1248 réponses à ce sujet

[Chari]

DA series is dead series in my opinion now...
These innovations will kill it
Nah, I'm gonna play ME

[In Exile]

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Why can't the Warden want to try and see if he can recruit Tempalrs anyways? Nothing really says he can't.
And the plot quickly shows you that you don't have to have mages. [/quote]

The goal, made very clear to you (and the only one allowed to be expressed in-game) is that you're going to the Tower to recruit the mages. This isn't even a decision you make yourself.

If you say, content can be off-screen or imaginary where the Warden does this, then I can just say you can imagine a nearly infinite amount of things in the yearly gaps that have Hawke fighing (and failing, with everything staying the same) to try and stop the mage templar conflict.

Since your conversation with Meredith/Orsino defines their reactions to you (hostile or not) then you've created the same experience.

[quote]
It makes the player passive. Not the character. In game, they don't tell him to do this and he just follow orders. The character is supposedely convinced (poorly it's true) that this is a good plan. [/quote]

Well, no. My character wasn't convinced. If you're going to say 'the game demands the character was convinced' then you can easily say Hawke was convinced by whatever convenient hook you want to justify action (or inaction) as I said above.

More generally, you don't actually get to counter-argue. You just get to play the errand boy. You get to ask why you can't do certain things, and they tell you.

Asking questions before exeuting someone else's plan isn't being active.

[quote]So he does it. Same with going for Eamon instead of going after Loghain. Neither Alistair nor Morrigan orders the Warden to do it. [/quote]

It's Alistair's plan. And then you go out and do it.

[quote]Player agency is not always equivalent to character agency. Though they are supposed to be interrelated in RPGs. [/quote]

But character agency is more than being an errand boy. Like I amended: the best examples being betraying Bhelen or Harrowmont early on or convincing the Werewolves at the end.

No one tells you to do these things. No one comes up with the idea. It's entirely an in-character decision that the game supports.

[quote]Because it is. What else is happening in Kirkwall, at least after act 2? tAht is risking the destruction of the whole city?  [/quote]

Hawke's (potential) mining business, trying to get closer to Gamlen with the death of a particular person, trying to have kids with his LI, hunting Tal-Vasoth/Qunari outside of Kirkwall, trying to write a memoire...

...There could be lots of things Hawke cares about. You as the player really cares about the conflict. But that's nothing more than my objection to the Warden being forced to save Ferelden.

Again - I'm not sayng your reason isn't good (I think it is). I'm just saying you can have an identical reason in DA:O. Bioware structures their games like that. It's just that in DA2, few people bought into the plot.

[quote]Templars is an active choice. Golems as well. People present you with the option, and you decide whether you agree or not. That's active choice.  Because without you, they are screwed. [/quote]

No. With the templars, you don't get to say ''I'm abandoning the mages'' - Gregoire tells you in no uncertain terms that the Tower needs to be cleared out. If anything, saving the mages is more likely to be active.

But let's say I agree with you. With as weak a standard as yours everything Hawke does is active. Siding with Meredith or Orsino is active. Helping one or the other is active. It doesn't matter if you're forced into it (you just granted above that even being 'poorly' convinced is good enough).

So the only complaint that you can have, according to your own argument, is the 3 year gaps. But you just said that a player, effectively, can fill in gaps and invent motivations and events. So you could handwave that away, too.

Which is what Bioware expected players to do, because that's all Bioware does.

Look: I don't care if you disagree with me that the Warden was passive. What I am arguing is that the design in terms of the choices and plot in DA:O and DA2 was the same.

[quote]Except you can collect the army before waking him up (so he doesn't send you) and of course everyone knows about the army. It could have been ingegrated better, but you see the army in Redcliffe castle. And yes, they have representatives. [/quote]

Which just means you're obeying Flemeth and Alistair instead.

[quote]They also have representatives in your camp. [/quote]

You mean, the people that don't listen to anything you say and ask you to fund them? Which you can then obey or not?

[quote]Without your approval, she can't do it. And you can choose not to have her on the throne in the first place.
No, that's not being passive at all. And yes, it's out maneuvring when you do everything he didnt' want you to do. And when you do what he wants initially for your own reason (decide for instance to marry Anora or have her take the throne when she is in Eamons' estate). You can backstab both in fact. [/quote]

Like I said: if you think this is active, then everything Hawke does is active.

[quote]It has several, which I already listed. [/quote]

It has 2-3, depending on your class and gender.

[quote]And that's the level of execution that I am talking about. Hence "in the story" or "in-game". [/quote]

No, that's not the same thing. It's not the plot that's well done. DA:O's plot is as much an inconsistent embarassment as DA2's.

What's well executed is the actual game portion. DA:O has unique environments, the combat doesn't feel broken, the quests are more varied, and there's a clear goal from the start of the game. None of these have to do with PC's design.

[quote]None of these things need to be set in motion for the Warden to actively decide the outcome. And he can set something in motion. He can decide to have Ferelden send reinforcements to Orzammar. He can suggest to the Circle to go to Orzammar. He can request havign a new circle....etc

So no, not at all. [/quote]

Well, then Hawke certainly decides whether Starkhaven mages eat dirt for a year or are taken to the Circle to have some raped and executed, whether Fenryiel becomes an abomination that could threaten the world, whether a dalish clan continues to exist (or not), whether a magistrate's son has to go to jail or not...

...Like I said: if I grant you your standard, then Hawke = the Warden as an active character.

Which is fine by me.


[quote]Not giving a speech is being passive? What?[/quote]

Absolutely. It's just another example of how the Warden obeys his superiors: i.e. Anora or Alistair, Eamon and Riordan.

Not coming up with the plan is passive. Being forced to defend Denerim is passive. Not giving orders to the army is passive. Not even being able to decide how to take down the archdemon is passive. Letting the ruler of Ferelden address your army (the one you were made commander of) is passive.

It's why Presidents and not Vice-Presidents give the State of the Union.

[/quote]Of course it has everything to do with being passive or active. If you dont' care about something, there is no reason to be active. [/quote]

Not at all. Like in DA:O, you could be active because you were ordered to do so.

[quote]Yea and too bad. No game has every possible choice. But DA:O gives you some alternatives. DA2 doesn't. [/quote]

If you're going to fall back on I liked the other way and it had more options so niyiah I think we've exhausted the discussion.

Of course not every game can have every possible choice - but the choices essentially fall along the same useless sphere. You decide last minute whether to do it or not, and you generally have the outcome foisted on you because you can't escape it. If you want to rise to power in DA:O, there's really only one way to do it unless you're a human noble. Just like in DA2.

[quote]
No, it's not the same at all. Because the game doesn't impose the alternative on you.

Furthermore, even if I want to RP a Hawke that wants to be Viscount, the choice is stil not presented to me. They just tell me. Why? Because I happen to be good at killing mages, even if I am an apostate. It makes little sense. [/quote]

That's all execution - but it has nothing to do with only getting the one outcome or being told to stuff yourself if you want to rise to power. I agree with you that DA2 does it worse than DA:O, but DA2 doesn't do it differently.

[quote]I disagree, not all of them no. A lot of them yes. You just said, level of execution that DA2 misses.
[/quote]

Yes. But the best example is.. mediocre high school football and the best run offence in the NFL trying to run an HB draw out of the I-formation. One of them is going to do it a lot better, but at the meta-level, they're basically scripted to be the same.

[quote]EDIT: anyways I gtg sleep. Nice discussing with you as always! [/quote]

And here I am digging this up in the morning. I had a lot of fun debating too.

[billy the squid]

Persephone wrote...

Vice-Admiral von Titsling wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Vice-Admiral von Titsling wrote...

"But also there were a lot of fans of the original Dragon Age: Origins 
who weren't as happy with it. Maybe they were looking for more of the 
same, and it was different and innovative in ways they weren't 
expecting."

/crosses ME3 off the 'buy' list

So a non-ME3 related comment made you decide not to buy a game you might have enjoyed very much.
That's........mature. Yeah, so mature.

I was not aware that the person I quoted was head of just Dragon Age. Pretty sure he's one of the heads of the entire company.

And if the trend started with DA2 holds true for ME3, then I'm pretty sure I don't want to play it. Judging from the 'The players just can't grok our amazing innovations' comments, it seemingly will. I have better uses for $60.

Putting words into people's mouths? Really?

Both games are developed by different teams and ME3 seems to have more RPG elements than ME1. So yeah, I wouldn't miss it, no matter what anyone says. (Devs, fans.......)

If you actually look at some of EA's comments about ME3 and the DA franchise many repeatedly make refrence to expanding the audience and making it more accessible. Market share expansion is not so much the problem, rather the way in which it is done, if anything the jump from DAO to DA2 and ME to ME2 epitomises the current approach of the company to create accessability via dillution and simplification. Considering the development studios take the line and instructions from EA, and it is they who are left to implement the details, are you really under the impression that the changes from DAO to DA2, ME to ME2 were entirely due to developer decisionsand feedback? Or that the current trend which is in DA2 will be different in ME3 considering all development teams will be bound to a greater or lesser extent to EA's overall directives.

DA2 and ME2 gave the impression of the desire to expand the potential revenue stream without an underlying understanding of who their consumer base was or what they wanted. Me2 was lucky in the fact that most of its fans were willing to let certain changes slide, particularly as the original game was an action orientated shooter with heavy RPG elements. The second simply stripped a good quantity of the RPG elements out yet the underlying core for a lot of people remained, in fact in a lot of aspects it was improved. Ipso facto many, including myself still enjoyed it immensely. Despite some reservations as to inventory over streaming, lack of grenades, resource mining and the story being somewhat weaker than the original. 

DA2 has undoubtoubly, been influenced by ME2's success and my impression was that quite a few aspects were copied. Yet, the main problem is that it strayed too far from at least a sizable portion of the core consumer's expectations and what they wanted, by doing, as Mr. Laidlaw has said, a 180. In a vain attempt to grab more people and in doing so only managed to comprromise the core base, which has resulted in the current backlash. I find it difficult to believe that complaints about combat being clunky etc. led to the current state of the game, without some influence from up the ladder demanding the developers expand the potential consumer base by taking parts out or simplifying it.

It is the over arching direction in Bioware's games that makes some of us apprehensive about the future of the products, the fact they are developed by different teams is largely irrelevant when it comes to this, the teams will have more to do with issues of quality, implementation and how good new concepts are, not the directionof the franchise, that is unlikely to be soley in their hands. 

With regards to ME3 I remain apprehensive, for the reasons explained above, but whilst I won't pre order it I will keep an eye on it, whilst I'm unsure who you reached the conclusion that ME3 had more RPG elements than 1 in it, ME2 yes, but 1? The info we have on ME3 is fairly sketchy, so i'm interested as to how this conclusion was reached.

Regarding DA2 and possible DA3, well it depends on how things will change and if design issues will be adressed to any satisfactory degree.Frankly I've written off DA2 and any DLC as it remains unlikely that it will address the underlying problems I had with the design concepts, so I see no reason why I should pay more for a game which by and large I disliked, especially when considering TW2 has shown that it is capable of achieving fluid combat with well executed RPG elments.  Finally, whilst PR releases don't make me angry, they become an irritation, more akin to poking a hornet's nest than actually repairing relations with the consumer, possibly as the releases are always couched in typical PR trash they seem to do more damage than good.

Modifié par billy the squid, 18 juin 2011 - 02:39 .

[Redcoat]

I wonder how much of the "polarisation" is anxiety over the direction that gaming is taking in general. I know that a lot of us (myself included) are dismayed at how games are becoming simpler, shallower, more homogenised, and yes, "dumbed down." To use a "food and drink" analogy that many are so fond of, it's like watching every beer in the world slowly turning into Budweiser - something as bland, watered-down, and inoffensive as possible to appeal to the greatest number of people.

DA:O was a game that bucked this trend. It had its flaws, sure (what game doesn't?), but it was a product that felt like it was proud to be an example of the RPG genre, and this differentiated it from other releases. DA2, on the other, just felt generic. It felt like it was ashamed to be an RPG. It's like the nerdy kid that gets picked on for playing D&D at lunch break, so one day he shows up at school clad in baggy pants and a hoodie, gangsta-rap blaring from his iPod, and proceeds to make a public spectacle of throwing his d20 and rulebooks in the trash bin to try to prove to other kids he's "cool." None of the other kids buy it, of course, and so they laugh at him for being such a poser.

What I'm trying to say with this tortured analogy is akin to the Burmese proverb: "A tiger changes his habitat only to meet his death." The "innovations" Muzyka talks about are, for many, an indication that Dragon Age is going somewhere they don't want it go, and they feel powerless to do anything about it. Hence the complaints that "BioWare isn't listening," and the idea that if you simply shout loud enough that the developers will be more inclined to listen.

Modifié par Redcoat, 18 juin 2011 - 03:17 .

[Teddie Sage]

I love how the fans say "Oh, but it's Bioware who betrayed the fan base." I'll politely say it: Stop the rants, it's been months now. Or at least try to understand that this isn't Dragon Age Origins. It wasn't meant to be a copy paste of Origins, anyways. I enjoy the fact they had brought an action feeling to this game. The only thing that pissed me off in the battles are the cooldowns. Bioware didn't betray anyone, you did. You backstabbed the company telling them how wrong they were while this game could have been pure gold. But no. Humanity doesn't work like this, there will always be people who will be happy and others who will be pissed. You can't expect a game called Dragon Age II, a sequel to be treated the same way it did with the first game. Why? Because tend to praise the original game first and above the rest. Final Fantasy also has a polarized fan base on many of its titles. Dragon Age doesn't work like a trilogy like Mass Effect, so it's quite normal to have many elements changed here and there, plus new characters. People keep whining and whining and whining, it gives the developers lots of headaches but they have no choice but to try to make everyone here happy. We're the most unforgiving fan base there is right now, because we don't cut them some slack. We owe them an apology and they owe us an expansion which will satisfy the Origins fan base. If we could just let them work for now and enjoy other video games, we wouldn't have to come here and whine like little kids.

My point is: Dragon Age 2 is a good game. Not the best Action RPG there is, but it still has a decent place in my list. It's not Dragon Age Origins, it will never be. It was NEVER meant to be. It's important to realize that so we can move on. People fear change and it's not only because Flemeth said so­.

[oldmansavage]

Redcoat wrote...

I wonder how much of the "polarisation" is anxiety over the direction that gaming is taking in general. I know that a lot of us (myself included) are dismayed at how games are becoming simpler, shallower, more homogenised, and yes, "dumbed down." To use a "food and drink" analogy that many are so fond of, it's like watching every beer in the world slowly turning into Budweiser - something as bland, watered-down, and inoffensive as possible to appeal to the greatest number of people.

DA:O was a game that bucked this trend. It had its flaws, sure (what game doesn't?), but it was a product that felt like it was proud to be an example of the RPG genre, and this differentiated it from other releases. DA2, on the other, just felt generic. It felt like it was ashamed to be an RPG. It's like the nerdy kid that gets picked on for playing D&D at lunch break, so one day he shows up at school clad in baggy pants and a hoodie, gangsta-rap blaring from his iPod, and proceeds to make a public spectacle of throwing his d20 and rulebooks in the trash bin to try to prove to other kids he's "cool." None of the other kids buy it, of course, and so they laugh at him for being such a poser.

What I'm trying to say with this tortured analogy is akin to the Burmese proverb: "A tiger changes his habitat only to meet his death." The "innovations" Muzyka talks about are, for many, an indication that Dragon Age is going somewhere they don't want it go, and they feel powerless to do anything about it. Hence the complaints that "BioWare isn't listening," and the idea that if you simply shout loud enough that the developers will be more inclined to listen.

You nailed it.  I do agree that the DA franchise will ultimately fail if it continues to make action adventure games.  Too many other developers do it and they do it better.

[MadLaughter]

I liked DAO. I tentatively liked DA2. I think there were some decent innovations. I think that the doctor's politically correct conjecture that players disliked the game because it wasn't what they were expecting is a misguided one, at least in my case. The game clearly suffered from a too-brief development time, and that's about it. More development time might have given us some more varied environments, might have given us more polished combat (Which I liked overall) and might have resulted in a better implementation of enemy spawning. Maybe someone would have figured out that more is not better, not a substitute for tactical combat. Fewer more interesting enemies would have been superior to hordes and hordes of soulless, boring meatsacks.

It's conjecture, maybe more time would have only led to worse things, but somehow I doubt that.

[Redcoat]

MadLaughter wrote...

I liked DAO. I tentatively liked DA2. I think there were some decent innovations. I think that the doctor's politically correct conjecture that players disliked the game because it wasn't what they were expecting is a misguided one, at least in my case. The game clearly suffered from a too-brief development time, and that's about it. More development time might have given us some more varied environments, might have given us more polished combat (Which I liked overall) and might have resulted in a better implementation of enemy spawning. Maybe someone would have figured out that more is not better, not a substitute for tactical combat. Fewer more interesting enemies would have been superior to hordes and hordes of soulless, boring meatsacks.

It's conjecture, maybe more time would have only led to worse things, but somehow I doubt that.

The lack of time is a big factor, I'm sure. Making each encounter unique, interesting, and well-balanced, for instance, takes time to plan out, as does creating a variety of creatures with differing abilities that the player needs to contend. Hence why DA2's encounter almost always invovle the party getting rushed by wave after wave of generic enemies. Hence why the majority of subquests involve going somewhere and killing a bunch of people. It also explains why the story feels so disjointed and why so many plot points just fizzle out or go nowhere. I have no doubt that, with another year or two in development, DA2 would have a vastly superior product. That said, some of the changes were likely not the result of a rushed development schedule, such as the art shift or how combat was made so cartoonish and over-the-top.

[Redcoat]

Double post.

Modifié par Redcoat, 18 juin 2011 - 03:57 .

[Monica83]

Innovative... pffff....Dragon age 2 sucks....
But im happy we have company like Cd-Project that take care of their fans....

[Salaya]

Redcoat wrote...

...

DA:O was a game that bucked this trend. It had its flaws, sure (what game doesn't?), but it was a product that felt like it was proud to be an example of the RPG genre, and this differentiated it from other releases. DA2, on the other, just felt generic. It felt like it was ashamed to be an RPG. It's like the nerdy kid that gets picked on for playing D&D at lunch break, so one day he shows up at school clad in baggy pants and a hoodie, gangsta-rap blaring from his iPod, and proceeds to make a public spectacle of throwing his d20 and rulebooks in the trash bin to try to prove to other kids he's "cool." None of the other kids buy it, of course, and so they laugh at him for being such a poser.

...

[applause]

You have done a wonderful post. That paragraph is brilliant

In the same line: I like fast food. It happens that some of it tastes really good. But even the best fast food cannot compare with cookery. Not because it's bad, but qualitatively different. As some have posted before us, gameplay suffers of "massification" as many other ways of expression.

[Corto81]

Redcoat wrote...

I wonder how much of the "polarisation" is anxiety over the direction that gaming is taking in general. I know that a lot of us (myself included) are dismayed at how games are becoming simpler, shallower, more homogenised, and yes, "dumbed down." To use a "food and drink" analogy that many are so fond of, it's like watching every beer in the world slowly turning into Budweiser - something as bland, watered-down, and inoffensive as possible to appeal to the greatest number of people.

DA:O was a game that bucked this trend. It had its flaws, sure (what game doesn't?), but it was a product that felt like it was proud to be an example of the RPG genre, and this differentiated it from other releases. DA2, on the other, just felt generic. It felt like it was ashamed to be an RPG. It's like the nerdy kid that gets picked on for playing D&D at lunch break, so one day he shows up at school clad in baggy pants and a hoodie, gangsta-rap blaring from his iPod, and proceeds to make a public spectacle of throwing his d20 and rulebooks in the trash bin to try to prove to other kids he's "cool." None of the other kids buy it, of course, and so they laugh at him for being such a poser.

What I'm trying to say with this tortured analogy is akin to the Burmese proverb: "A tiger changes his habitat only to meet his death." The "innovations" Muzyka talks about are, for many, an indication that Dragon Age is going somewhere they don't want it go, and they feel powerless to do anything about it. Hence the complaints that "BioWare isn't listening," and the idea that if you simply shout loud enough that the developers will be more inclined to listen.

How very sad, and how very true.

[Herr Uhl]

Monica83 wrote...

Innovative... pffff....Dragon age 2 sucks....
But im happy we have company like Cd-Project that take care of their fans....

...how?

[Elhanan]

Elhanan wrote...

Here is an interview a bit earlier from the same source:

http://www.eurogamer...ge-ii-interview

For those that skipped it the first time.

[Aeowyn]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Vice-Admiral von Titsling wrote...

"But also there were a lot of fans of the original Dragon Age: Origins 
who weren't as happy with it. Maybe they were looking for more of the 
same, and it was different and innovative in ways they weren't 
expecting."

/crosses ME3 off the 'buy' list

Yes, I think that is wise.
Because I have a very strong feeling that they think they would 'have got away with it', if it hadn't been for the re-used dungeons and free-falling waves. So they will fix that, add some polish and think they're good.

Uh, right. Dragon Age and Mass Effect are made by two completely different teams. And Mass Effect 3 has been in development pretty much since ME2 was released. To not buy ME3 because of a comment....shesh.

Additionally I actually do agree with that comment. I don't know how many people I watched on these forums who hated DA2 before it was even released because it wasn't Origins.

[In Exile]

Redcoat wrote...
DA:O was a game that bucked this trend. It had its flaws, sure (what game doesn't?), but it was a product that felt like it was proud to be an example of the RPG genre, and this differentiated it from other releases.

I see you missed the marketing campaign for DA:O. Now that was a game that felt ashamed of what it was.

More generally, you weren't there for all the times DA:O was criticized precisely for trying so hard to kill every important aspect of an RPG - from the tactical, stat-based gameplay (renegerating mana, no tooltips, no explicit rule-set, no party member death) to role-playing itself (the origins won't allow RP freedom).

It's funny you used the 'poser' analogy, because there was a poster on the old bio-board that described how DA:O betrayed BG using a similar analogy.

[In Exile]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Monica83 wrote...

Innovative... pffff....Dragon age 2 sucks....
But im happy we have company like Cd-Project that take care of their fans....

...how?

By telling us how superior we are while streamlining the game for consoles. It's clear that lip-service is more important than results, at least for some people.

[ink07]

Redcoat wrote...

I wonder how much of the "polarisation" is anxiety over the direction that gaming is taking in general. I know that a lot of us (myself included) are dismayed at how games are becoming simpler, shallower, more homogenised, and yes, "dumbed down." To use a "food and drink" analogy that many are so fond of, it's like watching every beer in the world slowly turning into Budweiser - something as bland, watered-down, and inoffensive as possible to appeal to the greatest number of people.

DA:O was a game that bucked this trend. It had its flaws, sure (what game doesn't?), but it was a product that felt like it was proud to be an example of the RPG genre, and this differentiated it from other releases. DA2, on the other, just felt generic. It felt like it was ashamed to be an RPG. It's like the nerdy kid that gets picked on for playing D&D at lunch break, so one day he shows up at school clad in baggy pants and a hoodie, gangsta-rap blaring from his iPod, and proceeds to make a public spectacle of throwing his d20 and rulebooks in the trash bin to try to prove to other kids he's "cool." None of the other kids buy it, of course, and so they laugh at him for being such a poser.

What I'm trying to say with this tortured analogy is akin to the Burmese proverb: "A tiger changes his habitat only to meet his death." The "innovations" Muzyka talks about are, for many, an indication that Dragon Age is going somewhere they don't want it go, and they feel powerless to do anything about it. Hence the complaints that "BioWare isn't listening," and the idea that if you simply shout loud enough that the developers will be more inclined to listen.

You nailed it sir. People are still vocal precisely because of this, they have been saying the same things over and over and Bioware pretends to acknowledge them but quickly brush them aside as they claim more "innovations" are incoming because they are busy trying to please new audience that didn't like their games in the first place.
Meanwhile, the talks of a franchise that is the "spiritual successor" to Baldur's Gate are nowhere to be found, and Bioware's RPG legacy is stepped on by themselves wile they continue their search for the all so elusive moneys.

That is what Bioware cheerleaders here don't truly understand. They think that because they liked the game everything else is unwarranted hate, but don't realize that if BW continues to look for that audience there is no chance in hell that they can meet them mid-way. With what they have now they won't accomplish those numbers, and that "expanded audience" usually chews through games and dismiss them rather quickly.

Bioware is not as smart as to look for a profitable niche. Some competitive games do this pretty well, I would say games like LoL or HoN are very hardcore games and they potentially have an audience of 30 million+ users around the world. As for SP games Assassin's Creed and GTA managed to sell a lot not because of pretended accessibility or flashiness-gore-sex, but due to scope, wealth of mechanics and polish, none of which Bioware particulary excell at. I mean, their most polished game ever was ME2 which was esentially a corridor shooter with a hub world, and they are known for making "RPGs".

[Salaya]

In Exile wrote...

...

I see you missed the marketing campaign for DA:O. Now that was a game that felt ashamed of what it was.

More generally, you weren't there for all the times DA:O was criticized precisely for trying so hard to kill every important aspect of an RPG - from the tactical, stat-based gameplay (renegerating mana, no tooltips, no explicit rule-set, no party member death) to role-playing itself (the origins won't allow RP freedom).

It's funny you used the 'poser' analogy, because there was a poster on the old bio-board that described how DA:O betrayed BG using a similar analogy.

Here, ins Spain, game was sold to us as some kind of spiritual succesor for BG franchise. When I first played, it was certain that it was not BG, but obviously tried to emulate the experience with softer, more appealing methods. That was, of course, my impression. I really liked the game and ended up convinced that bioware was not lying to say that (or whoever decided to keep the "spiritual succesor" thing in marketing moves in Spain)

There was people who criticized the game for the reasons you expose in the press here. But they were minority. The same applies to the little I know from international press. For DA2, the criticism is wider, and much more persistent. With this, I only point my impression, that is: the amount of bad reviews and disappointed players is much more relevant for DA2.

Im not telling that DAO was objectively loyal to his RPG roots, but my personal impression, not only about my feelings but also about the general ones seen in the press, is that it was the case indeed. 

Im sorry if my point is not clear. My english is terrible.

[YohkoOhno]

By telling us how superior we are while streamlining the game for consoles. It's clear that lip-service is more important than results, at least for some people.

Yeah, I agree. They are just as "smart" with their marketing and as careful with their PR as Bioware is. The one difference is Bioware can't really portray themselves as an underdog, and I think EA has some rather low-quality marketing that tends to insult fans intelligence at times. (Dead Space 2, your mom will hate this and the Dante's Inferno marketing come to mind).

I think the big difference--and I think this is where Ray is coming from--is that in some cases they do want to "move on". I'm pretty sure all Bioware games will be more like Mass Effect than Origins. They are pretty much moving in that direction. I think there are two types of critics--those who decry the move towards this, and those who decry the execution of the game. IMO, he's aiming this at the former and not the latter. The difference is, you can't listen to the former but have to listen to the latter.

The reason why DA2 IMO is not as successful as DA1 is solely based on the execution, not specific changes. People who dislike DA2 love TW2, even though that is the direction Bioware is going in--Voice protagonist, real-time action RPG, etc., and people who dislike DA2 love Mass Effect 1 and 2. I think the key element is ultimately, the people don't care what kind of game you make as long as it's good.

[Redcoat]

In Exile wrote...

Redcoat wrote...
DA:O was a game that bucked this trend. It had its flaws, sure (what game doesn't?), but it was a product that felt like it was proud to be an example of the RPG genre, and this differentiated it from other releases.

I see you missed the marketing campaign for DA:O. Now that was a game that felt ashamed of what it was.

More generally, you weren't there for all the times DA:O was criticized precisely for trying so hard to kill every important aspect of an RPG - from the tactical, stat-based gameplay (renegerating mana, no tooltips, no explicit rule-set, no party member death) to role-playing itself (the origins won't allow RP freedom).

It's funny you used the 'poser' analogy, because there was a poster on the old bio-board that described how DA:O betrayed BG using a similar analogy.

DA:O was described as the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate; it's hardly unexpected that people would compare the two games, see the differences between them, and conclude "I don't like this, you've ruined it." Yet Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age are two separate IPs. Dragon Age 2 was a direct sequel to DA:O, released barely more than a year after the original. People are right to criticise it for making such great changes to the formula.

And I highly doubt that the "backlash" against DA:O upon release was as intense or as sustained (that's the important thing - two months later and people are still talking about what DA2 did wrong) as the backlash againts DA2.

[Bejos_]

phoenixgoddess27 wrote...

Bejos_ wrote...


Perhaps people are taking it personally because EA/Bioware is making it personal.

Well, in a way, we can't do anything about it.

The ones who insult our intelligence with their "lalala, not listening, you just don't like it >=<" won't listen to us regardless of what we say, yes, this we know.
But there are a few on the Bioware team who are willing to listen, one of them came into the thread many pages earlier. (JohnEpler, I believe) He was cool. He needs an awesome button. (XD)
We shouldn't respond to the ones who are just going to insult us, because it's obvious they won't stop. So we may as well go the diplomatic route and talk to the ones who are listening with levelheads and respect.

The devs that moderate the forums have seen everything I have to say, I'm sure. Interacting with them personally won't change anything because they're not the heads of the DA franchise. Mark and Mike are the heads of the project. Mike and Mark have put out a below-mediocre game. The blame is on them.
Whenever the above two gentelmen have bothered to communicate with forumites, it has always been to condescend to, patronise and insult the people who have had problems with DA2.
I like John Epler and Stanley Woo. I am, however, not under the illusion that interacting with them will make any difference to the direction Mark and Mike, and Bioware and EA, wish to take the franchise.

No side is listening to the other sides unless it benefits them, which is sad. If we all listened to each side without the poo slinging war, I strongly believe we can all come to a better conclusion than this. There are people from each side willing to listen. It's obvious we each have an opinion and the best way to express it is to listen to other sides without all the anger.

I've already stated that I'll not be purchasing another product from Bioware (unless some unlikely circumstances lead to some unlikely events on the behalf of employees or the company as a whole), so I don't really have a stake in their listening to me. I come here to pass the time. Their not listening to me has nothing to do with my anger; their attitude does.
It's not impossible to be both angry and objective.

[TRfore]

mrcrusty wrote...

TRfore wrote...

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.

Think about it, they want all future games to run of an XBOX which  came out in 2005.  Even PS3 games cant run on XBOX cause XBOX is so old tech.  Why do you think DA2 had DX11 problems at start? 

You're confusing two things.

Do the consoles hold back technological advances in games? Yes.

Undoubtedly yes.

But are Bioware's problems with Dragon Age 2 technically (maps, detail, level design, etc) a problem caused by consoles, or their engine and the ability to use it?

When you look at all the games on consoles with large, highly detailed, spawling maps, you realise that the problem is on Bioware's end (engine, lack of detail, inefficient, lack of time, etc) rather than a hardwired console limitation.

You are correct, Witcher 2 uses Bioware's own Aurora engine and DA2 uses a modified DAO engine so the problem is definitely Bioware pushing out a rushed product in DA2. 

[phoenixgoddess27]

Bejos_ wrote...


I've already stated that I'll not be purchasing another product from Bioware (unless some unlikely circumstances lead to some unlikely events on the behalf of employees or the company as a whole), so I don't really have a stake in their listening to me. I come here to pass the time. Their not listening to me has nothing to do with my anger; their attitude does.
It's not impossible to be both angry and objective.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I've stated their attitude isn't helping.
"Then there's the Bioware/EA team members who rather insult us and quite
frankly, show that THEY too, are resistant to change(The whole
"lalalalala, not listening" route is a sign of that). "

But no side is really listening to anyone on the opposite sides. Each side's going in circles. I hate to say it, I really do, but I doubt their attitude will change. Which is why I suggested we just talk to the respectful Bioware team members. If I'm going to waste my breath, at least it will be with someone who shows equal respect.
I can't force you to listen whatsoever. I just suggested it may be easier if the angry(and non-angry, like KoP and Redcoat) core fans, the slit your throat DA2 fans(and the ones that are in fact respectful and not willing to really be snarky or prissy. I'm looking at you hoorayforicecream ), and the respectful Bioware team, can at least agree to be civilized long enough to talk about what we think on DA2 and DA3. It's pretty obvious that raising our blood pressures isn't helping and the insulting team members aren't going to listen any time soon. Might as well get along, right?

Modifié par phoenixgoddess27, 18 juin 2011 - 05:13 .

[Persephone]

oldmansavage wrote...

Redcoat wrote...

I wonder how much of the "polarisation" is anxiety over the direction that gaming is taking in general. I know that a lot of us (myself included) are dismayed at how games are becoming simpler, shallower, more homogenised, and yes, "dumbed down." To use a "food and drink" analogy that many are so fond of, it's like watching every beer in the world slowly turning into Budweiser - something as bland, watered-down, and inoffensive as possible to appeal to the greatest number of people.

DA:O was a game that bucked this trend. It had its flaws, sure (what game doesn't?), but it was a product that felt like it was proud to be an example of the RPG genre, and this differentiated it from other releases. DA2, on the other, just felt generic. It felt like it was ashamed to be an RPG. It's like the nerdy kid that gets picked on for playing D&D at lunch break, so one day he shows up at school clad in baggy pants and a hoodie, gangsta-rap blaring from his iPod, and proceeds to make a public spectacle of throwing his d20 and rulebooks in the trash bin to try to prove to other kids he's "cool." None of the other kids buy it, of course, and so they laugh at him for being such a poser.

What I'm trying to say with this tortured analogy is akin to the Burmese proverb: "A tiger changes his habitat only to meet his death." The "innovations" Muzyka talks about are, for many, an indication that Dragon Age is going somewhere they don't want it go, and they feel powerless to do anything about it. Hence the complaints that "BioWare isn't listening," and the idea that if you simply shout loud enough that the developers will be more inclined to listen.

You nailed it.  I do agree that the DA franchise will ultimately fail if it continues to make action adventure games.  Too many other developers do it and they do it better.

Being an avid adventure fan myself (I started out on Adventures & switched to RPGs fully in 1999) I can safely say: Adventure games are dead. Action or otherwise. Occasional death squirms ala "Grey Matter" and "The Longest Journey" did not revive it, sadly.

And no, hardly any studio does them and better than DAII?

I wish.