194 réponses à ce sujet

[dheer]

TheMufflon wrote...
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.

Nobody is asking for a wholly iterative process. There is room for a few innovations without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[TheMufflon]

dheer wrote...

Nobody is asking for a wholly iterative process. There is room for a few innovations without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Please refer back to my original post, w/r/t the qouted text and my analysis of it.

Modifié par TheMufflon, 21 juin 2011 - 02:31 .

[Sad Dragon]

TheMufflon wrote...


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.

So you can never have innovations and iterative changes in the same product? Like say keep what work and itterate on it and add a new cool inovative thing as well?

Though I think the argument -- as it relates to DA2 -- is kind of moot as I cant think of anything really innovative about the game. Now I do not hate DA2 by any means -- but it sure as hell wasn't innovative.

-TSD

[TheMufflon]

Sad Dragon wrote...

So you can never have innovations and iterative changes in the same product? Like say keep what work and itterate on it and add a new cool inovative thing as well?

Additional innovation would defeat the point of optimisation through iteration, as iterative processes rely on small changes. For example, tweaking combat damages to find a better balance (iteration) is pointless if you are going to add a completely new combat feature that radically alters the balance (innovation).

[Monica83]

Oh yes reused areas.. ennemy from nowhere... Bland mediocre story.. Graphic with lack of detail... Less costumization...

And they continue to talk about innovations!.. ohh please ray a nice suggestion change work

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
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.

ME2 was Bioware's most critically acclaimed game, though. The only possible comparison was BG II, but BG II was in another era at this point. I don't think there was any real pressure on Bioware to improve, forum complaints aside. The difference between a 9.5 and a 4.5 on metacritic and other user review sites is really huge.

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.

There are easily things you could fix with DLC. You could create branching content in the DLC to make decisions matter. You could make several DA:O decisions relevant (e.g. Architect appears or not and it changes the story fairly much). You could have companions (just those core to the DLC) able to speak to you at any time. You could have new environments.

And you could have wave combat only some of the time.

Essentially, what I'm saying is this: if DA2 was a poorly designed game, then a well-designed DLC using DA2 assests would allow Bioware to show that, indeed, DA3 won't suck. And Bioware really needs that for the IP to survive.

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.

DLC can't fix anything retroactively (and Bioware made it clear they won't). But it can illustrate better execution.

[Sad Dragon]

TheMufflon wrote...

Sad Dragon wrote...

So you can never have innovations and iterative changes in the same product? Like say keep what work and itterate on it and add a new cool inovative thing as well?

Additional innovation would defeat the point of optimisation through iteration, as iterative processes rely on small changes. For example, tweaking combat damages to find a better balance (iteration) is pointless if you are going to add a completely new combat feature that radically alters the balance (innovation).

This is true, but that doesnt stop you from keeping combat as is and tweaking it for better balance but at the same time adding some inovative new feature to the dialogue system. Now this is just an example, I do not want to get into a discussion about dialog systems at the moment -- though it is something that I might look at in the future. All the same, this is just an example and has nothing to do with DA2.

-TSD

[TheMufflon]

Sad Dragon wrote...

This is true, but that doesnt stop you from keeping combat as is and tweaking it for better balance but at the same time adding some inovative new feature to the dialogue system.

Obviously two independent systems can be changed independently.

[RougeSu11y]

this is to all those that say the problem was the development time.
"you can paint a turd gold but it's still a turd."
that is all so please return to your forums and have a great day.

[bobthecrusher]

'Innovations' these are not, they've all (ALL) been done before, in exactly the same way, so the only way that they're 'innovative' is that they've never been seen in Bioware games.

Guess why Bioware games are so popular? Because they [normally] don't do gimmicky crap like this.

[Morroian]

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)

Solid foundation on PC only not on the consoles, without change the console sales would have shrunk. As it is overall sales decreased anyway cause BW made mistakes.

RougeSu11y wrote...

this is to all those that say the problem was the development time.
"you can paint a turd gold but it's still a turd."
 

The 2 biggest problems are the area recycling and the writing for Act 3 both of which would have been fixed with more time to polish the game. 

Modifié par Morroian, 21 juin 2011 - 10:59 .

[atum]

The more people get hung up on the word "innovate" the less I am able to take them seriously.

If you were talking to the press about anything you* did, you'd be obligated (as an executive of a company) to speak like that.

*you in the general sense, not anyone in particular.

Also, I agree with Morroian.

I think had they not been caught recycling so much they might have slipped the other problems by.

[RougeSu11y]

[quote]RougeSu11y wrote...

this is to all those that say the problem was the development time.
"you can paint a turd gold but it's still a turd."
 [/quote]
The 2 biggest problems are the area recycling and the writing for Act 3 both of which would have been fixed with more time to polish the game. 

[/quote]

yea because combat,diologue wheel,lack of a character creater,the skills that were removed,the now non-existant crafting,the canon/lore that was just ingored,contradicted,andretconed,maybe the limited inventory(atleast they had armor that actually reduced dmg unlike m.e.2),the paraphrased diologue,and i guess for now the fact that the entire game is just someones story.

[Morroian]

RougeSu11y wrote...

RougeSu11y wrote...

this is to all those that say the problem was the development time.
"you can paint a turd gold but it's still a turd." 

The 2 biggest problems are the area recycling and the writing for Act 3 both of which would have been fixed with more time to polish the game. 

yea because combat,diologue wheel,lack of a character creater,the skills that were removed,the now non-existant crafting,the canon/lore that was just ingored,contradicted,andretconed,maybe the limited inventory(atleast they had armor that actually reduced dmg unlike m.e.2),the paraphrased diologue,and i guess for now the fact that the entire game is just someones story.

Those either come down to matters of opinion and are not objective problems, and people would in general accept them if the actual objective problems were not there. TW2 has a number of what you cite above above and look at the opinions of that 

Modifié par Morroian, 22 juin 2011 - 12:06 .

[RougeSu11y]

Morroian wrote...

RougeSu11y wrote...

RougeSu11y wrote...

this is to all those that say the problem was the development time.
"you can paint a turd gold but it's still a turd." 

The 2 biggest problems are the area recycling and the writing for Act 3 both of which would have been fixed with more time to polish the game. 

yea because combat,diologue wheel,lack of a character creater,the skills that were removed,the now non-existant crafting,the canon/lore that was just ingored,contradicted,andretconed,maybe the limited inventory(atleast they had armor that actually reduced dmg unlike m.e.2),the paraphrased diologue,and i guess for now the fact that the entire game is just someones story.

Those either come down to matters of opinion and are not objective problems, and people would in general accept them if the actual objective problems were not there. TW2 has a number of what you cite above above and look at the opinions of that 

yea but tw2 is part of its own series that chooses to go in one direction,while the d.a. games start one way with origins and then d.a.2 pulled a 180 to make the game into somthing  that can't even be identafied with dental files.

[Chromie]

RougeSu11y wrote...

yea but tw2 is part of its own series that chooses to go in one direction,while the d.a. games start one way with origins and then d.a.2 pulled a 180 to make the game into somthing  that can't even be identafied with dental files.

And they are thinking of a Witcher 2 Enhanced Edition already after the 360 version is out. DA2 could sure use one.

[SkittlesKat96]

 I get what they mean but I think they loosely use the word 'innovation'

The game wasn't innovative but I still get what they mean, the changes they made for DA 2 weren't all so bad and will be beneficial in future games I reckon. I like a lot of the new features.

Also the companion system is better, just because the companions were better and more fleshed out in DAO and had more dialog doesn't mean the system and features for it were better in DAO.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

There's nothing like extremely vague buzz words in an interview to say a whole bunch of nothing in response to important questions. Ah, nothing like the smell of Political Correctness in the morning. It doesn't matter what these interviews say anymore. DA 3's release and actual facts about the game leading up to release should do the talking.

[Gunderic]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

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.

I know; I was just ranting. Only the first to second paragraph probably applied to your quote.

[deatharmonic]

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

^This. Excellent fix sir.