1248 réponses à ce sujet

[Aaleel]

Nerevar-as wrote...

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

We'll see when the Witcher 2 comes out on console.

But as far as Bioware goes, there is a huge difference between:

"This is the most that can be done with a console in general"

and

"This is the most that WE can do with a console"

Bioware is the latter.

[PlumPaul93]

Muzyka: Dragon Age 2 "one of the most polarising launches we've had"

Modifié par PlumPaul82393, 17 juin 2011 - 10:51 .

[Harid]

Nerevar-as wrote...

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

Assassin's Creed 2, Uncharted 2, Gears of War 2, etc, etc, etc, say no.

[yaw]

That's really quite insulting. 

Everyone who disliked DA were Origins fans who just wanted more of the same and couldn't handle the "innovation"? Meanwhile, everyone apart from that pitiful rabble, loved the game - new and old alike!

Really?

Honestly?

A simple: "Sorry that our game was badly recieved, we will review our faults throughly and next time we will pay more close attention to what the community wants and hopefully produce a better game in future" was beyond you?

Who are they trying to fool? Game critics? Themselves? Isn't admitting they slipped-up better than trying to worm your way out of bad reviews?

Arrogance. Plain, utter, arrogance.

[Nerevar-as]

Good points.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

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.

NWN also lacked party creation.  Why do you not group it with KotOR, then?

Also, the core campaigns of BG and BG2 also lacked party creation.  The only new addition (which, again, also occurred in NWN) was that companions were collected automatically and remained available forever regardless of whether you used them.

KotOR allowed full party control, in a way that BG and DAO do, but ME does not (DA2 falls in a middle ground - and NWN isn't comparable as there was no party).

KotOR offered an unrestricted PC background, entirely unlike ME, ME2, and DA2.

You're only looking at a handful of characteristics.  A more complete analysis does not support your conclusion.

It's just like predicting behaviour.

Ignoring that that doesn't work anyway, no, it isn't.  And here's why:

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

But it doesn't have intent or preferences.  The people who run it do, but they are a transient population.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

TRfore wrote...

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.

It's not a console limitation per se, it's a Bioware limitation with consoles.

[hoorayforicecream]

yaw wrote...

That's really quite insulting. 

Everyone who disliked DA were Origins fans who just wanted more of the same and couldn't handle the "innovation"? Meanwhile, everyone apart from that pitiful rabble, loved the game - new and old alike!

I think you're reading stuff that isn't there. Nowhere did Mr. Muzyka say 'everyone'. He said "Maybe they were looking for more of the same, and it was different and innovative in ways they weren't expecting."

A simple: "Sorry that our game was badly recieved, we will review our faults throughly and next time we will pay more close attention to what the community wants and hopefully produce a better game in future" was beyond you?

Who are they trying to fool? Game critics? Themselves? Isn't admitting they slipped-up better than trying to worm your way out of bad reviews?

Arrogance. Plain, utter, arrogance.

I would point out that it wasn't badly received. Plenty of people I know played it, enjoyed it, and are looking forward to DA3. Plenty of critics enjoyed it, and it has a metacritic score of 82 which is nowhere near bad. None of them would say it was a perfect experience, and they all had things to say about what they wish was better, but they didn't say "this game sucks, we hate it, how dare they release a game like this." I'm sorry you didn't like it, but I really wouldn't read more into the interview than is actually there. Neither Mr. Muzyka, nor Bioware is an evil boogeyman out to eat children and talk in the movie theater. 

[magicwins]

I hate how absolutely no-one is willing to clearly state that they screwed up. If nothing else, sales should say as much, but no, it was 'different' and 'innovative' and it was 'going in a different direction'.

**** you. Now go make DA3 so that we can judge you all over again.

[ItsTheTruth]

mrcrusty wrote...

It's not a console limitation per se, it's a Bioware limitation with consoles.

You mean Bioware innovations with consoles.

[Morroian]

snfonseka wrote...

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

Actually I think many people here should.

[Brockololly]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
If DA 2 has half the sales of DA:O, it's still more profitable.

Of course an important question is long term profits and the profitability of the franchise as a whole as well.
Short term thinking like this  could harm the franchise in the long run. EA probably wouldn't care though, they have many more cows to milk.

Yup, thats how stuff like Command & Conquer got run into the ground. I think another part to maybe consider in the relative profitability of DAO as compared to DA2 is that while DAO took longer to make, you have to imagine a good chunk of that time wasn't with a full staff working all out on it but likely a skeleton crew on it while the writers made the lore, the programmers/engineers made the engine and so forth. It probably wasn't until much later that they had lots of people working on the project all out to get it finished.

And even still, of course you'd expect DA2 to earn more/sell more  than Origins. Origins was a new IP, coming out in a crowded time of year and still was BioWare's best selling game ever. So even if it took them a lot to create that IP and figure that into the cost of Origins, you'd expect DA2 to be that much more profitable given that the engine is already created along with the lore and so forth.

So it seems especially telling when DA2 despire selling well in the first couple weeks, seemingly dropped like a rock after that. Maybe it was more profitable, but did it sell more copies? There is a quote from EA CEO John Riccitiello from not too long ago when talking about Dead Space 2 and how it was showing growth based on more copies sold and how its expected for a new IP to maybe struggle but its expected for it to grow in sales with each outing. Is that the case with DA2?

dcinroc wrote...

Leaving aside the relative mertis of DA2, I think Bioware/EA shot themselves in the foot with their marketing.
When you take a game as well received as DA:O, which has a particular  style and type of gameplay, then you produce a different type game with a "2" slapped on it, you are setting yourself up for trouble.

Totally agree- I think a huge part of the problem is their marketing and trying to figure out who the game is for- who is the audience for a Dragon Age game? Thats part of the problem with EA's whole "core and more" philosophy in trying to make every game a blockbuster and appeal to everyone. From EA's Frank Gibeau about ME3, but applicable to DA:

"When you're in this business now you have to be able to get to the  widest possible audience. Games are so expensive to build now that you  can't have a sustainable business if you're in the million unit seller  range. You've got to be multi-million units.

"You have to think about not just the core gamers but the hit buyers and the more casual buyers; having a design and a story and an interface  that works across all of those segments without losing the core. It
makes life interesting.

"We think it about it as the core and more. Not more, leave the core.  That's a recipe for failure. You have to be smart about it. You can't  dumb the game down. But at the same time you have to make it so a lot  more people can play it than just core gamers."

Now its fine to want a game that has broad appeal, the problem is (IMO) BioWare has left their core to rot and has taken them for granted.

As I see it, part of the problem is that the "hit buyers" and more "casual" audience" don't care as much about the nitty gritty mechanics- just give them one good hook to get them attracted to the game- the easiest being graphics or story appeal. I don't understand why BioWare doesn't approach things more almost like a poltical campaign works- you first soldify your partisan base in the primaries and then once you have your party's nomination then you moderate your message for more broad appeal.

It just seems like BioWare is so intent on gobbling up the Call of Duty and "casual" gamers that they're neglecting their once "core" audience. And yet its an audience willing to pay up just as much as the casual audience- their money is all the same. Yet you ****** off the core and there is a good chance their soured attitude will make it so the game has bad word of mouth and you'll never have a chance to get the more casual fan's attention.

In Exile wrote..
Bioware is a corporation. It's a fictional entity.

This no longer exists:


Its this now, a Division of EA:

Nerevar-as wrote...

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

I think maybe part of the problem is that the DA engine was built for PC's so a large chunk of the work on DA2 was in trying to make it play nicer given the memory constraints of the consoles. Yet, that in part is why I think DA2 is just lacking things the PC version of Origins had, like a more appealing UI and so forth. I'd love it if they added a fifth companion slot- but most likely due to the engine/consoles that won't happen.

Modifié par Brockololly, 17 juin 2011 - 11:55 .

[Morroian]

magicwins wrote...

I hate how absolutely no-one is willing to clearly state that they screwed up. If nothing else, sales should say as much, but no, it was 'different' and 'innovative' and it was 'going in a different direction'.

**** you. Now go make DA3 so that we can judge you all over again.

I hate how the majority of people here are unable to acknowledge how restricted Bioware are in terms of what they can say, being beholden to shareholders etc..

[Xewaka]

JohnEpler wrote...
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.

Then you should try to make the game world and the world the characters speak about the same one, rather than two different, unrelated entities. DA 2 had one of the most grave gameplay/story segregation issues I've ever found in a game of this nature.

Thor Rand Al wrote...
I love the fact that ya never know what's goin to come out of Hawke's mouth when u pick an option of what to say.

For the life of me I will never understand how people can actually consider such a blatant theft of character control from the player a positive element in a roleplaying game.

Maria Caliban wrote...
I dislike the word polarization because I don't understand it.
Howcan a wave of light be said to travel in a direction while being perpendicular to the direction? Wouldn't that produce a constant curving?

I love it when you talk dirty. No, there isn't a constant curving because the sinusoidal nature of the wave averages a straight line.

Modifié par Xewaka, 17 juin 2011 - 11:37 .

[mesmerizedish]

ItsTheTruth wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

It's not a console limitation per se, it's a Bioware limitation with consoles.

You mean Bioware innovations with consoles.

Okay, even I laughed at this.

[Redcoat]

Here's one thing I want to know: how many "new fans" did DA2 bring to the franchise? This isn't a criticism of the game; I'm genuinely curious as to how many people purchased DA2 without having previously played DA:O, or how many people disliked DA:O but enjoyed DA2. It seems like getting this sort of number would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

[Morroian]

In Exile wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
We're not just talking about reused areas either. The plot fails in many places, the vast amount of retcons, the wave encounters. Trying to make it sound like it's just people complaining about reused areas is laughable. I'm sure you can do better than that.

Yeah, but these are the flaws inherited from DA:O. I think DA2 is an amazing game, in the sense that people were so unwilling to give it slack based on Bioware's name that they suddenly caught on to the flaws in Bioware's presentation, in the same way that ME2 let disenchanted ME1 fans realize those same flaws.

Don't get me wrong - DA2 executed badly. DA:O executed well. But the flaws you're pointing out are there in DA:O - you're just not willing to excuse DA2 for them.

DA:O has many of the same structural problems (in terms of the inconsistency of the plot, the atmosphere and construction of the game and the lore, the progression of characters and events, and the limitation of choice) but the game is just well received, and so these things don't get the same attention.

It comes down to immersion if the player gets knocked out of being immersed in the game the flaws loom larger than for those who remain immersed in it.  

[magicwins]

Morroian wrote...

I hate how the majority of people here are unable to acknowledge how restricted Bioware are in terms of what they can say, being beholden to shareholders etc..

Try saying that to Peter Molyneux sometime. Not that I support how he bashes every previous Fable game whenever he promotes the next one, but he obviously couldn't care less about hiding his opinions. And most developers are willing to state what was badly received and what was well received, in no uncertain terms, and make commitments to improve on them, much like Mike stressed on slow combat for DAO (even though I had zero problems with it).

This is more like, "Yeah, some people were unhappy with what we provided. We should probably take their opinions into account too" which is a far cry from the reality of "OMG they're giving ME2 away for free"!

[Morroian]

Bejos_ wrote...

What I'm saying is that fans would not be near as PO'd as they are, if they had something concrete to hope for. At the moment, all it is, is "We're working on it. Wait. We're making a patch-- no, we don't know when it'll be out, wait. We're making DLC that's addressing the problems [but we're not going to tell you what those problems are, specifically]. We're not telling you when it's coming out, though. Wait."
The people that are angry want to see that something concrete is being done. All reassurances thus far have been incredibly vague. It's not going to appease them. At least set a date for ... something, anything.

Have you answered the question about why you feel condescended to and insulted when you haven't bought the game?

Bejos_ wrote...

So Bioware's lost a customer. I'm sure they don't care, and I don't expect them to care.

How are you a customer when you haven't bought the game?

Modifié par Morroian, 17 juin 2011 - 11:32 .

[Morroian]

magicwins wrote...

Try saying that to Peter Molyneux sometime. Not that I support how he bashes every previous Fable game whenever he promotes the next one, but he obviously couldn't care less about hiding his opinions. And most developers are willing to state what was badly received and what was well received, in no uncertain terms, and make commitments to improve on them, much like Mike stressed on slow combat for DAO (even though I had zero problems with it).

This is more like, "Yeah, some people were unhappy with what we provided. We should probably take their opinions into account too" which is a far cry from the reality of "OMG they're giving ME2 away for free"!

Yes but they do that after the sales cycle has finished. That won't be until DA3 is announced.

[magicwins]

Filament wrote...
I hate how we're granting that they'd go on about how horrible the game is if only their hands weren't tied by their business obligations. Far be it for them to actually be proud of the work they've done.

If I put myself in their shoes, I just don't see that happening, That's the best I can offer. On several fronts I thought DA2 was really well done, in cinematics, strong characters, believable facial animations, etc. But, overall, no. I would not have been happy to submit that to the world, time constraint or not, not after I'd seen what my studio was capable of doing.

[magicwins]

Morroian wrote...

Yes but they do that after the sales cycle has finished. That won't be until DA3 is announced.

They could easily characterize what was received well and what wasn't right now. And even if they're unwilling to go that far, acknowledging that their choices led to poor sales, which, being the ultimate bottom line, is a bad thing, would be enough. But no, it's all awesome, and you just weren't froody enough to belong. Hah.

Modifié par magicwins, 17 juin 2011 - 11:37 .

[Morroian]

magicwins wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Yes but they do that after the sales cycle has finished. That won't be until DA3 is announced.

They could easily characterize what was received well and what wasn't right now. And even if they're unwilling to go that far, acknowledging that their choices led to poor sales, 

They have actually pretty much done that after you put their statements through the PR filter.