194 réponses à ce sujet

[Bryy_Miller]

Gunderic wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Archaven wrote...

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

A few reasons:

1) I think everyone agrees that it was rushed. But to say so is bad business. When someone ragequits and then says "DA2 was rushed, blah blah blah" (and please don't bring up Brent Knowles, that's just lame), then, for whatever reason, you can come on the forums and say "told you so". 

2) Perhaps they actually did what they wanted to do with DA2? Perhaps they do think DA2 was innovative? There is a *lot* of justiifying and finger-waging going on in order to feel secure that BioWare still makes games "for harcore fans/true RPG lovers/etc."

I'm having a hard time believing that, honestly. None of the developer/CEO comments I've seen so far show that BioWare has any intention of making a full return to elements that will appeal to "hardcore fans".

Dragon Age: Origins was not an overly complex game. It could have stood to have more things added to it, rather than taken out or 'made more accessible'. Nothing suggests to me that BioWare is ever willing to go down the same route as they did with Origins too soon -- despite the game selling well -- let alone add more complex elements to the formula.

The developers still have an obvious talent for storytelling and writing, but the core elements of their games have been gradually made less complex for a while now.

Mike Laidlaw said something to this effect pre-release: their team could have easily made a more 'fiddly-stats' experience to cater to more 'hardcore' fans', but chose to go into another direction.

So, I assume their talent for creating the type of games traditional RPG fans love could still be there.

Still, if BioWare intends to keep up with their new design philosophy, I'd prefer it if  they altogether drop the concept/vision of creating highly accessible RPG's, and simply go down the action-adventure/shooter route -- a path this developer is very close to taking, if it hasn't already.

I wasn't talking about their ability to make games. That wasn't my point at all.

[Firky]

phoenixgoddess27 wrote...

Firky wrote...

^ This is going to sound odd, but I rivalmanced Fenris and, after a certain action, he suddenly stopped saying "Hawke" when I clicked on him and started saying "I am yours" and I was like WOW. It's a tiny detail, but one that really grabbed me. (This game was full of tiny wow moments for me.)

I wasn't overly worried by only talking to companions as the plot progressed myself, but I can understand why this would irk people.

Oh, no, he says that, too. I'm just mentioning one of the things he says. Regardless, it's not really... a conversation, so to speak.

I think it just grabbed me because he had said "Hawke" like he does for the entire game, that when suddenly changed and became affectionate I was like, "Woo, Fenris." That moment worked perfectly for how I was experiencing Fenris, as a character.

Perhaps one of the game's "failings" is that, instead of taking a more wide ranging approach towards providing the player with options, like talk to companions when you like, they went with the approach of, talk to the companions when we want you to, trust us it'll work. It did work for me, ultimately. I felt like I was earning conversation and being wowed by tiny Fenris related details, but I can also understand why it may not have worked for people who like chatting with companions whenever they want to.

[phoenixgoddess27]

Firky wrote...

I think it just grabbed me because he had said "Hawke" like he does for the entire game, that when suddenly changed and became affectionate I was like, "Woo, Fenris." That moment worked perfectly for how I was experiencing Fenris, as a character.

Perhaps one of the game's "failings" is that, instead of taking a more wide ranging approach towards providing the player with options, like talk to companions when you like, they went with the approach of, talk to the companions when we want you to, trust us it'll work. It did work for me, ultimately. I felt like I was earning conversation and being wowed by tiny Fenris related details, but I can also understand why it may not have worked for people who like chatting with companions whenever they want to.

I loved the Questioning Beliefs and any scene that brought me closer to the love interest(Fenris), but the sexytiem was too PG. I saw more in DA:O. Still, it was worth watching.

To me, the party talks more amongst each other and even makes plans with each other than let's say... Hawke. I felt more like an eavesdropper than one of the bunch. It seems like the only one who really reached out to Hawke was Varric. If he was a love interest, I would have gone for him, simply cause he was the only one not sulking. (Don't get me wrong, I love letting Fenris cry in my bosom, but... c'mon.) It works for some people, but they could have done better. Fenris was completely romanced, gave me different responses, gave me a whisper-like, "I am yours." (Yes, I grinned), but... he was still saying, "Hawke." Hawke... what? I wouldn't have minded if he said something after "Hawke" after you romanced him.

Modifié par phoenixgoddess27, 21 juin 2011 - 01:17 .

[TheRealJayDee]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Something the guy from ID soft said caught my eye:

"Games that are sequels are unfairly criticised," CEO Todd Hollenshead said. "One regard is they're not original. You can do a lot of original things in a sequel as long as you're consistent and true to the universe that game comes up in."

It strikes me that DA2 did it the totally opposite way.

QFT, I so agree with him (and you).

[PsychoBlonde]

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?

I think the problems with DA2 were at least partially a result of the fact that they were trying to fix the stuff they're BAD at.  Bioware has never done really fantastically awesome gameplay.  It's what they're worst at.  And when they focus on fixing the gameplay (the combat in Dragon Age because there IS no other gameplay), what happens is that everything else starts to get *worse*.

They do need to offer a superior gameplay experience, it is true.  But it's not going to help them if it's just mildly superior to the boring, repetitive gameplay they had before.  Honestly, the *gameplay* in Neverwinter Nights was more advanced than what we've got now.  At least there were interesting puzzles and traps and stuff back then.

If I had to make a single recommendation on how to fix this problem, I'd have to say: focus on what the PLAYER does instead of what the CHARACTERS do.  Yeah, it's kind of neat that you speeded up combat and put in new abilities and stuff, but what's really changed?  I'm still hitting the pause key, selecting an ability, targeting it, and watching it go off.  I'm not making any more decisions than I was before.  I'm not thinking ahead any more than I was before.  I'm managing resources a lot LESS than I was before, in fact, because halfway through the game I stopped running out of mana on my mage--the only limiting factor was spell cooldown.

Personally I think it was a bad decision from the get-go to have everything fix itself the instant combat was over.  It has its benefits, sure--you can make every fight difficult without having to worry about whether the party will be coming in low on juice.  But that's a drawback, too--when every fight is designed to run you down on resources, they all start to feel the same.

So, for DA3, I'd really suggest that you just plain STOP messing with the core gameplay mechanics.  Yeah, the ones you have now aren't perfect.  Instead, ya'll need to STRETCH yourselves in getting as much interesting variety out of the mechanics as possible.  Add some new thematic stuff that ties in with your new storyline.  But please don't radically change everything again just because some people don't like certain things.  REFINE, don't replace.

[Davasar]

Persephone wrote...

twincast wrote...

Awakening was bad because of its changes, not because of what it kept.

What did it change? (Cutting features doesn't count, same as DAII)

Removing features is making changes, therefore by definition, DOES count.

[Firky]

@phoenix I guess Fenris could have had potential for more development. It's an interesting discussion (and one very concerned with innovation.) The scene with Fenris after he'd drunk 4 bottles of Denarius' wine is an interesting example. I was thinking, "Oh man. Can I crack onto him like this? What do I do?" Ultimately, that was an example of "choice illusion" but the weight of the decision was brilliant. (To me.)

By comparion, I was romancing Alistair in Origins and it was (more or less) just a matter of maxing approval and then getting around to following that particular dialogue path. (Which was cool, and Alistair is pretty cool, but it didn't have the same evocative impact on me.)

I wonder if it has to be one way or the other. There were evocative moments in Origins, like when Sten turned on you. Maybe more of a give and take between player controlled interactions and ones which the game "forces" on you. I dunno. (And, I do agree that more dialogue is always good, where possible.)

[phoenixgoddess27]

Firky wrote...

@phoenix I guess Fenris could have had potential for more development. It's an interesting discussion (and one very concerned with innovation.) The scene with Fenris after he'd drunk 4 bottles of Denarius' wine is an interesting example. I was thinking, "Oh man. Can I crack onto him like this? What do I do?" Ultimately, that was an example of "choice illusion" but the weight of the decision was brilliant. (To me.)

By comparion, I was romancing Alistair in Origins and it was (more or less) just a matter of maxing approval and then getting around to following that particular dialogue path. (Which was cool, and Alistair is pretty cool, but it didn't have the same evocative impact on me.)

I wonder if it has to be one way or the other. There were evocative moments in Origins, like when Sten turned on you. Maybe more of a give and take between player controlled interactions and ones which the game "forces" on you. I dunno. (And, I do agree that more dialogue is always good, where possible.)

To be fair, I was rivalmancing Fenris. I'm sure if Originas had the F/R system, things could have possibly gotten even more blushworthy with Alistair. I used to purposely make him angry, simply because he was to die for when he was angry. I would have loved to rivalmance angry Alistair. Alistair made me swoon head over heels. Fenris corrupted my already corrupted thoughts. I got the best of both worlds really, but... more dialogue would have helped.

For instance, the most background we got on Fenris that wasn't about Denarius was about the Fog Warriors and that he had a sister. Beyond that, it was Denarius did this, Denarius did that. I know there's only so much he can remember, but as you stated, there was much potential. I believe I would have felt closer to Fenris had he mentioned more about his feelings rather than his hate. It was hard to take him seriously sometimes. For instance, "This freedom tastes like ashes." I chose, "It tastes better with salt." or something along those lines and of course, Hawke said chicken (), but regardless, he was angry. I would have liked to get to know more about his other emotons than his anger. The only option you get to ask him about how he felt is when he's asking for you back.

I hope this new DLC includes more interactions. I didn't completely hate DAII, but...when I preordered, I was expecting much more and not just about the companion interactions.  But on our subject, they waved sexy pixels with potential at us and said, "Little interaction!:devil:"

Modifié par phoenixgoddess27, 21 juin 2011 - 01:40 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Every past DLC by Bioware, including those for ME and DA universes, have not made it a strong point of including companion dialogue, or adding new content or features that strongly tie back to the original game. I wouldn't expect the first DA2 DLC to be much different.

I'm sure the DLC will be decent, as far as DLC goes. But it will not fix what people don't like about DA2. I feel many people are placing all their hopes for DA2 on either DLC and expansions, or DA3. DA3 can fix problems. DLC and expansions will most likely not.

[Bryy_Miller]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Every past DLC by Bioware, including those for ME and DA universes, have not made it a strong point of including companion dialogue, or adding new content or features that strongly tie back to the original game. I wouldn't expect the first DA2 DLC to be much different.

I'm sure the DLC will be decent, as far as DLC goes. But it will not fix what people don't like about DA2. I feel many people are placing all their hopes for DA2 on either DLC and expansions, or DA3. DA3 can fix problems. DLC and expansions will most likely not.

This.
People are going to look at the DLC and hate it no matter what, though. But they will point at Laidlaw's post and go "you fixed nothing" just because the expansion wont have any major changes.

The only things that Awakening brought to the table were an improved audio system (as well as an improved score), and crafting.

[2papercuts]

Its good to know that as long as they don't sell you the exact same game it will considered innovative

awesome

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Every past DLC by Bioware, including those for ME and DA universes, have not made it a strong point of including companion dialogue, or adding new content or features that strongly tie back to the original game. I wouldn't expect the first DA2 DLC to be much different.

I'm sure the DLC will be decent, as far as DLC goes. But it will not fix what people don't like about DA2. I feel many people are placing all their hopes for DA2 on either DLC and expansions, or DA3. DA3 can fix problems. DLC and expansions will most likely not.

It could be Lair of the Shadow Broker level. That DLC was better than most (IMO, all) of ME2. And I say this as someone who's creeped out by Liara and the asari in general.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

FieryDove wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
[...]
Compared to DA:O where you could chat whenever it felt very...lonely. Something that carried on into DA2, IMO. DA:O just felt like there was a helluvalot more opportunities for camaraderie and getting to know your team mates.

That was on purpose. They wanted to remove *laundry lists* of trivia and yes that was one of the terms thrown around and people having to spend so much time *making the rounds* to get all discussions completed at any given time. There were people that complained about it.

Of course there were a lot of people that complained about too much talk period in DAO. I think it was some of those people who watched the new %hit video and bought the game thinking it was going to be something else. I still feel that was a bit unfair marketing, but people really should research more when they buy stuff.

I liked awakening but didn't like the limited companion interaction, critical bugs that still are not fixed or the level scaling of enemies. I'm lvl 30 fighting lvl 15-22 mobs...what?

I know it was deliberate. That doesn't mean I have to like it. XD

DA:O was by no means perfect when it came to dialogue. For instance, if you were prepared with gifts and stuff and picked the right conversation points, you could get certain characters very high up the approval chain within a few minutes of meeting them. And I *do* think that some of the things DA2 did were good ideas in terms of pacing character development and romance.

I've said elsewhere that I believe a happy balance would include:

a) the set 'plot' dialogues as they are in DA2 to keep that pacing, complete with quest markers to let people know important dialogue is afoot.

flavour dialogue as we got in DA:O, which could be initiated anywhere at any time. No plot impact, no quests, no need to even bother going through it if you don't want to. Just stuff to further define the NPC and give the PC a chance to have banter of their own.

Yes, I am greedy. I love my RPG dialogue. I want more. I want everything.

Including full sentences and a Mute PC button.

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Every past DLC by Bioware, including those for ME and DA universes, have not made it a strong point of including companion dialogue, or adding new content or features that strongly tie back to the original game. I wouldn't expect the first DA2 DLC to be much different.

I'm sure the DLC will be decent, as far as DLC goes. But it will not fix what people don't like about DA2. I feel many people are placing all their hopes for DA2 on either DLC and expansions, or DA3. DA3 can fix problems. DLC and expansions will most likely not.

It could be Lair of the Shadow Broker level. That DLC was better than most (IMO, all) of ME2. And I say this as someone who's creeped out by Liara and the asari in general.

Oh, I wasn't knocking on any previous Bioware DLC, I've enjoyed them in the past. But they are usually a few hours of content at the most, do not include any new ground breaking features and, if they have in depth conversations with companions, they are usually companions who are required to be in the DLC. For instance, Leliana obviously had a lot of dialogue in the Leliana's Song DLC. Liara, as a required companion for The Lair of the Shadow Broker (LotSB), had lots of lines both in and out of the major story arc.

However, LotSB had no new dialogue lines for other characters, such as Legion for example. They didn't go about improving or changing the mining game many had complained about. They didn't address complaints about the lack of choice the player had in deciding to work with Cereberus. Because all of the issues people may or may not have had with ME2 could not be addressed in a DLC. It is entirely beyond the scope of what a DLC is intended to do.

And ME2 was a great game. DA2 has many more sore spots that could use some work. But just as DLC for other games did not (and could not) fix core mechanics, gameplay, plot or content issues, the same will likely be true for DA2 DLC.

Every time I see a post where someone says "I wanted more dialogue with Bethany. Here's hoping for it in DLC!" or "Act 3 was a train wreck plotwise. I hope DLC will come out that will correct some of that!" I, literally, groan. It is completely and totally beyond the point and scope of DLC to fix issues of this sort. DLC will be more content, hopefully of a good caliber and hopefully will include a few tweaks to gameplay. It will not be a miracle procedure that will "cure" any complaints people post all on these forums. Its not possible from a design viewpoint.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 21 juin 2011 - 07:30 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
flavour dialogue as we got in DA:O, which could be initiated anywhere at any time. No plot impact, no quests, no need to even bother going through it if you don't want to.

I'm going to state right now, so the forums can brand me a traitor for it, that I do not care for "Flavor Dialogue Options". I don't see the point in adding more options for the same result. Dialogue should be flavorful already. Asking for more options for the sake of more options is silly.

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 21 juin 2011 - 07:35 .

[GodWood]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
flavour dialogue as we got in DA:O, which could be initiated anywhere at any time. No plot impact, no quests, no need to even bother going through it if you don't want to.

I'm going to state right now, so the forums can brand me a traitor for it, that I do not care for "Flavor Dialogue Options". I don't see the point in adding more options for the same result.

Like I've said before, they personalise your character.

[Firky]

When it comes to novels, etc, I tend to agree that "flavour" should usually be unnecessary, unless you're reading a full on fantasy/sci fi world type thing and you really just dig learning about how all the moons work on the tides and reproductive cycles of the aquatic life.

Like, a fast paced, modern novel wouldn't waste words, it'd show you the important bits. If the woman hides a scar on her forehead with makeup, you can bet that her physical insecurities will be important later, or there'll be some car crash, flashback related trauma influencing her behaviour. Otherwise, why give her a scar and makeup?

Having said that, the fact that you can "just chat" is probably a really important part of immersion in a more classic RPG model. I don't see why "chat" needs to be seen as flavour, actually. Like, if you look through Sten's general dialogue in the toolset, for example, you can learn heaps about the qunari. (And that was partly why I went WOW when I met Saarebas in DAII.)

I like the idea of dialogue you can either engage with or not. But I do like the evocative, more scripted moments in DAII too, and think there should be more of them than Origins. 50/50 in my book.

Also, despite knowing who Greg Zeschuk is, some of his history and what he looks like (and thinking he's cool) I just cannot help but think this ....



... every time I read this thread. Maybe it's just me.

[hexaligned]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
flavour dialogue as we got in DA:O, which could be initiated anywhere at any time. No plot impact, no quests, no need to even bother going through it if you don't want to.

I'm going to state right now, so the forums can brand me a traitor for it, that I do not care for "Flavor Dialogue Options". I don't see the point in adding more options for the same result. Dialogue should be flavorful already. Asking for more options for the sake of more options is silly.

Isn't that the essence of roleplaying?  Mechaniclly it's superfluous, yes, and it isn't necessary from a story telling stand point, (it's most likely a hinderance to story telling actually), but lots of people play RPG's, to ya know, role play their characters how THEY choose to.  Personaly I don't really care, I like my character building options in RPG's to focus around combat/skill mechanics, and not dialogue options, but I can see why they would appeal to some people, and it's hardly silly, not any more silly than playing video games in the first place anyways.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
flavour dialogue as we got in DA:O, which could be initiated anywhere at any time. No plot impact, no quests, no need to even bother going through it if you don't want to.

I'm going to state right now, so the forums can brand me a traitor for it, that I do not care for "Flavor Dialogue Options". I don't see the point in adding more options for the same result. Dialogue should be flavorful already. Asking for more options for the sake of more options is silly.

We're all entitled to our opinions. *shrug* I do not think, however, that I am asking for more options just for the sake of more options. I'm asking to divide quest-related dialogue that progresses the plot or NPC's arc (eg. stuff that grants experience and game rewards) from non-essential dialogue. That way the people who just want to access important stuff or level up their PC/companions don't have to bother with 'flavour dialogue' if they don't want to.

There are plenty of people who just click through text to get the quest activations or rewards, then simply follow the quest markers without even listening to the story. They're in it for the action.

Then there are people who want to gobble down all the dialogue they can possibly find.

I can understand people who criticised DA:O's extensive dialogue because there was a lot of it. But except for some pacing issues I commented on earlier, some people really like lots of dialogue and expect it from an RPG--especially a Bioware RPG.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 21 juin 2011 - 08:26 .

[Sad Dragon]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

I can understand people who criticised DA:O's extensive dialogue because there was a lot of it. But except for some pacing issues I commented on earlier, some people really like lots of dialogue and expect it from an RPG--especially a Bioware RPG.

I have to say that I am one of those people who not only expect it from an RPG but it is one of main reasons I play RPGs -- the other main reason being the story. Every other field I think there are other genres out there that does better. For my adrenalin fix I either go with an FPS or -- in some case -- an RTS. For dungeon crawling I go back to playing Diablo 2.

Hell for pure story I look at the adventure games genre about as much as I look at RPGs as the games of that genre have it easier to tell a story due to not letting the player interact directly with the story.
Should the main character in an action-adventure do something I find stupid they can get away with it as long as it is in character for the character the developers have written.

In an RPG on the other hand the player super imposes their imagined character on top of what the game allows to get more of a feel for the character they want to create -- as such the precived stupid action must not only make sense for the different personalities the developers have allowed for but also on a higher meta game level. Should the player not buy the explanation then it will break the immersion for the player and the action will look even more stupid.

Now RPGs usually have a kick ass story, but they are not the only game in town for a good story and -- in fact -- have to work with more limitations when trying to create the story.


As always there are exceptions to everything, RPGs with bad storys, RPGs with awesome action mechanics but for the most part RPGs only have their character customization to lean back against. Dialogs and flavour dialogues are as big a -- imho bigger -- part as stats.

-TSD

[Bostur]

Flavour dialogue could also be called optional dialogue. It's an opportunity to add some more flavour for those who want it, when they want it without pushing it on everyone.

Unneeded flavour does a lot for games, especially for people who are enthusiasts. For dialogue it makes the characters feel like more than just tape recorders. In other areas it makes the game feel like theres more to it than just a linear string of events. This effect is mostly an illusion because flavour options are usually very simple, but sometimes that illusion can be quite strong, especially if we help it a bit along the way ourselves.

[TheMufflon]

Brockololly wrote...

My biggest issues with DA2 is that it didn't seem to try and iterate off of what Origins established

So what you're saying is that your biggest issue with the innovations in DA:2 is that you didn't want any innovations?

[Nozybidaj]

In Exile wrote...
Personally, I think DA is dead as an IP after DA3 unless Bioware does something groundbreaking. And I think TOR flopping might shut down Bioware.

Hopefully, Bioware Edmonton survives on the back of ME, and the DA team gets a crack at a new IP.

Agree.  If they don't do something spectacular with DA3 I wouldn't be surprised to see it struggle to sell 1mill copies.  That will pretty much be the last nail in the coffin for the IP.

And yes, as TOR goes so will BW.  In fact I wouldn't be terribly surprised that even if TOR is successful BW gets shut down and TOR gets rolled into a "EA Online" division.  The ME and DA IP's are probably little more than a blip on the radar far as EA is concerned.

[dheer]

TheMufflon wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

My biggest issues with DA2 is that it didn't seem to try and iterate off of what Origins established

So what you're saying is that your biggest issue with the innovations in DA:2 is that you didn't want any innovations?

Nope. Instead of building on the solid foundation DA:O set, they threw much of it away and only replaced parts of it with things that weren't done as well. (The 180 degree turn quote from M. Laidlaw)

Trying a few new things, or "innovations" are not mutually exclusive to the 180 DA2 took. It's why some feel it's more a reboot than a sequel.

[TheMufflon]

dheer wrote...

Nope. Instead of building on the solid foundation DA:O set, they threw much of it away and only replaced parts of it with things that weren't done as well. (The 180 degree turn quote from M. Laidlaw)

Trying a few new things, or "innovations" are not mutually exclusive to the 180 DA2 took. It's why some feel it's more a reboot than a sequel.

Iterative change is the opposite if innovative change. Thus asking for a wholly iterative process would preclude any innovation. Iterative processes are based of miniscule changes in existing variables and no addition of new ones, essentially repeating the pervious "step" with only minor tweaks.

A good example of games which have an iterative design process is EA:s sports management games: Each year the release essentially the same game, with only minor graphical updates and the latest statistics for all the players.

Modifié par TheMufflon, 21 juin 2011 - 02:22 .