725 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Morroian wrote...

erynnar wrote...

This^ I am replaying DAO. And it isn't that combat is slow, it is more realistic. Sorry but my rogue misses hits in DAO. 

I agree with you about rogues in DA2. I can't play a melee rogue because its too fast and the animations are poor, got an archer rogue though, and mages and warriors don't have the same problem to me.

Same. My idea of a rogue is one that focuses on finesse and precision. Agility as well, but not like this.
The whole design of the rogue in DA2 is unappealing to me, and rogues had always been my favorite class (inflitrators in ME) except in DA2.

Furthermore, I miss the ability to have rogues craft their own poison. Might not be a big difference when compared to the crafting system of DA2. In fact it might be illusionary. But it gave the impression that rogues were skilled enough to be able to make poisons (and there was a certain amount of satisfaction when I discovered new recipees and got to create them on my own).  I miss that.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 29 juin 2011 - 07:01 .

[Yrkoon]

Brockololly wrote...
And while I know its mostly bloated PR speak, how in the world can they accurately measure what a "new fan" is but whether they enjoyed the game? I see that a lot but it makes no sense.

 There are ways.  Any time you've got a series of games that require online activation/registration, this kind of data can be  found.

But it's utterly pointless, as you point out, because 1) there's no accurate way to determine whether these "new players" actually enjoyed the game, and 2)   ALL games attract new players.   But since he didn't  bother to  tell us how many, his comments are meaningless.  What Muzyka cleverly avoids,  though, is the topic of actual units sold.   And the reason for that is fairly simple:  DA2 did not sell  nearly as well as DA:O  *OR*  Mass Effect 2.


Oh, and the question of whether this is Bioware's CEO in denial is also nonsense.  He's not in denial, he's in  Aggressive PR mode.  Which speaks volumes in and of itself.  When was the last time we saw  Ray Muzyka making the  extended  media rounds spouting this kind of  noise about a game that's ALREADY been released?  Obviously he feels he needs to do such a thing to repair the game's image, which means there was something already  wrong.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 29 juin 2011 - 07:06 .

[Firky]

Edit: quote fail, sorry. Someone put this up. It is Laidlaw, yes.

"Finally, let me conclude by saying that while we are all aware of your concerns, I am very proud of what the team accomplished with Dragon Age II. I know many are advocating a "it wasn't broke, why did you try to fix it?" stance, and I absolutely understand why. From my perspective, as someone looking to the future and the DA franchise, I think that DA II moved us into a space that has more potential."

I'm still trying to construct a fantasy in my head around walking up to Ray Muzyka and suggesting he find another career, but just keep coming back to "Wow, Dr Muzyka. You're so amazing. Can I have your autograph?"

As to this being "moron buzzword speak," I think it sounds very sincere. He's also not alienating his design team or those of us who liked the game, which is important. If it seems a little vague, it might be because this forum jumps on anything even slightly more explicit and analyses it in minute detail.

Modifié par Firky, 29 juin 2011 - 07:12 .

[megski]

Barbarossa2010 wrote...
I agree with you.  Origins was my first RPG and it drew me out of shooter/action goon-dom.  I played through Origins seven times (plus several re-plays trying to get "things right"), I could barely finish DA2 a single time.  Like you, I didn't hate it, but I was very underwhelmed by it.

Origins was the right formula for me, even with the steep learning curve I had to overcome.  DA2 wasn't even close.  It was a very marginal entry in a virtual endless sea of action/cinematic games.  Your love for Origins is not shameful.  Bioware's DA2 marketing ruse and content sleight of hand was however.

KOTOR was the first one I played, I was really overwhelmed with all of the different choices and selections you could make with your character, and I am still learning.  By no means am I a veteran rpg player.  My husband has always played them though.  We played origins at the same time and had each other to talk to and discuss things.  For example, I had no idea you were supposed to use the injury kits and did a whole playthrough almost without them, until he pointed it out to me.  

I do want to say to that I don't expect bioware to completely reroute the things they have planned to suit me.  I also want to say that I know some people worked very hard on the game, and those people do deserve credit.  A game isn't easy to put together, especially games like dragon age.  I'm not going to say I hate it and that its crap like a lot of people do.  I just want bioware to do a little better in future...to please me and other fans like me haha.  I'm not saying they HAVE to or else, I just want them to.  I'm glad you agree with me, lets hope that we get what we want in the future.  

[Firky]

Yrkoon wrote...
Oh, and the question of whether this is Bioware's CEO in denial is also nonsense.  He's not in denial, he's in  Aggressive PR mode.  Which speaks volumes in and of itself.  When was the last time we saw  Ray Muzyka making the  extended  media rounds spouting this kind of  noise about a game that's ALREADY been released?  Obviously he feels he needs to do such a thing to repair the game's image, which means there was something already  wrong.

If you're basing that on this particular interview, the two Drs are just answering the interviewer's questions.

If you have more examples (I guess I've seen a couple) maybe they just got invited to comment by media outlets, based on the game's "mixed reception" and then decided yes or no.

[Yrkoon]

Well, mixed reception might have something to do with it.     But again, I've never seen this level of  repeated defensiveness from Muzyka before  (this is, like, the 3rd interview I've seen with him since E3).   Did he do this 4 months after DA:O came out? Or ME2? or Neverwinter Nights? Did he feel he had to remind the world that BG2 attracted new fans 4 months after it came out?

No, No, No, and definitely no. He's doing this for DA2 because for one reason or another, there is a problem. Whether it's a sales issue or an image issue, who knows. But obviously there's something wrong.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 29 juin 2011 - 07:26 .

[Cutlass Jack]

...or its because he was being asked about it.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

...or its because he was being asked about it.

And him being asked about it (so consistently), might be an indication that there is a problem somewhere.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 29 juin 2011 - 07:27 .

[megski]

I think that indication could be that its been four months since the game came out and we're still having this conversation. Like I said earlier, dragon age can't post anything on facebook without a ton of 'dragon age 2 SUCKS' comments (and worse). If people are still so angry and upset about it, then there is definitely something not quite right.

[Feraele]

FieryDove wrote...

Feraele wrote...

 Whatever happened to the promise of two year's worth of content for Dragon Age ORIGINS? Maybe I have lost track of time..yeah that's it.

Chris already explained that. Official line: DA2 came together more quickly than expected.

You were joking tho...yes?

I haven't been around in probably a year..or so.   Left just after the announcement about the anime movie (I am not gonna comment on that one)  and the discovery that the Qunari would have horns and DA 2 would be more like Mass Effect than....Dragon Age in format and style.

Dragon Age Origins I made 23 characters in all, bought all the dlcs etc.    DA 2..I played for 3 hours..if that.  I still haven't gone back to finish it.   That was on release day.      

[Feraele]

Barbarossa2010 wrote...

I'm sure DA2 "drew alot of fans into the universe." What's not said is that it appeared to jettison or alienate just as many (and in all liklihood, many more than that) fans. A strange way to define commercial success imho. Going beyond the corporate marketeer's Newspeak, in my view DA2 was only "commercially" successful because it's development costs were a fraction that of Origins (and it painfully showed), and they still charged the same price for (what many fans thought was) a very inferior product; hence they could sell fewer copies and still be profitable.

So, I suppose DA2 was a commercial success...a mediocre game with a shrinking consumer base (in only their second AAA entry in the franchise)...but most assuredly a "commercial" success.

Just my opinion though.

I just want to say..I will eventually "tough it out" and finish DA2..just because.   But I will continue playing Origins..because its just that good.   Think  I might try it on Nightmare,  was playing Origins forever on hard mode.

I hope Bioware..manages to meander back to where they wandered off the path..and give us back the RPG we love...some day soon?

[Firky]

Yrkoon wrote...

Well, mixed reception might have something to do with it.     But again, I've never seen this level of  repeated defensiveness from Muzyka before  (this is, like, the 3rd interview I've seen with him since E3).   Did he do this 4 months after DA:O came out? Or ME2? or Neverwinter Nights? Did he feel he had to remind the world that BG2 attracted new fans 4 months after it came out?

No, No, No, and definitely no. He's doing this for DA2 because for one reason or another, there is a problem. Whether it's a sales issue or an image issue, who knows. But obviously there's something wrong.

I guess I'm not really getting a defensive vibe from these interviews. To me they just seem to emphasize that they were happy with the game they made but that they are also keen to address less favourable feedback from fans. To me, it sounds genuine.

But I'd agree that prolonged criticism online would lead to media interest. IMO, it's good that the Drs (and others) are engaging in a dialogue with their fans. (I've seen lots of games get panned by fans and/or critics in recent years and heard absolutely nothing from their designers or publishers.)

PS. He may have given a lot of interviews at E3, and many interviewers may have thought asking about Dragon Age was appropriate.

Modifié par Firky, 29 juin 2011 - 08:19 .

[Alex Kershaw]

Well said as usual. The two things that annoy me the most are:

1) 'You can't handle change'. If the only reason for negative feedback was change, why did Dragon Age II get considerably worse critic reviews than DAO (and by far worse than any other Bioware RPG ever, I might add) when ME2 was also a massive change from ME1, but got better reviews (in fact, better than any other Bioware RPG)? Doesn't this prove that it isn't simply the change, or even the larger focus on action, that made the game get bad fan feedback?

2) 'We've got a lot of new fans who loved the game'. Can someone fill me in on how they know this? Surely you can only make that argument when the sequel sells more than the original? For ME2, for example, it sold more than ME1 and so there must have been new fans. DA2 hasn't sold anywhere near as much as DAO so when you consider that many DAO players are obviously interested in the sequel, how do they know that they have lots of new fans? And then, how do they know that those new fans loved the game?

Modifié par Alex Kershaw, 29 juin 2011 - 09:46 .

[Alex Kershaw]

Looking on the bright side, at least we know it'll be hard for them to be lying when they tell us that DA3 improves on its predecessor.

[rolson00]

JohnEpler wrote...

Lord Coake wrote...


It's called "moron buzzword speak."  Mike is on record as outright hating RPG's and being more of a midless control-mashing CoD type, so his idea of "moving a game in the right direction" would be to give DA3's protagonist an MP5 and have him mash the trigger while bunnyhopping over crates.

I'm quite certain that Mike is not 'on record as outright hating RPG's', and as to the rest of your post - if you'd like to participate in the discussion in a rational fashion, please feel free to do so. If all you're interested in is hyperbole and vitriol, then I would suggest taking a step back from the thread. Thank you.

although john many people got that impression from mike tho iv manage to find an old da2 interview here and another one here saying stuff like this didnt realyy help at all he needs to be carful or he'll end up being like Peter Molyneux! i mean peter makes me ashamed of being british! did you know that fable the jouney was only four months in development when he announced it! come on mike!dont be like that dilusional fool!

Modifié par rolson00, 29 juin 2011 - 10:32 .

[exskeeny]

You are right, much the same stuff as before, not just the interview but the thread as well.

Bioware, as a company, will never say a bad thing about DA2 while it is still a product they are trying to shift. Anyone who expects them to is sadly mistaken.

[snfonseka]

mrcrusty wrote...

At least he didn't say innovative. At this point, I'm really beyond caring as we've heard these sentiments time and time again.

^This.

[In Exile]

Slayer299 wrote...
So, and I ask this question in all seriousness, if those elements are detrimental and should be removed (as that is what I am reading into what you've said there) what should go into making DA3 if you were in a position to have some suggestions into it?

From DA:O, or in general?

DA:O had innovations - the origin stories themselves, the reconstructed fantasy story for the modern era (DA:O is essentially a traditional call to adventure like a D&D module, but the story is darker and edgier). DA:O also had really good elements - the grander scale for the story, the size of the world, the ideas of customization (e.g. overlapping skills between warriors & rogues because they are both physical fighters) and PC characterization (e.g. increase the # of personality skills), the tactical camera (not neccesarily the overhead view) and a consistent art vision.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

If he honestly thought they did a
good job with starting the conflict, then I'll know to avoid their
games from now on.

He said he was happy there was a conflict now.

Gunderic wrote...
Though I'd prefer not to use the term, I
find that associating a game with the phrase "working for your
fun", indicates a higher degree of challenge or depth, things typically
sought after in a roleplaying game by me -- there are part of the fans
who praised the idea behind the tutorial ( the lack of
"hand-holding" ), for example -- as opposed to the "instant
gratification" element a few people may say BioWare ( tries ) to be
guilty of as of late, though, to be fair, I also expect a higher lack of
polish/or proper implementation of some elements, as imo was the case
with older games like Arcanum, perhaps even Vampire: Bloodlines, and
possibly, The Witcher series.

Here is the issue: the game is not actually difficult. Once you learn how to play it, it is very easy. Their insane mode is hard, but that's because it's a no-death difficulty. If you die, it just locks the save and you can never replay it. Otherwise, the combat is very, very easy, even if you don<t know what you're.

The Witcher 2 has to (IMO) major design flaws: an inverted difficulty curve (it's actually flat, but it feels like it starts hard and get easy because of the controls) and a high learning curve (at best, you have to read about your abilities, but reading != knowing how to use them).

Fans who praise the lack of a tutorial - that I discusssed this with - tend to have a bit of a complex.

Modifié par In Exile, 29 juin 2011 - 12:03 .

[KilrB]

Firky wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Well, mixed reception might have something to do with it.     But again, I've never seen this level of  repeated defensiveness from Muzyka before  (this is, like, the 3rd interview I've seen with him since E3).   Did he do this 4 months after DA:O came out? Or ME2? or Neverwinter Nights? Did he feel he had to remind the world that BG2 attracted new fans 4 months after it came out?

No, No, No, and definitely no. He's doing this for DA2 because for one reason or another, there is a problem. Whether it's a sales issue or an image issue, who knows. But obviously there's something wrong.

I guess I'm not really getting a defensive vibe from these interviews. To me they just seem to emphasize that they were happy with the game they made but that they are also keen to address less favourable feedback from fans. To me, it sounds genuine.

But I'd agree that prolonged criticism online would lead to media interest. IMO, it's good that the Drs (and others) are engaging in a dialogue with their fans. (I've seen lots of games get panned by fans and/or critics in recent years and heard absolutely nothing from their designers or publishers.)

PS. He may have given a lot of interviews at E3, and many interviewers may have thought asking about Dragon Age was appropriate.

Dialog?

What freaking dialog?

This is all pr speak and damage control, there is no dialog going on here.

[Cyne]

I'm glad they're aware of fans' disappointment, but I dislike the implication that it's because DA2 differed too much from Origins. Even on its own DA2 was a lackluster game. The combat got repetitive, the scenery got repetitive, the story was rather boring and disjointed and the characters were forgettable. It was all flash and no substance, IMO. Anyway I hope this means DA3 will be much better than its predecessor, I'm sure Bioware wants to redeem the fans' faith in the franchise and honestly I believe they can do it. If they made magic once, they can do it again. Besides, it'd be sad if the magic of Dragon Age ended with Origins.

[Slayer299]

@In Exile - Both in general and from DAO/DA2. You mentioned the ideas DAO did get right, but you also mentioned the 3 failures (initial post) that were carried over from DAO to DA2, so what would you replace those 3 with in DA3?

[Sidney]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

...or its because he was being asked about it.

And him being asked about it (so consistently), might be an indication that there is a problem somewhere.

...or that you have a handful of OCD types that have to push "their" version of what a game shouild be like. That might just be it as well.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Sidney wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

...or its because he was being asked about it.

And him being asked about it (so consistently), might be an indication that there is a problem somewhere.

...or that you have a handful of OCD types that have to push "their" version of what a game shouild be like. That might just be it as well.

That would almost be a valid point, except the game did get a mixed reaction and has significantly lower sales than Origins. Dragon Age 2 has a critic score much lower than their previous games (I won't mention user score) and would be lucky to reach half the sales of Origins.

Would that not indicate that there were problems somewhere in the game?