63 réponses à ce sujet

[Pathforge]

Hello there.  I'm not sure I can get an answer to this question though I was hoping we could get Bioware here.  In regards to Dragon Age II, did EA give you a specific deadline to get this game out?  Was it pressure from the publisher that forced Dragon Age II to be released the way it was?  I will give readers fair warning though.  Please have patience as this is a long LONG post.  The slider on the right should give you an idea lol

First off...this article is geared toward Bioware developers.  I would like for you to look at this article:
http://www.videogame...no_regrets.html

Now I'm NOT being sarcastic or rude when I ask, have any of you actually ever played Balder's Gate? For those of you who are interested (and have not heard of the title) Balder's Gate was a Dungeon & Dragon's crpg released back in 1998.  You can read about it HERE. 

You can BUY the game at gog.com for $9.99 with the expansion and all.  One of the greatest games I have ever played to THIS DAY.  I actually just gave it another run through last month.  The article I posted at the top talks about how Bioware's Greg Zeschuck makes a comment stating that "Dragon Age is the spiritual successor to Balder's Gate."  This a bold statement especially when (graphics aside) Balders Gate remains the better game by leaps and bounds.  I was scratching my head when I read that and after playing Dragon Age II... I was just angry.  Now seeing the release of an expansion for Dragon Age II I became so upset that I felt compelled to write this.  I have to assume that EA is responsible because there is no way that the team at Bioware could be opening wine bottles and celebrating a game like DA II.  I still have no idea why the game receieved such high ratings either.  Lets get into it...

In Balder's Gate, you'll find that original Bioware formula for a masterpiece they should have used for every dark fantasy rpg after.  The music for the game was written by Michael Hoenig and you can hear the tracks HERE and was fantastic.  Every explorable area has two or three different tracks that play.  One for day and then night.  The music also changes when you engage in combat and then they throw in a separate "victory piece" when the battle is over.  Not to mention that the battle music is different for every area you visit.  And speaking of areas...EXPLORABLE areas, take a look HERE to see the map of FULLY explorable areas that you have access to at ANY point in the game.  You'll see icons that ALL represent areas that your party of SIX, yes SIX can walk around and check out.  Some areas have caves, caverns, dungeons, Castles and ruins with tons of different magical equipment. 

Voice acting was also another TREMENDOUS accomplishment in this game.  You could literally talk to almost EVERY npc standing around in the game.  100% of them were voiced over and by simply clicking them they would talk.  90% of them would have dialogue.   What's more is not only did the towns have that generic crowded town sound effect but actual village npcs would randomly talk as well.  It's not like Dragon Age where you walk into one of two 4 taverns they had in all of Fereldan and just see npcs moving their lips with no sound attached.  AND even MORE importantly lol...the dwarves SOUNDED like dwarves.  I couldn't find any quick samples but for those of you who are familiar with true D&D lore or R.A. Salvatore's writings...or Lord of the Rings, we ALL should know how a dwarf is suppose to LOOK and sound.  This is one of those things you just DON'T change.  I have NO idea why dwarves in DA in general sound like Brooklyn NY cab drivers.  Why are some bald or beardless?  Why do they simply look like short fat humans?  Dwarves aren't affraid of anything.  They don't quit being warriors to be a cowardly merchant like Bodhan Feddic.  As much as I LOVED the character, he should not have been a dwarf.  Bodhan should have been the kind of guy to chop your face off if you tried to steal his goods.  I'm CERTAIN you guys at Bioware headquarters know Bruenor from the Drizzt stories...who shows up in Balder's Gate II mind you.  Or Gimli from the Lord of the Rings.  THOSE are dwarves...that's it. 

Speaking of stealing... Balder's Gate was so detailed with their towns and villages that you could walk in or break into EVERY single home in EVERY town.  People would even call the guards on you if you broke.  EVERY HOME was occupied by npcs (some of who give you side quests) and you could check furniture like dressers, shelves, tables and chests for items to steal.  If the npc noticed you, a guard would be summoned and you would have to pay a fine or fight your way out. 

Weather effects...not only did it rain light or heavy but there was thunder and lighting and the sound was just awsome.  Since I have a 5.1 setup with my pc it made my house vibrate if I had it even below the halfway mark heh.  You could even see the drops ripple the water for crying out loud and this is a game that was released in 98. 

Mages - The detail behind mages in Balder's Gate is immense.  Look HERE if you're interested.  Then in the sequel Balder's Gate II, you can import your character and gain higher levels so it opens up a whole other new books of spells lol.  Bioware, please don't tell me that this was not possible.  Don't say you couldn't come up with another name for Mirror Image.  Anyone seen the new Thor movie?  *MINOR SPOILER ALERT*  Loki used a false image of himself to lure enemies and kill them.  Mages can fool enemies in Balder's Gate by creating multiple images of themselves.  Enemies naturally wouldnt know which one to hit.  Why was this not incorprated somehow into a game like Dragon Age?  There are so little to mages in DA in comparison, I felt like every mage practically had the same abilities.  DAII added a specialty class to characters in your group but it wasn't as detailed as wizards in BG. 

Combat - DA II combat just really REALLY got me upset.  You'd go to a small corner of town and then you were attacked by waves and waves...ARMIES of thugs.  Then pretty much 90% of the time they all fall to a hundred pieces.  THEN the kicker is...you break into a hideout.  A HIDEOUT for godsake...and it's ONE big room with not even HALF the amount of enemies who approached you on the street.  Made no sense.  In DA: Origins the combat was more fierce.  Take Alistair's shield bash attack for instance.  You would see him pull back and then lunge forward.  You could FEEL the smash as the enemy was thrown to the floor.  In DA II the animation takes half a second.  I looks like Hawk was just trying to get the guys attention with a quick poke.  Yes, in DA Origins 2hd weapon attacks were slow.  I can understand that because of the amount of str. it takes to swing a massive weapon like the ones in DA.  But in DAII, your characters swing 2 handers like pieces of paper. 

Look, I could go on and on here but I don't want to make your eyes bleed if I already haven't.  Bottom line is, if you have NOT played Balder's Gate and it sounds interesting...maybe you just want to see what I'm talking about...if you can push aside graphics from 98 (Hell I still play Chrono Trigger, Super Castlevania) then you're in for something great.  The game is $10.  You can get it HERE at gog.com.  If you're a Bioware employee and only heard about it...you NEED to play the game to understand what I mean.  It's TEN dollars.  Buy it.

The thing that leaves me scratching my head is, Bioware is a fantastic team of highly talented writers.  Don't you WANT to put in all the little details to really pull people into your game?  Why does Hawk, in a span of TEN YEARS only see FOUR areas?  Why is the entire game pretty much in ONE city?  Why are you releasing an expansion that adds more areas to explore when it should have been included in the original?  Again I'll ask, is it because of deadlines?  Budget maybe?  Enhanced graphic engines and flashy combat moves don't make a game.  Just look at other classics aside from Balder's Gate.  What about Chrono Trigger for SNES?  Or Super Metroid.  What about Starcraft ONE or Warcraft 3?  Nearly 20 years later, obviously graphics have ZERO to do with these games being as amazing as they are.  Combat is simple and the games are just FUN.  Same goes for the entire Balder's Gate series.    

Blizzard - A fantastic example of how things should be.  Maybe EA should learn from Blizzard instead of trying to pump out games just to get them out.  Although Blizzard was aquired by Activision, Blizzard was left to run things on their own.  When they release a game, I know that I KNOW that I know that game is going to be incredible.  They take their time and when it's done, it's DONE.  I don't even read reviews for it.  I don't need to watch other people on youtube play the game to feel it out.  I just BUY it and I have NEVER been disappointed.  Dragon Age II was not only a disappointment, but it wasn't even like a sequel.  You guys just followed the formula for Awakening and expanded it a bit.  Terrible idea for a sequel.  Equally as bad to say that DA in general is your current Balder's Gate when BG blows it away in almost every aspect.  You are only tie with it in lore and plot.  That's it. 

BOTTOM LINE - When you have an award winning formula for a game you should NEVER ever trash it.  Don't chop off the key components NEEDED to submerge a fan into a dark fantasy universe.  You take that formula from 1998 and BUILD on it.  Make it better.  Fix the bugs and add more.  Dragon Age made me feel like it was developed by a different company when I compare it to Balder's Gate.   And if Electronic Arts is the problem...then someone there needs to read this OR play Balder's Gate for themselves. 

Sorry for the excrutiating read but these feelings had built up in me for a long time.  When I saw the news on DA II Legacy, it just opened the lid.  I really hope this makes sense to the people that matter in this situation.  

[Morroian]

Your entire premise is wrong. BW, in some marketing, referred to DAO as the successor to BG not DA2. Plus I think they stopped using the term well before DAO was released anyway. DA2 from the start was marketed as making big changes to the DAO taking it further away from the BG model.

And IMHO DAO felt nothing like BG anyway.

[Plaintiff]

The key components needed to submerge you in a game, maybe. I like both Dragon Age games just fine as they are. If you want to play Baldur's Gate instead, then do that. I'd rather not have every crpg be the exact same.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 08 juillet 2011 - 12:02 .

[Pathforge]

In response to Morroian and Plaintiff

Sorry... I should have been a bit more specific. I'm not saying DA in general should have been another Balder's Gate. What I meant was, all the little fine tuning details behind it. The stuff that makes the world real.  What's the point of creating all of this detailed lore and story and a world...if you dont' put it in the game?  Or you limit players to a handful of areas to explore?  Sorry, but spending nearly an entire game within one city is not the way to do things in the world of Dragon Age.  ESPECIALLY when you have so much MORE in the original.

A sequel should always be MORE than the original.  The goal should always be to top what you did before.  Not do less.  Different can be great.  New can be great...but Dragon Age II needed to be more than just a good audio book.  They did it right with Mass Effect 2.  They simply took ME1 and made it better.  Added more intensity to the fire. 

Regardless of what Bioware said.  It doesn't matter if they had told me ten years ago they would move away from their "model" of whatever game it COULD have been.  Bottom line is, don't create a sequel to an award winning game that chops off half of what made the original a classic. 

And for those of you who don't agree with me...that's why this is just an opinion from a nobody named Pathforge =)

Modifié par Pathforge, 08 juillet 2011 - 12:39 .

[telephasic]

Okay, first, I agree with you that the Baldur's Gate series, specifically Baldur's Gate II, were in virtually every way superior to Dragon Age (I think Bioware has gotten better with characters, but that's an aside).

But, you simply couldn't create a game with the amount of content BG2 had with modern technology. The NPCs all had fully voiced text. But many random characters only had some spoken text, or none at all. For BG2 you'd probably need a voice cast ranging into the hundreds - far larger than DA:O. Then there's rendering of graphics to take into account.

Will Wright of SimCity fame actually talked about this issue in the development of Spore (which turned out awful - blame EA). But his basic point was as technology advances in game-making, developers spend more and more time making content (mainly graphics and sound). This means budgets keep getting more and more bloated, and games need to sell more copies to turn a profit. It also means other aspects of the game - proper mechanics, or content in terms of length - don't get addressed the way they need to. It's not an issue I think will be dealt with until game-making itself becomes far easier.

[rwscissors702]

Interesting read, thanks for posting it. I've never played BG, I suppose I should add it to my shopping list.

[Pathforge]

telephasic wrote...

Okay, first, I agree with you that the Baldur's Gate series, specifically Baldur's Gate II, were in virtually every way superior to Dragon Age (I think Bioware has gotten better with characters, but that's an aside).

But, you simply couldn't create a game with the amount of content BG2 had with modern technology. The NPCs all had fully voiced text. But many random characters only had some spoken text, or none at all. For BG2 you'd probably need a voice cast ranging into the hundreds - far larger than DA:O. Then there's rendering of graphics to take into account.

Will Wright of SimCity fame actually talked about this issue in the development of Spore (which turned out awful - blame EA). But his basic point was as technology advances in game-making, developers spend more and more time making content (mainly graphics and sound). This means budgets keep getting more and more bloated, and games need to sell more copies to turn a profit. It also means other aspects of the game - proper mechanics, or content in terms of length - don't get addressed the way they need to. It's not an issue I think will be dealt with until game-making itself becomes far easier.

I understand what you mean and it's a great point.  I actually mentioned in my novel above that graphics don't make the game.  Hence, the reason why I still play games released in the 90's. 

A friend of mine also told me that budget is something to consider in a project like this.  Thing is though... if we understand that graphics don't make the game then I think devs need to stop working so hard on making everything LOOK real with pretty pictures.  We dont need L.A. Noire... we don't need actors to hook themselves up to sensors and have over a hundred cameras to make it look like your playing a damn movie.  That's not the answer. 

It works great for certain games...but in the world of Thedas, that's not what counts.  Give me mediocre visuals with weather changes and harsh wind sounds.  Force me to have to walk through several areas to reach that cave...dont' show me a line fabricating across the screen and tell me "That's you travelling there".  Oblivion is a fantastic example of an amazing single player fantasy rpg done right.  SKYRIM.  That's what Bioware and EA need to stand against.  

I dont' mean make the game so big that you get lost just looking for random ruins like Oblivion...but take SOMETHING away from the winners...please!  lol

[beckaliz]

I read an opinion article recently somewhere about how a lot of gaming fans are very anal retentive when it comes to graphics being constantly more superior all the time.

A game shouldn't have to pander to the lowest common denominator but, tragically, for them to have the resources to produce a game at all, they need to make a profit off of said lowest common denominator. Fact is, no big gaming company is going to intentionally spend more time and money on an overabundance of tiny details than they are on shiny graphics. The lowest common denominator (plus myself and I'm sure others) appreciates those shiny graphics. I also like having more time spent in a fewer number of characters than those efforts being spread out over a bunch of NPCs you're not going to give half a rat's keister about.

Culture changes, fads change, companies have to evolve and move along with it. As much as older games have different kinds of charm than newer games, they can't be playing the same tune off into eternity.

Modifié par beckaliz, 08 juillet 2011 - 04:55 .

[Pathforge]

beckaliz wrote...

I read an opinion article recently somewhere about how a lot of gaming fans are very anal retentive when it comes to graphics being constantly more superior all the time.

A game shouldn't have to pander to the lowest common denominator but, tragically, for them to have the resources to produce a game at all, they need to make a profit off of said lowest common denominator. Fact is, no big gaming company is going to intentionally spend more time and money on an overabundance of tiny details than they are on shiny graphics. The lowest common denominator (plus myself and I'm sure others) appreciates those shiny graphics. I also like having more time spent in a fewer number of characters than those efforts being spread out over a bunch of NPCs you're not going to give half a rat's keister about.

Culture changes, fads change, companies have to evolve and move along with it. As much as older games have different kinds of charm than newer games, they can't be playing the same tune off into eternity.

Graphics for certain games matter big time.  Take L.A. Noire for instance.  The GAME itself is alright.  Looking at it however, is incredible and that's what brings in the WOW factor.  So if you want pretty pictures, get that.  Go pick up Battlefield 3 or Batman Arkham City if you want jaw dropping visuals.  If you want to dish out a massive beating on a constant wave of enemies then buy Titan Quest, get Diablo III when it comes out. 

Certain games need to be done a certain way.  Dragon Age is about STORY and LORE.  Character development.  Not looking good.  The focus of the game is VOICE ACTING and STORY TELLING.  That's what gives Bioware their strength and seperates them from the rest.  EVERY Bioware game has a strong story and awsome characters. When I listen to Hawke talk, I'm not focused on how real his face looks.  I'm interested in what he has to say. Don't get me wrong though...I'm NOT saying make him look like a stick figure.  But the Origins engine would have worked just fine for me. 

About companies evolving - That's what you do when your NOT doing things right.  When you keep screwing up games like Square-Enix and end up in tons of financial trouble.  That's when you want to think about redoing things.  Immersion however, is not a fad in my opinion.  Immersion is how authors to great books win over audiences.  It's how R.A. Salvatore became so popular.  It's why Lord of the Rings has endured to be one of THE best stories EVER written.  You don't change that.  You don't change your writing to fit the times.  You don't make Drizzt run into a group of 2 thousand orcs and within 5 seconds of reading their all in a hundred pieces.  You keep your target fans.  

And just as I have always enjoyed being able to get "pulled into" a book or a game because of a great story 20 yrs ago, I'm still EXACTLY the same now.  And I know I'm not the only one because Dragon Age II received much lower player scores than the original.  And THAT is what matters.  Not the offical reviews that somehow claim it was all 9s.     

Modifié par Pathforge, 08 juillet 2011 - 02:40 .

[DRTJR]

DA2 is flawed but good, Some of it's flaws could have been solved with more time in development. if DA:O was a 9.5 out of 10 DA2 is an 8, Dragon age should be able to do it's own thing

[Pathforge]

DRTJR wrote...

DA2 is flawed but good, Some of it's flaws could have been solved with more time in development. if DA:O was a 9.5 out of 10 DA2 is an 8, Dragon age should be able to do it's own thing

That's my point though.  Dragon Age II should have been MORE than the original.  Once again, they did it right with Mass Effect.  They just took ME1 and made it better. 

And details and effects aren't game specific.  Weather effects and awsome sound effects are patented to a single game.  It makes that uiverse more realistic.  If I'm this ultimate warrior Hawke, why shouldn't I be able to swim in the water and explore that ship wreck on the wounded coast?  Why shouldn't I be able to climb a few hills or slide down the side of a rocky edge? 

If Bethseda can do all these things with Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim...Bioware can surely do it.  This is assuming EA doesn't draw the red line and say "You have one year!"  And look at Oblivion.  They had a fantastic story, with great graphics, voice overs and all kinds of amazing environmental effects.  I don't think wanting to go back and play a game that came out years ago because it's BETTER than the current stuff is a good thing.  Devs need to pay attention to these things.  There is a reason why classics become classics.

DA: Origins goes into my list of games I'll play again in years to come.  Not DA II though.  

[Pathforge]

OBLIVION is another amazing example of what I'm talking about.  You can check out screen shots for it.  I'm not trying to push other games from competitors.  That's why I was trying to stick to Balder's Gate.

Oblivion does everything I'm talking about.  Great graphics, great story, good voice acting, open environments and amazing weather effects.  So it IS possible.    Now Bioware has to contend with Skyrim and if they keep up with this DAII model business...Skyrim is going to be the better game even if DAIII comes out 10yrs from now. 

[Pathforge]

Mash Mashington wrote...

It's Baldur's Gate

AHAHAHA...thanks.  Can't believe all these years I missed that.

[Captain_Obvious]

Pathforge wrote...

OBLIVION is another amazing example of what I'm talking about.  You can check out screen shots for it.  I'm not trying to push other games from competitors.  That's why I was trying to stick to Balder's Gate.

Oblivion does everything I'm talking about.  Great graphics, great story, good voice acting, open environments and amazing weather effects.  So it IS possible.    Now Bioware has to contend with Skyrim and if they keep up with this DAII model business...Skyrim is going to be the better game even if DAIII comes out 10yrs from now. 

This is one of the things that bothered me about Origins.  With the inability to WALK from one town to another combined with the too-infrequent random encounters was just silly.  That's one thing that both Bethesda and Rockstar have nailed.  I would love it if both Origins and DA2 were open-world, but sadly that's not the case.  The only problem with Oblivion's voice acting was that they hired the same five people to do all of the lines. 

Bioware really shines with the characters and team interactions.  There's really none of this in Bethesda's games.  I love both companies, but I think each one has an area of strength that the other lacks. 

[Torax]

Also keep in mind inflation versus what people are willing to pay for a game. Games have sat at a standard price for a while now yet the cost to create the games goes higher. So you sit in this spiral of overhead and and having a set income per unit you had years ago. So you have to cut corners at times on top of that put even more into marketing to get added units sold if at all possible. Graphics always have to be better to appease some but not all will care about what bothers you while others will agree. A developer could up the graphics at a cost of something else which angers others. The only other solution is just to end up doing things like hundred different sims, guitar hero, grand theft auto and about every sports game. Since they all are basically the same things recycled it's easy to make. Meanwhile RPG's have so a ton of things to put into the games and usually things do get sacrificed.

Complain all you want that it's not the game you wished it to be. But it has it's own lore and offers a ton of it to the players within the game if they actually took the time to read it all. The game was voiced fine enough for me. It's sequel is far different than the original but I have played them plenty. Just like I've probably wasted 1.5-2months of my life likely replaying KotoR over the years it feels like. Just because it's not exactly like another and game I liked does not mean it's some drastic problem. I've also noticed over the years that it's far easier to look at older games with rose colored glasses. No games are ever perfect and they all have flaws. Also as an aside. Open world maps tend to be more boring and about exploring hoping to find what you need. A path based map in an RPG is perfectly find in any game. Plus generally any game using open world maps tend to feel like they're bland in comparison to me. Rose Colored Glasses.

[Pathforge]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

This is one of the things that bothered me about Origins.  With the inability to WALK from one town to another combined with the too-infrequent random encounters was just silly.  That's one thing that both Bethesda and Rockstar have nailed.  I would love it if both Origins and DA2 were open-world, but sadly that's not the case.  The only problem with Oblivion's voice acting was that they hired the same five people to do all of the lines. 

Bioware really shines with the characters and team interactions.  There's really none of this in Bethesda's games.  I love both companies, but I think each one has an area of strength that the other lacks. 

You are absolutely correct.  Bioware shines through with voice acting and also character development is awsome.  But in a fantasy world...it takes more than that.  I would rather play the silent hero, than be confined with no realism.

On the other hand...DA: Origins had such a compelling story and a better sense of exploration compared to DAII.  It just made DA Origins the better game.  DAII felt like they just took Awakening and put different characters and a different city.  DAII was like a long expansion to me.  Not worthy of being a sequel. 

[Pathforge]

Torax wrote...

Also keep in mind inflation versus what people are willing to pay for a game. Games have sat at a standard price for a while now yet the cost to create the games goes higher. So you sit in this spiral of overhead and and having a set income per unit you had years ago. So you have to cut corners at times on top of that put even more into marketing to get added units sold if at all possible. Graphics always have to be better to appease some but not all will care about what bothers you while others will agree. A developer could up the graphics at a cost of something else which angers others. The only other solution is just to end up doing things like hundred different sims, guitar hero, grand theft auto and about every sports game. Since they all are basically the same things recycled it's easy to make. Meanwhile RPG's have so a ton of things to put into the games and usually things do get sacrificed.

Complain all you want that it's not the game you wished it to be. But it has it's own lore and offers a ton of it to the players within the game if they actually took the time to read it all. The game was voiced fine enough for me. It's sequel is far different than the original but I have played them plenty. Just like I've probably wasted 1.5-2months of my life likely replaying KotoR over the years it feels like. Just because it's not exactly like another and game I liked does not mean it's some drastic problem. I've also noticed over the years that it's far easier to look at older games with rose colored glasses. No games are ever perfect and they all have flaws. Also as an aside. Open world maps tend to be more boring and about exploring hoping to find what you need. A path based map in an RPG is perfectly find in any game. Plus generally any game using open world maps tend to feel like they're bland in comparison to me. Rose Colored Glasses.

You're right on all your points.  Again I'll say though that I'm not asking for a Baldur's Gate remake.  I was simply pointing out all the amazing details integrated into a game that was released so long ago.  

About open world rpgs being boring...that's why you get Diablo.  Interesting story, right to the point.  I don't think inflation has anything to do with anything.  If another company can do it, than it IS possible.  That's why I put Oblivion and Skyrim on here.  That's why the Oblivion did so well.  I'm not throwing trash into the mix...I'm using games that have won tons of awards and stole shows all on their own.  There is an important reason they did so well. 

I don't need every rpg to be exactly the same....BUT certain elements NEED TO BE.

[FieryDove]

Pathforge wrote...

Hello there.  I'm not sure I can get an answer to this question though I was hoping we could get Bioware here.  In regards to Dragon Age II, did EA give you a specific deadline to get this game out?  Was it pressure from the publisher that forced Dragon Age II to be released the way it was?    

Do you really expect Bioware to come out and say that EA rushed them, ruined the game or anything else?
I'm sure the developers did the best they could given the time and resources allotted for DA2. Do I think it was unwise to change so much (art style) given restrictions? Yes but that's for another thread maybe.

Pathforge wrote...
A sequel should always be MORE than the original.  The goal should always be to top what you did before.  Not do less.  Different can be great.  New can be great...but Dragon Age II needed to be more than just a good audio book.  They did it right with Mass Effect 2.  They simply took ME1 and made it better.  Added more intensity to the fire. 

I agree a sequel should be more than the first installment. I disagree with ME2 is better than ME1 all in all but again that's for another thread...in another forum as well.

Pathforge wrote...
Graphics for certain games matter big time. 

Graphics matter for all games now. Just because some (few) can and will play tiny sprite games or whatever isn't reason to commit business suicide. The public has shown it likes shiny, even if it costs resources in all other areas of the game they want BLING.

There have even been a number of people here complaining about DA2 graphics saying they would take 20hrs off the game just to have everything look shiny and new. There are many people satisfied with 5-10 hr games but most of those games come with some form or many forms of MP. If statistics are to be belived half of the gaming population never finishes a game no matter what kind of game it is. The majority left play a game once and move on to next shiny or some few replay a game many times. With that in mind first impressions and graphics are the most important aspect to many.

I wish it wasn't so, then game development costs can be sane again and people could get more *game* for the $$ but alas.

[Torax]

Sequels being better than the original is arguable at best. So for example bringing it up. ME2 is so far different from it's original that it's not truly a sequel. It's a game within it'self. It's also unfair because ME1 was so terribly flawed compared so of course many were pleased to see the difference in ME2. Should also note that series was basically a console game ported to the PC. So it's meh in the rpg format for that. Dragon Age Origins felt far more solid than ME1 by a land slide to me. DA2 felt more like a sort of twisting into a ME2 kind of feel which doesn't truly feel like the traditional fantasy rpg.

Can name many games for what features you prefer but they are not perfect. Look at for example Batman Arkham Aslyum as a game. Graphically it's great. But it's basically a great looking button masher. The maps overall is pretty small and you'd have it memorized before you're done with your first play through. It's saving graces to me was basically just the graphics and the voice work of Mark Hammill. Some may treat it like it's the best game ever but it's another that is probably best on console for button mashing. But Arkham Aslyum is over even faster than DA2. So instead you waste your time in B:AA hunting down trophies the entire time as opposed to them making larger maps, more characters and so on. Just so the game can be shiney.

Modifié par Torax, 08 juillet 2011 - 06:04 .

[Pathforge]

In response to FieryDove

1. Nope, not expecting Bioware to come out and say "Yeah it's EAs fault" but rather - Yes, we did have deadlines to meet. It would help me better understand why DAII was released the way it was. And perhaps more people would speak out to EA.

2. ME1 is a fantastic game. When ME2 came out, I happily replayed ME1 and loved it. It's a classic. But ME2 blew me away more so than the first.

3. About graphics - Creating a Legacy for yourself from a business stand point should be more important than making a quick buck. Blizzard for example - Did Starcraft II have jaw dropping visuals? NO. The game was just GOOD. Even Diablo III. It's a birds eye view. Does it look good? Sure it does. Does it compare to the graphics of Red Dead Redemption? Of course not. Does that matter though? NO. So again...shiny doesn't cut it. It's all about the GAME itself. Not "Wow...look at how many wrinkles in that guys face! Looks look my grandfather in REAL LIFE!"

Graphics always get better.  So if you focus all on these superb engines...by next year ALL games will look better than yours anyway.  Technolgoy moves along too fast to keep up.  This isn't the 90's anymore where it takes a few years for ground breaking visuals to come out.  So to get around that, you focus on the LITTLE stuff that NO ONE ELSE takes the time to work on.  Hence the reason I still play games like Chrono Trigger and Castlevania: Symphony of the NIght.  Graphics have ZERO to do with it. 

Modifié par Pathforge, 08 juillet 2011 - 06:09 .

[Torax]

Pathforge wrote...

In response to FieryDove

1. Nope, not expecting Bioware to come out and say "Yeah it's EAs fault" but rather - Yes, we did have deadlines to meet. It would help me better understand why DAII was released the way it was. And perhaps more people would speak out to EA.

2. ME1 is a fantastic game. When ME2 came out, I happily replayed ME1 and loved it. It's a classic. But ME2 blew me away more so than the first.

3. About graphics - Creating a Legacy for yourself from a business stand point should be more important than making a quick buck. Blizzard for example - Did Starcraft II have jaw dropping visuals? NO. The game was just GOOD. Even Diablo III. It's a birds eye view. Does it look good? Sure it does. Does it compare to the graphics of Red Dead Redemption? Of course not. Does that matter though? NO. So again...shiny doesn't cut it. It's all about the GAME itself. Not "Wow...look at how many wrinkles in that guys face! Looks look my grandfather in REAL LIFE!"

I believe their point is that you may not see it the the games that way. But it appears many do see them that way. Especially the ones likely to rent, resell their games which is such a giant turn over rate for console gamers for sure. That is why many games suffer now including RPG games. RPG mostly fit the PC players, swapping discs on a pc is just old habbit compared and changing a disc in a console was just not happening. So now we have this merger of media with console + pc for rpg games since DVD discs allow for consoles to take that much data. So now you will start to find rpg games that are designed around console players and to that fickle market. Prepare to be dissapointed.

[FieryDove]

Pathforge wrote...

In response to FieryDove

3. About graphics - Creating a Legacy for yourself from a business stand point should be more important than making a quick buck. Blizzard for example - Did Starcraft II have jaw dropping visuals? NO. The game was just GOOD. Even Diablo III. It's a birds eye view. Does it look good? Sure it does. Does it compare to the graphics of Red Dead Redemption? Of course not. Does that matter though? NO. So again...shiny doesn't cut it. It's all about the GAME itself. Not "Wow...look at how many wrinkles in that guys face! Looks look my grandfather in REAL LIFE!"

Graphics always get better.  So if you focus all on these superb engines...by next year ALL games will look better than yours anyway.  Technolgoy moves along too fast to keep up.  This isn't the 90's anymore where it takes a few years for ground breaking visuals to come out.  So to get around that, you focus on the LITTLE stuff that NO ONE ELSE takes the time to work on.  Hence the reason I still play games like Chrono Trigger and Castlevania: Symphony of the NIght.  Graphics have ZERO to do with it. 

To me and you and some few others graphics are not that important, but just like catering only to *hardcore* RPG fans vs mass market is not viable in today's market. I didn't make this up, this is just how things are.

I thought SC2 looked very good, and Blizzard games always have had great looking in-game movies (for the time) that helps push the game story along nicely. (The archangel in D2 for example)

[Pathforge]

In response to Torax

First off, Batman Arkham Asylum was in the Guiness Book of Records for crying out loud lol.  Go to gametrailers and see what Michael Pachter has to say about it as well.  Graphics was one of MANY things that made the game one of the GREATEST games to be released in a long long time.  It was more than just a button masher.  You didn't HAVE to beat the daylights out of people to get around either.  Then again, our taste in games could just be very different. 

Mass Effect 1 was truly a fantastic game.  It's in my list of "I'm going to be playing this 10 years from now just because it's awsome".  My point was not to say ME1 is crap compared to part 2.  Just that I had that train of thought where - How much better can a new Mass Effect be than the original.  Then I played part 2 and it blew me away. 

DA II didn't do that.   

[Torax]

Pathforge wrote...

In response to Torax

First off, Batman Arkham Asylum was in the Guiness Book of Records for crying out loud lol.  Go to gametrailers and see what Michael Pachter has to say about it as well.  Graphics was one of MANY things that made the game one of the GREATEST games to be released in a long long time.  It was more than just a button masher.  You didn't HAVE to beat the daylights out of people to get around either.  Then again, our taste in games could just be very different. 

Mass Effect 1 was truly a fantastic game.  It's in my list of "I'm going to be playing this 10 years from now just because it's awsome".  My point was not to say ME1 is crap compared to part 2.  Just that I had that train of thought where - How much better can a new Mass Effect be than the original.  Then I played part 2 and it blew me away. 

DA II didn't do that.   

Personally I found ME1 to be graphically poor, slow, boring and to a point at times buggy. I did not find the story greatly compelling either in the end. It wasn't a horrible game but it was not even in my top of rpg list. I've only played it a few times but by the 2nd play through I noticed that the game didn't change for hardly anything so that is why I wouldn't even really call it a RPG. It's just a well voiced linear compared. Rose colored glasses.