273 réponses à ce sujet

[stoicsentry2]

Age of Decadence looks good.

[MinotaurWarrior]

The following is pure conjecture, I have zero insight into BioWare.

After their last D20 games, BioWare decided that it was in their best interests to start developing their own, independent IP. The first game they did this with was Jade Empire, and, in my opinion, the fact that it was a first attempt at a purely independent project showed. It was a weird little game, with very few stats, no equipment, a messed up party member system, and somewhat shallow action elements. But, it proved that they could do it, sell a game without Star Wars or D&D on the label, and produce a good game.

If I recall correctly, from having read through Brent Knowles blog a while back, it was around the end of Jade Empire's development that Dragon Age started up, and I think BioWare was sort of at a loss for direction. I don't think there was much interest in developing another Jade-style game, and there wasn't a strong, established direction already established to follow. They looked at their past projects, and saw that, in the recent past, they had been somewhat lacking in several areas they were interested in working on. Something had clearly been lost between BGII and NWN, for example.

So, they looked hard at BGII, and tried to find out what exactly made it come alive. What it's spirit was, and I think they came upon a list that looked something like this.

1) A party of four or more active companions, allowing players to fill the ability-user / stuff hitter / skill user roles, and still have some variation in party composition (Ie, two rogues, a mage, and a warrior, or two warriors, a mage, and a rogue)
2) Pause & play strategic gameplay, with a rich variety of abilities to use & combine as you saw fit
3) Dialog that provided many options to reflect the character's attitude, feelings on important issues, and choices.
4) Interesting, mildly (or not so mildly) exaggerated companions, with a large amount of humor, and frequent interjections / side conversations. Some of these companions being romancable.
5) A rich and engrossing storyline, which places the main character at the center of the action.
6) Interesting side-quests and side characters, that made it feel like there was more going on in the world than just your personal story.

So, they built a game to house this spirit, and, just to be safe (or out of force-of-habit) it also had many of the trappings of older games like BGII, such as elves, dwarves, an extended underground sequence in the lair of an always-evil race, which bores and frustrates me so much I want to pull my hair out (I'm mostly kidding), an attempted representative art style, et cetera. That spirit housing was DA:O, and it was good.

Then they tried it again, but with different trappings. Notice that my list of six is still present in DA][. This time around, they copied the structure of BGII*, and added a bunch of new trappings, such as a highly stylized presentation, a dialog wheel with added tone icons, wave-based combat, and much smaller, often re-used environments. This spirit housing was DA][, and I personally enjoyed it just as much as DA:O, but a lot of people didn't. This dislike of the game generally comes down to either a dislike of the different trappings, or a dissatisfaction with the execution. There's plenty to dislike about DA][. but the spirit is still there.


*Escape death alongside a close family member (imoen, your half-sister the mage), finding out along the way that a close associate of yours has died (Khalid / your sibling). Gather resources to go on a journey which ends in a way that grants your primary antagonist the powers needed to facilitate your final confrontation (Bhaalspark / lyrium idol). Go struggle with an otherwise completely irrelevent race of grey-skinned scary dogmatic nonhumans (Qunari / Drow). Strive against your primary antagonist.

EDIT: Also, thank you to the people who pointed out some other very interesting RPGs. Age of Decadence really does look quite excellent.

Modifié par MinotaurWarrior, 18 juin 2011 - 07:17 .

[bEVEsthda]

MinotaurWarrior wrote...

The following is pure conjecture, I have zero insight into BioWare.

After their last D20 games, BioWare decided that it was in their best interests to start developing their own, independent IP. The first game they did this with was Jade Empire, and, in my opinion, the fact that it was a first attempt at a purely independent project showed. It was a weird little game, with very few stats, no equipment, a messed up party member system, and somewhat shallow action elements. But, it proved that they could do it, sell a game without Star Wars or D&D on the label, and produce a good game.

If I recall correctly, from having read through Brent Knowles blog a while back, it was around the end of Jade Empire's development that Dragon Age started up, and I think BioWare was sort of at a loss for direction. I don't think there was much interest in developing another Jade-style game, and there wasn't a strong, established direction already established to follow. They looked at their past projects, and saw that, in the recent past, they had been somewhat lacking in several areas they were interested in working on. Something had clearly been lost between BGII and NWN, for example.

So, they looked hard at BGII, and tried to find out what exactly made it come alive. What it's spirit was, and I think they came upon a list that looked something like this.

1) A party of four or more active companions, allowing players to fill the ability-user / stuff hitter / skill user roles, and still have some variation in party composition (Ie, two rogues, a mage, and a warrior, or two warriors, a mage, and a rogue)
2) Pause & play strategic gameplay, with a rich variety of abilities to use & combine as you saw fit
3) Dialog that provided many options to reflect the character's attitude, feelings on important issues, and choices.
4) Interesting, mildly (or not so mildly) exaggerated companions, with a large amount of humor, and frequent interjections / side conversations. Some of these companions being romancable.
5) A rich and engrossing storyline, which places the main character at the center of the action.
6) Interesting side-quests and side characters, that made it feel like there was more going on in the world than just your personal story.

So, they built a game to house this spirit, and, just to be safe (or out of force-of-habit) it also had many of the trappings of older games like BGII, such as elves, dwarves, an extended underground sequence in the lair of an always-evil race, which bores and frustrates me so much I want to pull my hair out (I'm mostly kidding), an attempted representative art style, et cetera. That spirit housing was DA:O, and it was good.

Then they tried it again, but with different trappings. Notice that my list of six is still present in DA][. This time around, they copied the structure of BGII*, and added a bunch of new trappings, such as a highly stylized presentation, a dialog wheel with added tone icons, wave-based combat, and much smaller, often re-used environments. This spirit housing was DA][, and I personally enjoyed it just as much as DA:O, but a lot of people didn't. This dislike of the game generally comes down to either a dislike of the different trappings, or a dissatisfaction with the execution. There's plenty to dislike about DA][. but the spirit is still there.


*Escape death alongside a close family member (imoen, your half-sister the mage), finding out along the way that a close associate of yours has died (Khalid / your sibling). Gather resources to go on a journey which ends in a way that grants your primary antagonist the powers needed to facilitate your final confrontation (Bhaalspark / lyrium idol). Go struggle with an otherwise completely irrelevent race of grey-skinned scary dogmatic nonhumans (Qunari / Drow). Strive against your primary antagonist.

EDIT: Also, thank you to the people who pointed out some other very interesting RPGs. Age of Decadence really does look quite excellent.

I like your post, even if your conclusions reflect someone who liked DA2 and can't quite understand what makes others so upset.

The style of DA2 is frankly just insulting to both DA:O and the BG series.

But nevermind that. I think the biggest fault of DA2 is simply just gameplay. Lack of quality gameplay and lack of the RPG experience. It comes through quite well in interviews with Laidlaw that he considers combat to be all gameplay there is. The rest is just tedious things which needed to be streamlined.

What escapes people is that even such a simple thing as having auto-health and mana (which all games do now, even DA:O) removes dimensions of gameplay. It also makes going into battle a completely static event.
Other dimensions of gameplay is deciding what to do. What to do first. Assembling your party and knowing that you'll be stuck with it (largely) just like that, not having the convenience to chose before each battle, etc.
Not to mention a better place for ranged combat, and ammo limitations.

Combat in the old BG and IWD games is much more interesting and often gather an 'epic' element when you press on with low health and few remaining spells. And it's completely different from the lazy convenience of console combat kicks. Which is universally assumed as the only thing in demand today.
If one doesn't understand the lure and elements of tactical combat, and strategic party- and quest decisions (like Laidlaw absolutely doesn't understand and never will), then it's going to be washed out, successively watered down, until "why is this here? why don't we remove this? and do it like this instead, it'll be so much more fun".

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 18 juin 2011 - 10:19 .

[Xewaka]

csfteeeer wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
Question: What happened to "spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate"?
Answer: It was developed by german based studio Radon Labs, and its name is Drakensang.

Drakensang? are you kidding?

No, I am not kidding.
Drakensang structure and gameplay is much closer to how Baldur's Gate felt than DA:O (which also shared part of that feeling). It was based on a popular (for its creators' culture) tabletop roleplaying system, which meant characters have a complete and informative character sheet. The combat is turn-based with a real time presentation, you have full party control and pause-and-play gameplay. Voice acting is scarce, employed to punctuate certain events, and more attention is paid to paint the details of the environment through use of art assets and population.

[pc_wizard]

What happened to the "spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate"? Money happened. A game like Baldur's Gate and to a large extent DA:O are niche games which relatively few gamers like, compared to how many people that play games are out there. As with all forms of entertainment and art, be they books, movies or games, the majority likes simple and easily gratifying things (saucy romance novels, action-packed movies, "awesome-button" games), those are simply the best selling products of any domain. Behind all that talk about "expanding the audience" lies the simple desire to make more money. You can't take a game like Baldur's Gate or DA:O and make it appeal to the majority without changing it substantially. It is a very sad but true thing and like I said doesn't apply only to games. And I'm not saying that simple games are bad games, in fact they can be very enjoyable (Mass Effect 2 is one of my favorite games), but there is also a need for more complex games, and few companies (if any) are catering to this need. What I liked about Bioware was that they made action-oriented games (Mass Effect series) and also more complex RPGs (Dragon Age), but this no longer seems to be true.

[Feanor_II]

What happened? In part the "We want CoD's audience" syndrome

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Mr.House wrote...

Persephone wrote...

What happened to it?

It saw the Anomen "romance" in its inspiration and quit.

:lol:

That is pretty darn funny, good one Persephone.

[valkulon]

Mad Method wrote...
This isn't an appeal for a response from Bioware. Albert Einstein once said "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." and Bioware is insistent on doing exactly that. And I don't care for their spins, excuses, bull**** claims about how they'll make it good next time, and plain inability to directly admit this - not only the game, but the entire rationale behind it - was a miserable failure. So I'm asking you, the forum community, what you think, and I'm hoping for an intelligent discussion.

Intelligent discussion averted due to the bolded portion. If you wish an intelligent discussion, don't like like a child when asking.

Bejos_ wrote...
There really isn't a point to having stats in the DA series anymore. Instead of building on O, they scaled it back even more. Skill trees improved some, but quite literally every other aspect was downgraded.
They want the arcade crowd? Good for them. Had they not lied to those who wanted at least a nominal RPG experience, though.

Honestly, the stat system in DA2 is much better than the stat system in DA:O which was confusing to even someone like me who has played countless RPGs.

How did they lie? They gave you a story about a person who starts from humble beginnings and proceeds to become an important character within the DA universe. If you were honestly looking for the exact same experience as you had in DA:O then you are a fool. Everyone should of known that DA2 was going to be different than DA:O because it was centered on a character you did not choose the background for;  therefore the character is not you like it was when playing as the Grey Warden. Does DA2 have less story defining moments that you are able to personally influence, Yes, but I think what quite a few people are failing to see is that DA2 is introducing us to a wider conflict (mage/templar war), another hero within that conflict (Hawke), and another Grey Warden conflict (which has the possibility for our Grey Warden to return).

This leaves us with several games to play in the future. Hawke returning to influence the mage/templar war and/or the Grey Warden conflict, our Warden returning to influence the mage/templar war and/or the Grey Warden conflict, and/or our Warden meeting Hawke to kick ass and chew bubble gum, and god forbid they're all out of bubble gum.

Arcade Crowd

I wanted to dicuss this a bit. I play DA:O and DA2 on my Xbox 360 because my laptop cannot run video games, at least not to an acceptable level of graphics. I've played tactical RPGs on a PC before though and I love them, but DA:O combat on the Xbox was pretty boring after a few run throughs. A friend of mine played DA:O on his PC and said it was much better than the console version and I believe that as the game felt like a PC port to the console so compromises had to be made.

I enjoyed DA2 combat as it kept me interested with it's arcade ability for combat. Moving about quickly and unleashing devastating attacks was immense fun for me as well as not having to micromanage my party if I set up tactics correctly.

While I do believe you can play either in a tactical manner or arcade manner in DA2 ; I do feel the wave system is much less friendly to a tactical player as I can see after having positioned your ranged characters in a safe spot and then having a group of enemies spawn on them to then proceed to rip them apart can be quite infuriating. I feel this comes down to DA2 probably being primary developed for the console rather than the PC. It just didn't port well is my guess, regardless of it maybe being a port, I myself am not a fan of the wave battle system. I would rather have battles planned in a manner that if reinforcements show up it's scripted for them to show up in a believable manner.

[bEVEsthda]

Valhart wrote...

Arcade Crowd

I wanted to dicuss this a bit. I play DA:O and DA2 on my Xbox 360 because my laptop cannot run video games, at least not to an acceptable level of graphics. I've played tactical RPGs on a PC before though and I love them, but DA:O combat on the Xbox was pretty boring after a few run throughs. A friend of mine played DA:O on his PC and said it was much better than the console version and I believe that as the game felt like a PC port to the console so compromises had to be made.

I enjoyed DA2 combat as it kept me interested with it's arcade ability for combat. Moving about quickly and unleashing devastating attacks was immense fun for me as well as not having to micromanage my party if I set up tactics correctly.

But none of that considers the spirit of Baldur's Gate. It's the spirit of something completely different, (which probably wasn't particularly successful in the market).

[Blastback]

In Exile wrote...

Bioware was never a niche RPG company. The fact they picked the popular P&P property in D&D instead of a good P&P property emphasizes that. Certainly the genre they worked in was relatively niche... but Bioware always wanted to be a AAA developer within their scope.

*Deep Southern accent*
Thems fighten words boy

[Mad Method]

Valhart wrote...

Mad Method wrote...
This isn't an appeal for a response from Bioware. Albert Einstein once said "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." and Bioware is insistent on doing exactly that. And I don't care for their spins, excuses, bull**** claims about how they'll make it good next time, and plain inability to directly admit this - not only the game, but the entire rationale behind it - was a miserable failure. So I'm asking you, the forum community, what you think, and I'm hoping for an intelligent discussion.

Intelligent discussion averted due to the bolded portion. If you wish an intelligent discussion, don't act like a child when asking.

Not sure what you're reading into that that makes me so childlike. I'm simply stating the truth. When they covered complaints about wave combat, they seemed to insist that "they'll do it right next time" instead of scrapping the mess. When they say "mistakes were made," they say they're proud of what they accomplished and how it moves them into a space with more potential. Or how "fans were lost" but they also "gained new fans" and maybe the game was "different and innovative in ways they weren't expecting." So quite frankly, if they were to enter this thread, I'd expect the same, and I don't care for that. I'm just making it clear.

Honestly, the stat system in DA2 is much better than the stat system in DA:O which was confusing to even someone like me who has played countless RPGs.

Wait, what? I'm sorry, but what was confusing about DAO's stat system? And how was DA2 any better? DAO's stat system seemed rather simple and straightforward to me.

Does DA2 have less story defining moments that you are able to personally influence, Yes, but I think what quite a few people are failing to see is that DA2 is introducing us to a wider conflict (mage/templar war), another hero within that conflict (Hawke), and another Grey Warden conflict (which has the possibility for our Grey Warden to return).

So, you're saying "yes the story's worse, but now we get to hear about mages and templars, grey wardens, and a new main character?" To me at least, if the story's worse, that's that. I don't care about how they expand the DA universe if they do it badly.

I wanted to dicuss this a bit. I play DA:O and DA2 on my Xbox 360 because my laptop cannot run video games, at least not to an acceptable level of graphics. I've played tactical RPGs on a PC before though and I love them, but DA:O combat on the Xbox was pretty boring after a few run throughs. A friend of mine played DA:O on his PC and said it was much better than the console version and I believe that as the game felt like a PC port to the console so compromises had to be made.

Understandable, but that's a shame. You're not only missing out on the PC camera and controls, but also the mods out there. Even for a normal playthrough, there are a number of mods out there that fix bugs Bioware hasn't touched and reintroduce broken content into the game.

While I do believe you can play either in a tactical manner or arcade manner in DA2 ; I do feel the wave system is much less friendly to a tactical player as I can see after having positioned your ranged characters in a safe spot and then having a group of enemies spawn on them to then proceed to rip them apart can be quite infuriating.

Origins also had problems where it made positioning worthless. It had way too many cutscenes that just ruined your positioning and made half your traps useless. Then there were fights where you could walk up to the enemy before starting the cutscene so you could drop twenty traps at their feet before starting the fight. All of these faults smack of plain bad design.

But these are rehashed conversations. I'm curious about what happened to making that spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate here. Clearly it wasn't a goal for DA2, and it certainly doesn't seem to be for DA3. That's the question - what happened.

Modifié par Mad Method, 18 juin 2011 - 02:48 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

Hawke happened.

[valkulon]

 Not sure what you're reading into that that makes me so childlike. I'm simply stating the truth. When they covered complaints about wave combat, they seemed to insist that "they'll do it right next time" instead of scrapping the mess. When they say "mistakes were made," they say they're proud of what they accomplished and how it moves them into a space with more potential. Or how "fans were lost" but they also "gained new fans" and maybe the game was "different and innovative in ways they weren't expecting." So quite frankly, if they were to enter this thread, I'd expect the same, and I don't care for that. I'm just making it clear.

I called you a child because of the bolded portions in my quote from before. You wrote a fairly decent post up until you started acting like Bioware is actively engaged in some massive cover up of their worst game of the year or that they refuse to acknowledge how bad the game is. You yourself actively disregard that BW devs have come here and admitted they made mistakes in some of the DA2 gameplay. They admitted that wave combat in DA2 was flawed and they did say they would fix it for DA3. If they made wave combat actually make sense I would have much less of a problem with it myself, but I will admit I would prefer something more traditional.

What else could they say in response though? If they thought they did something great, but admit they made mistakes, which they have, but still felt the game was a success overall why would they say otherwise? I enjoyed DA2 a lot, I wasn't too thrilled about how it ended at first, but I came to like it more as I played it a second and third time as I realised what was going on and the implications it has for the series future. I didn't enjoy all aspects of the game though as it does have it's problems, but what game doesn't. Developers can only promise to try and take our opinion and make something of it if possible. They cannot be completely influenced by a few hundred people posting on their forums.

Is DA the Spiritual Successor to BG? Maybe DA:O was, but DA2 definitely isn't as it's a new direction for the game. Maybe not one all DA fans wanted, but it's a new direction regardless, and I'm going to be along for the ride as long as I enjoy the game. If you didn't enjoy the game then vote with your wallet for DA3.

Wait, what? I'm sorry, but what was confusing about DAO's stat system? And how was DA2 any better? DAO's stat system seemed rather simple and straightforward to me.

It was confusing in the sense it provided a ton of information and cross referrencing to other stats in regards to weapons and other abilities. It was bloated needlessly. DA2 fixed that by streamlining it and I didn't spend an hour looking at my stats wondering if I should put points into Cunning as a warrior as it might have a benefit to me that I wasnt sure about at all.

So, you're saying "yes the story's worse, but now we get to hear about mages and templars, grey wardens, and a new main character?" To me at least, if the story's worse, that's that. I don't care about how they expand the DA universe if they do it badly.

I'm not saying the story is worse, I'm saying that unlike in DA:O our choices didn't have the same impact because DA2 was meant as a platform for widening the DA universe. If we were flopped into the middle of a Mage/Templar war with Hawke as our protagonist we would be presented with a ton of information initially to tell us why Hawke matters to the conflict, but with DA2 they gave us the ability to play as him and to learn why he was important to the conflict. Our choices in DA2 while limited will impart a change in DA3 structure when they release it, if they don't then there is little reason to have choices in any of the DA games, and at that point I will vote with my wallet.

Yes, you may not have enjoyed the story, but that is your opinion, as I have my own: which is that I enjoyed it. A game cannot please everyone, yet somehow everyone feels it should be entertaining to them if they bought the game. All I can say is if you buy a game before trying it, you cannot honestly come to the forums and cry foul. You can come and tell them you didn't enjoy the story and that you hope that they do something differently in the future otherwise you're not going to buy their product any longer is perfectly acceptable. Being outraged though is insanely childish as you have no basis for your goodfaith investment. You're not laying money down that you're getting back, you're buying a product that was designed for enterainment and like all products it has the chance to fail to please you.

I'm curious about what happened to making that spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate here. Clearly it wasn't a goal for DA2, and it certainly doesn't seem to be for DA3. That's the question - what happened.

Design goals change as they obviously did for DA2, which is perfectly fine to me. Hopefully for your sake and others who feel the same way as you BW can return a bit more to what drew you into playing DA in the first place and I honestly mean that.

Modifié par Valhart, 18 juin 2011 - 09:10 .

[MinotaurWarrior]

bEVEsthda wrote...
I like your post, even if your conclusions reflect someone who liked DA2 and can't quite understand what makes others so upset.

The style of DA2 is frankly just insulting to both DA:O and the BG series.

But nevermind that. I think the biggest fault of DA2 is simply just gameplay. Lack of quality gameplay and lack of the RPG experience. It comes through quite well in interviews with Laidlaw that he considers combat to be all gameplay there is. The rest is just tedious things which needed to be streamlined.

What escapes people is that even such a simple thing as having auto-health and mana (which all games do now, even DA:O) removes dimensions of gameplay. It also makes going into battle a completely static event.
Other dimensions of gameplay is deciding what to do. What to do first. Assembling your party and knowing that you'll be stuck with it (largely) just like that, not having the convenience to chose before each battle, etc.
Not to mention a better place for ranged combat, and ammo limitations.

Combat in the old BG and IWD games is much more interesting and often gather an 'epic' element when you press on with low health and few remaining spells. And it's completely different from the lazy convenience of console combat kicks. Which is universally assumed as the only thing in demand today.
If one doesn't understand the lure and elements of tactical combat, and strategic party- and quest decisions (like Laidlaw absolutely doesn't understand and never will), then it's going to be washed out, successively watered down, until "why is this here? why don't we remove this? and do it like this instead, it'll be so much more fun".

Like I said, the trappings are different, and people like different trappings. You prefer non-regenerating health, fixed encounters, a wide variety of skills (inferred) and a less flexible party management system. Personally, I agree with you on regenerating health / mana for games where the player can cast healing spells and somehow restore their spellcasting abilities (to prevent unwinnable situations), because it makes the consequences of previous fights carry over. However, I find fixed encounters to be incredibly tactically boring and simple, because all I ever have to do is send forth my tanks, keep my mages in the back, and let fire rain down from the heavens. With waves, I'm forced to actually think and adjust my tactics on the fly, as reinforcements swarm my squishies. I also often (but not always. That Age of Decandence looks awesome) dislike skills in CRPGs (but love them in PnP) because they essentially turn into arbitrary content locks. All of these things come down to a matter of personal taste (of course) and none are better than any others.

All of those details are trappings. Trappings can be very important, but they're still trappings. At the core, DA][ is based around the same principles as DA:O, but it executes some things better (nothing as bad as the Fade, more opportunities to reflect your attitude in dialog), and some things worse (choices with major impact and the entirity of the main questline in ACT III).

[Tirfan]

Well, this is one topic that I think I need to answer in - I just don't know how. I'm not the kind of player who actively follows what is happening in the scene, nor do I actively follow if certain developers are doing something that might interest me - I find games when I have time to play PC-rpgs and can't get my PnP-group together. I loved once upon a time the Baldur's Gate games. I was however annoyed by the D&D ruleset, even then, I never liked it, even though I started my RP-career with some D&D-adventure back in the day..

So, when I read about at one time about DA:O, the spiritual successor to the BG, I was of course thrilled, it very well could be good. And you know, it was when I eventually got around to playing it - I was annoyed by the fact how much it had been streamlined (and it had been). Where was my combat log? why didn't the spell-tooltips tell me actually anything, where can I see the rules.

But at the end of Lothering I realized it - most of the changes were good, it was most certainly more fun to play, although, it was easy, you could tell it there already. And you could see that in the core of it, there was enough of BG, and most importantly, the game still allowed you to play a character.

I too, really wish to know what happened, I can only make vague guesses - did they not think the idea was good enough? Is it that the developers just don't want to make games like these anymore? I can understand that making a spiritual successor to an rather old game, that even then only appealed to certain kinds of people, had it's risks, quite a lot of them I'd wager, but it paid off, so I don't see financial aspects as convincing argument to go away from the "spiritual successor"-idea. Times have changed, and well, perhaps that means that games, and people have to, too, and perhaps I just have to admit that I am far too old-schooler for these games and go back to BG.

I've also had a couple of drinks, I think I am about to post a rant, hope you have fun.

[AtreiyaN7]

Short version: DA:O was the "spiritual successor" to BG because that's what they intended for it to be. They certainly didn't promise anything about future games being carbon copies of it or past games.

[devSin]

Dragon Age II was designed in 2009/2010.

Dragon Age was designed in 1982.

You can complain about branding and marketing, but the fact is that the company doesn't make games like they did in 1982 anymore. They don't want to and they don't need to, and most likely they couldn't even if they did.

Do some of us like the old designs better? Sure. Do some of us hope they can better bridge the old and new in the future? Of course. Is BioWare going to make games like they did in the far past ever again? Not a chance.

[GodWood]

This...

Mad Method wrote...

is so much better then

that.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

devSin wrote...

Dragon Age II was designed in 2009/2010.

Dragon Age was designed in 1982.

You can complain about branding and marketing, but the fact is that the company doesn't make games like they did in 1982 anymore. They don't want to and they don't need to, and most likely they couldn't even if they did.

Do some of us like the old designs better? Sure. Do some of us hope they can better bridge the old and new in the future? Of course. Is BioWare going to make games like they did in the far past ever again? Not a chance.

Games like Dragon Age: Origins and Fallout: New Vegas are that bridge.

Also, 1982?

At best, Dragon Age: Origins was designed with a 1998-2000 mindset, but if you take a look at the Baldur's Gate games and Origins, they are very different in many key areas.

[Teddie Sage]

Want a Baldur's Gate? Go back to retro. This isn't your game.

Bad joke aside, ORIGINS was the BG spiritual successor. Dragon Age 2 isn't. It's time to move on if you don't like how the series is changing.

Modifié par Teddie Sage, 19 juin 2011 - 03:54 .

[devSin]

mrcrusty wrote...

Games like Dragon Age: Origins and Fallout: New Vegas are that bridge.

No. The old and the new is not Baldur's Gate and 2011. It's Origins and 2011. A game like Origins does not get made by BioWare in 2011 (and probably not even 2009, except it had already been in development for half a decade).

Like I said, there are some people who hope for a better bridge from the elements provided by Origins to the type of game BioWare is going to make in the future; they apparently weren't all satisfied with Dragon Age II.

[Monica83]

What happened?

Button awesome generation!

[Bio-Age]

Let me get this straight - a game from 1982 beat the pants off a game released in 2011. Talk about epic failure.

[Mad Method]

Valhart wrote...

I called you a child because of the bolded portions in my quote from before. You wrote a fairly decent post up until you started acting like Bioware is actively engaged in some massive cover up of their worst game of the year or that they refuse to acknowledge how bad the game is. You yourself actively disregard that BW devs have come here and admitted they made mistakes in some of the DA2 gameplay.

I get the feeling that you're not reading my post. That you're not responding to me. That you're responding to your own perception of a faceless mass of Bioware haters out there and because I happen to dislike Bioware's current decisions and spin-heavy rhetoric, you decide that what applies there applies to me. First, I do not think Bioware is engaged in "some massive cover up." And I never said I did. Second, I said they couldn't directly admit their mistakes. And it's true. Whenever Bioware admits the mistake, they spin in a way that drains all sincerity out of it. Like the gem from Muzyka where he said "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." which is not even an admission of mistakes. He basically said "It's not our fault for messing up design. It's the gamers' fault for being too feeble-minded to enjoy 'innovation'." Or Laidlaw who proceeded to discuss his pride in making DA2 suck because it had more space with potential. Not that I care much for sincere admissions either.

I simply expect that if Bioware posts I will have to read more nonsense like that or assurances that they're now going to somehow make it good next time. I don't need to read that. It does nothing for me. If they want to post, I'd rather they have something new and actually informative to say, and I'm not expecting that.

They admitted that wave combat in DA2 was flawed and they did say they would fix it for DA3. If they made wave combat actually make sense I would have much less of a problem with it myself, but I will admit I would prefer something more traditional.

When they say they will fix wave combat for DA3, that's a problem. This is what I mean by solving problems with the same thinking used when making them. You see, there is no real demand for "fixed wave combat" but there is definitely demand for "no more wave combat" in DA3. 

I'm not saying the story is worse, I'm saying that unlike in DA:O our choices didn't have the same impact because DA2 was meant as a platform for widening the DA universe. [...] Our choices in DA2 while limited will impart a change in DA3 structure when they release it, if they don't then there is little reason to have choices in any of the DA games, and at that point I will vote with my wallet.

I'd sooner say that the choices had less impact because Bioware isn't very good at giving impactful choices. ME2, for instance, made Wrex's death rather pointless. Kill him and his magic brother is there. Situation's mostly the same. When it comes to impactful choices, The Witcher 2 and Age of Decadence especially put some proper effort into it.

Yes, you may not have enjoyed the story, but that is your opinion, as I have my own: which is that I enjoyed it. A game cannot please everyone, yet somehow everyone feels it should be entertaining to them if they bought the game. All I can say is if you buy a game before trying it, you cannot honestly come to the forums and cry foul. You can come and tell them you didn't enjoy the story and that you hope that they do something differently in the future otherwise you're not going to buy their product any longer is perfectly acceptable. Being outraged though is insanely childish as you have no basis for your goodfaith investment.

This is why I say you're not reponding to me but your own perception of the Bioware hater. First, did I say it should please everyone? I'm saying it's an RPG trying to please the non-RPG gamers. Second, do you see a DA2 logo on my account? Perhaps I did not buy DA2. Third, did I say I was outraged, angry, any of that? Most I did was swear a little. And I'm not outraged at this. Just plain disappointed.

Modifié par Mad Method, 24 juillet 2011 - 12:12 .

[this isnt my name]

Jaldaric wrote...

oldmansavage wrote...

The whole spiritual successor thing is out the window, hell DA:2 is hardly a sequal to DA:O.  DA:2 is more of a spiritual successor to Jade Empire.

Jade Empire was more of an RPG than DA2.

*stands up and claps the OP*

I agree, and with others. It went downhill as soon as EA came into the picture. Well, Bioware is EA now, basically EA Canada West.

I agree, DAO was in the works well before EA came along iirc, and look at it now. Then look at ME1 and ME2
http://t3.gstatic.co...BeSRQGQDc5pMGaQ
http://t3.gstatic.co...-ViNGjXBRNSXtfA

The rpg has the MS logo, the tps has an EA logo. Games before EA = rpgs, games after = action/tps.
Please thats nt a coincidence. And what I think is worse, is EA actually makes M$ look good, thats an achivement.

I am not just blaiming EAthough, its BWs fault too, they chose to join EA their fault as much as EAs.

Modifié par this isnt my name, 19 juin 2011 - 07:40 .