DAO in terms of its overall design philosophy. 

KoTOR is better contrasted with BGII and NWN, because it started the trend that ME-ME2 and DA2 are representative of.

It introduced a fully fixed party (and removed party creation for a singleplayer RPG), it narrowed the scope of exploration even more than BGII and it introduced a heavily cinematic presentation. It was a console-first product, and it involved a simplification of inventory, controls and even ruleset.

You're looking at how you RP as an indicator of design, but that's not really indicative at all.

Second, we don't know what BioWare wants to do.  We don't know what BioWare will do.  All we know is what they have done, and at most we can extrapolate from that to determine what they can do, but what they will do will always be a mystery to us.

It's just like predicting behaviour.

And third, I don't think it makes any sense to ascribe intent or preferences to BioWare as an entity.

Bioware is a corporation. It's a fictional entity.

[UnspokenSoul22]

Thor Rand Al wrote...
Oh playin a male Hawke I'm finding more entertaining then a female, I mean omg his voice  
Having a hard time going back to playing a female now, keep looking for excuses to keep playing my male

It's really quite entertaining to play a female.  You get to romance the two "brooding" guys, which is superb.

I'd love to play a male, but the ladies aren't very...courtable. Might get some kind of disease from Isabela!

I think I'll keep the game and hope for BW to come through on this DLC. I might try my hand at playing a guy my third time around.

P.S. Hopefully someone from Bioware is watching this topic right now. One problem I had when playing was creating a new game. When I created my second character, it completely erased my first without my knowledge. I hadn't even finished the game! Gah. I still don't know what happens in the end--don't tell me! I'm almost done with Act 2!

P.S.S. Fenris is pretty stubborn and won't cooperate with me, if you get my drift...<3 I adore Anders, though. Might just get back with him. Ha, ha! So fun.

Modifié par UnspokenSoul22, 17 juin 2011 - 10:32 .

[TRfore]

Dont have time to read all the post, so I apologize if this has been said before.

The innovation EA/Bioware is talking about is the consolization of RPG's. All their RPG's from now on will be designed to make the game easy to transfer from PC to consoles. Notice how small the maps are before you get a loading screen? Notice how companions inventory screens are so limited? All this to accomodate the limitations of consoles. This was the lesson they learned from the ME series but they went too far with it in the DA series. They screwed up the story and reused maps to keep the development cost low.

My guess is the DA3 will have a better story with less plotholes but will be similar to the ME series with regards to UI and controls.

EA wants the console crowd and they will make sure the games are easy ports to consoles.

[Nerevar-as]

Do consoles really have so many limitations, or have devs gone too comfortable?

Modifié par Nerevar-as, 17 juin 2011 - 10:46 .