194 réponses à ce sujet

[Brockololly]

More from Muzyka at E3 with Eurogamer, talking about sequels, everyone's favorite word "INNOVATION" and what makes a good/bad sequel.

Some quotes:

"There are a couple of reasons why sequels are actually good in the games business,"BioWare boss Greg Zeschuk told Eurogamer.


"Actually making one game is really hard. When you have a chance to leverage your tools and technology for a follow-up, it gets easier.

"You have to innovate," co-founder Ray Muzyka said. "Innovation means  taking some risks creatively. When you're doing a sequel, if you're  thoughtful and you understand your audience well and you spend a lot of  time listening to what they like and don't like, you take risks –  sometimes they pay out, sometimes they don't – but if you listen you can continue to refine and make the games better and better.

"You can adjust the right variables in a sequel. They're good if you do them right."

"When it can be a negative is when people get lazy and rest on their  laurels and don't use ambition for the sequel and create something  that's predictable and there's nothing unexpected," Zeschuk added.

"We use the phrase, 'surprise and delight' our fans with our games, and if you fail at that..."

So my question would be with respect to DA2, was it really a "refined" sequel where the right variables were simply adjusted and BioWare understood what their audience wanted? Or did they try to change too much of the core Dragon Age experience without having a firm understanding of what the audience enjoyed from the first game?

My biggest issues with DA2 is that it didn't seem to try and iterate off of what Origins established, but tried to more or less reboot DA yet it lacked the time to do so in a manner which worked. So you end up with a bizarre mish mash of a game that lacks a confident identity in what it wants to be- from the art style to the gameplay.

With sequels, I don't think its about pulling a 180 like Laidlaw said, its about understanding the audience and meeting their expectations and exceeding their expectations, not just doing something different and "innovative" for the hell of it. Maybe part of the issue here is how work on DA2 started well before Origins was even released to take any fan/critical reception into account?

I look at how Christopher Nolan handled Batman Begins to The Dark Knight- you have the Joker card overturned at the end of Batman Begins, establishing some level of expectation in the audience for the Joker to appear in TDK. So Nolan met that expectation but exceeded it by most standards in Heath Ledger's interpretation of the Joker.

It comes down to understanding one's audience and I don't think the changes made to DA2 are necessarily what most people wanted out of a sequel to Origins. IMO, DA2 maybe got the "surprise" part down, but did it "delight"?

Modifié par Brockololly, 20 juin 2011 - 12:47 .

[Atardecer]

Quick answer: No, it did not.

[AngryFrozenWater]

This is again an attempt to redefine the word innovation for marketing purposes, just as they did for streamlining. Nice campaign. They can do that as often as they like, but I am not falling for it. I view it as damage control.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 20 juin 2011 - 01:03 .

[alex90c]

"Innovation" is going to start advancing up the vocabulary Hall of Shame up to "Awesome [button]" at this rate.

[Morroian]

alex90c wrote...

"Innovation" is going to start advancing up the vocabulary Hall of Shame up to "Awesome [button]" at this rate.

They are actually using it in a way that is perfectly in keeping with how the term is used these days, even if it doesn't quite meet the literal definition, but then I think even thats arguable in terms of mechanics like the F/R system. 

[Dr.Franke]

You hit copy then paste, BAM! something innovative happens!

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

I will be pretty curious to see the coming facts about DA 3's customization options, class mechanics, story and visual design. One of the huge promotional features behind Dragon Age:Origins was the Origins! There was so much press coverage talking about this innovation and how nice it was to be able to choose a player past in a way that had not been done before. To me, it was kind of lame that DA 2 ditched this concept. It was odd too how they went even further in the opposite direction to limit the racial choice and play style choices of how classes could even be customized. There is also the whole issue of character personality being preset through the use of an inflexible voiced protagonist and fewer dialogue options with the ME-inspired dialogue wheel system with innaccurated paraphrased which was even said was supposed to sometimes "suprise" the player. If it's my character, why should I want to be suprised with what comes out of his/her mouth during dialogue choices when otherwise given the ability to click on what is thought to be said...but isn't? In many ways, the features that defined DA:O as core, innovative features, were not focused upon or entirely neglected in DA 2.

Other than a name, there isn't much in common to me between DA:O and DA 2. If that is looked upon as innovation, I just am not interested. DA 2 seems to be missing alot of the individual choice which helped define the hero of the first DA game. Bioware seemed to understand what a sequel was about with Baldur's Gate, keeping the core values and features of the game while expanding upon them, adding more options for players to explore, not limiting them.

I agree with Brockololly's interpretation of this article. DA 2 was certainly a suprise for me, but not a good one. The recipe was not improved, the experience was not built upon but torn down in some areas and re-engineered. Some people are just easy to please though and as long as the game had dragons, swords and bloodspray with a Bioware logo on it, it was good enough for $60 and a few hours of entertainment.

[Cutlass Jack]

Well I think 'Awakening' is a perfect example of what you get when you play it safe and still manage to be unsatisfying. Personally, even if I don't love every change, I'm glad they were willing to take risks.

They clearly need to adjust the formula and find middle ground on round three though. And I'm pretty sure they know that too.

[Zcorck]

Well can't say I saw the changes in DA2 coming, nor did I predict that its story would turn out the way it did, or the way those two were implemented.

[Archaven]

Why don't they just admit the game was rushed and they are lazy instead of Innovation?

[bebop50]

Second quick answer, yes it did. Let' s it face every new thread complains about the same thing " the core fan " who is that I played DAO liked it played DA2 liked it were there issues yes everyone agrees on that but with DAO people complained as well. Voiced protagonist here to to stay dialog wheel better things to complain about, over the top view take it or leave it. That stuff they knew people would complain about but to expand the market they felt it was time to change what really hurt this game were the issues everyone agrees on. If they weren't so numerous this could been a great game. Old school RPG only bring in so much money and if your doing an series it just won't last ( my opinion ) What would upset me is if Bioware didn't improve from this,remember this is the same formula they used with Mass Effect 2 but in that case the story was much better and less bugs.

[KnightofPhoenix]

"Ambition for the sequel"?
If only they took the time to actually be true to them.

But yay for me finding DA2 unpredictably...mediocre.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Archaven wrote...

Why don't they just admit the game was rushed and they are lazy instead of Innovation?

Hey, "lazy" could be coined into the newest of the new buzz-words, like "stupid" meaning something is "cool" and "cool" being "neat" and "neat" being....yeah.

I think they should combine all their buzz-words to promote the next DA game.

"This is the new $#!*! Think like a general, fight like a Spartan! Button, Awesome, Button, Awesome! Evolution! Innovative! Get stupid-fresh-lazy with DA 3 yo!"

Modifié par Ryllen Laerth Kriel, 20 juin 2011 - 01:27 .

[Nozybidaj]

Brockololly wrote...
So my question would be with respect to DA2, was it really a "refined" sequel where the right variables were simply adjusted and BioWare understood what their audience wanted? Or did they try to change too much of the core Dragon Age experience without having a firm understanding of what the audience enjoyed from the first game?

That's rather obvoius isn't it?  Sometimes I feel like we are just kicking the poor folks while they are down and unable to get back up.

[TEWR]

Definition of innovation:

A new method, idea, product, etc.


The ideas implemented themselves may not be new to video games, but they are indeed new to Dragon Age. A flawed new idea is still a new idea.


Does that mean I agree with all of them? No, the dialogue wheel must die.

What irked me was when one of the devs said that it was unlikely they would get rid of it because they liked it. But most of the posters on here, if not all, have showed hatred and contempt for it.



I want my list back .

You can keep the tones, just put them off to the side of the listed responses. But dammit guys give me my list back please!

[88mphSlayer]

"You have to cash in," co-founder Ray Muzyka said. "Cashing in means taking some risks creatively. When you're doing a sequel, if you're thoughtful and you understand your audience well and you spend a lot of time not listening to what they like and don't like, you take risks – sometimes they pay out, sometimes they don't – but if you don't listen you can continue to refine and make the games cheaper and cheaper.

"You can adjust the right variables in a sequel. They're easier if you do them right."

"When it can be a negative is when people get excited and have ambition for the sequel and create something that's unpredictable and there's nothing profitable," Zeschuk added.

"We use the phrase, 'underwhelm and discourage' our fans with our games, and if you fail at that..."

fixed

[Firefeng]

They tried to change too much of the core of DAO for DA2, which probably still would have worked excellently had they not rushed development.

A lot of the complaints people had with the game would have been absolved had they actually fully polished this game the way it deserved, and dissent would probably have been a vocal minority the likes of which complained about DAO (when it is DAO that is used as the Golden Standard on the forums these days, rather than BG2 like when DAO was released and subsequently criticized by "core" fans).

DA2 was a good game, and "innovative" insofar as BioWare games go, it's just that they appear to have let the core game wither to focus on the innovations. I'm not cynical or stupid enough to believe they would have done this given more time to develop the game, as all aspects could then be fleshed out.

88mphSlayer wrote...

"You have to cash in," co-founder Ray Muzyka said. "Cashing in means taking some risks creatively. When you're doing a sequel, if you're thoughtful and you understand your audience well and you spend a lot of time not listening to what they like and don't like, you take risks – sometimes they pay out, sometimes they don't – but if you don't listen you can continue to refine and make the games cheaper and cheaper.

"You can adjust the right variables in a sequel. They're easier if you do them right."

"When it can be a negative is when people get excited and have ambition for the sequel and create something that's unpredictable and there's nothing profitable," Zeschuk added.

"We use the phrase, 'underwhelm and discourage' our fans with our games, and if you fail at that..."

fixed

I'm so glad we have creative minds with your nonpareil rapier wit on these forums.  No one has ever made such a brilliant assertion as your post did here.

Modifié par Firefeng, 20 juin 2011 - 01:32 .

[alex90c]

Morroian wrote...

alex90c wrote...

"Innovation" is going to start advancing up the vocabulary Hall of Shame up to "Awesome [button]" at this rate.

They are actually using it in a way that is perfectly in keeping with how the term is used these days, even if it doesn't quite meet the literal definition, but then I think even thats arguable in terms of mechanics like the F/R system. 

Well i've either not played many games (and to be fair I did lack interest in games until about a year ago) or Bioware's PR seems to stand out for me as just simply being really bad. The game didn't do anything innovative and yet they're spouting this word in every single interview like it actually means something.

The problem I think, is that it's implied that it's a bad thing if a game doesn't innovate anything, and yet it isn't. So many things have been done nowadays, that practically everything we do which we think is "new" has probably already been done before, so I don't see the problem in simply adding/taking away features and simply stating "we did things X, Y and Z" in a matter of fact manner rather than "we innovated the game by including features X, Y and Z" when they're not even innovative in the first place.

[Johnny20]

Trying to pass of the laziness as "innovations" is truly sicking. I think Bioware sometimes forget that people spent £35/$60 on this garbage.

Modifié par Johnny20, 20 juin 2011 - 01:33 .

[88mphSlayer]

Firefeng wrote...

They tried to change too much of the core of DAO for DA2, which probably still would have worked excellently had they not rushed development.

A lot of the complaints people had with the game would have been absolved had they actually fully polished this game the way it deserved, and dissent would probably have been a vocal minority the likes of which complained about DAO (when it is DAO that is used as the Golden Standard on the forums these days, rather than BG2 like when DAO was released and subsequently criticized by "core" fans).

DA2 was a good game, and "innovative" insofar as BioWare games go, it's just that they appear to have let the core game wither to focus on the innovations. I'm not cynical or stupid enough to believe they would have done this given more time to develop the game, as all aspects could then be fleshed out.

88mphSlayer wrote...

"You have to cash in," co-founder Ray Muzyka said. "Cashing in means taking some risks creatively. When you're doing a sequel, if you're thoughtful and you understand your audience well and you spend a lot of time not listening to what they like and don't like, you take risks – sometimes they pay out, sometimes they don't – but if you don't listen you can continue to refine and make the games cheaper and cheaper.

"You can adjust the right variables in a sequel. They're easier if you do them right."

"When it can be a negative is when people get excited and have ambition for the sequel and create something that's unpredictable and there's nothing profitable," Zeschuk added.

"We use the phrase, 'underwhelm and discourage' our fans with our games, and if you fail at that..."

fixed

I'm so glad we have creative minds with your nonpareil rapier wit on these forums.  No one has ever made such a brilliant assertion as your post did here.

that's another good analogy for dragon age 2 

[Firefeng]

Johnny20 wrote...

Trying to pass of the laziness as "innovations" is truly sicking. I think Bioware sometimes forget that people spent £35/$60 on this garbage.

I think people sometimes forget what sort of games are actually "garbage".  

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Changes dressed up as innovation can be good, provided they are given enough attention, care and don't lose fundamental aspects of the game's foundation.

Bioware took many promising changes to Dragon Age 2 (not innovations), but then didn't give them enough attention and care while implementing them in a way that seems contradictory to the game's foundation. Combat and lack of narrative influence are examples.

Was this bunch of good and not so good ideas with mixed results a symptom of a rushed development, cutting development costs and a lack of overarching vision? Probably, but then it begs the question.

Why change so much if you don't have the time or money to make it work, nor the vision to keep all of these new elements cohesive?

At the end of the day, all you can say is that EA and Bioware rushed the game for a quick cash out and to milk the franchise. Whether one likes the game or not is irrelevant to me, the truth is that EA (and by extension Bioware), consider Dragon Age to be a less important franchise.

Having 5-6 years of development is not practical, but 12-18 extra months added to Dragon Age 2's development is not unreasonable for a franchise considered important and would go a long way in making the changes more appealing to people who weren't such huge fans. Not to mention adding polish, depth and appeal to those who are ambivalent or were already fans.

As it stands, Dragon Protocol Effect 2 isn't a bad game. Just not one that I'm a fan of. I certainly would not be looking forward to Dragon Protocol Effect 3, either.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 20 juin 2011 - 01:52 .

[Nozybidaj]

mrcrusty wrote...
Why change so much if you don't have the time or money to make it work, nor the vision to keep all of these new elements cohesive?

Hehe, that's really the question behind it all isn't it?  They could have changed up a few combat animations, cleaned up the UI and controls a bit, shoved as much content in the game as possible and called it done while leaving most of the origins systems and assets in place and would have been widely praised for it.

Instead they did a 180 (their words not mine) with a lot of the core game play knowing they wouldn't have time to flesh it out and ended up with a rather polarizing (their words not mine) game.  /shrug  If the intent was to kill sales potential of future games in the series, I think they did a rather magnificient job.

Modifié par Nozybidaj, 20 juin 2011 - 01:58 .

[Herr Uhl]

mrcrusty wrote...

Why change so much if you don't have the time or money to make it work, nor the vision to keep all of these new elements cohesive?

Change in budget halfway through?

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Herr Uhl wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

Why change so much if you don't have the time or money to make it work, nor the vision to keep all of these new elements cohesive?

Change in budget halfway through?

I'm pretty sure they knew from the beginning about the budget and development cycle. EA did not pull a LucasArts and cut a third of development time halfway through the project.

If they did, then it would be like KotOR 2, where the game was literally unfinished and a quarter of it's planned content would be on the disk, but not in the game.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 20 juin 2011 - 02:01 .