144 réponses à ce sujet

[Jamie_edmo]

infalible wrote...

You've got to love that part of the article:

"We didn't get it wrong, you just can't handle it."

Realistically however I think he's right. I think that the combat system in DA2 was fine, that the changes they made in that regard were perfectly acceptable. Yes, perhaps they went a little too far and ended up with an experience too far removed of DA:O and it's influences (NWN and BG) for hardcore traditionalists to stomach but I don't think they should back peddle on it. I played DA2 through to completion simply because the combat actually was quite a bit of fun, and pretty well done, and mitigated the ****** poor story.

The thing is though like you said they went too far. Not only did they go too far they lost touch with DA:O fans and the question they should have asked is: "Is this a game DA:O fans will like?",  personally for me, no.

Is it a good game? I'd say yes better than average, 7/10 imo.

Should Mike Laidlaw lose his job? Hell no, its horrible to say that. Imo however the team, not just one man should get back to what made DA:O great take what made DA:2 good (?) and go from there, i'm not saying they should make origins 1.5, but DA:2 was so far removed from origins that it didnt even feel like it was part of the dragon age series (apart from the lore obviously). Anyway thats my opinion others may prefer DA:2 over Origins fair enough, but a large part of the fanbase dislike this new direction and I hope bioware take note as they move forward (no more streamlining pls)

Modifié par Jamie_edmo, 10 juillet 2011 - 08:45 .

[Demx]

Huntress wrote...

Wheat wrote...

I really enjoyed DA:O and didn't care for the sequel. I haven't been really following Dragon Age since I played DA:2, is Laidlaw still the lead developer? From all the interviews he seemed pretty committed to keeping all the DA2 changes he made, and only seemed concerned about making sure future games didn't recycle as much content. I suppose I am one of those fans who (as Mike put it) thought: "Wow, this is just too different and I cannot handle it."

So, is he still in charge of the series? Is the "DA2 was a necessary change" still the official policy? I don't mean to stir up any trouble, I am just wondering if I should be paying attention to the development of DLC or DA3, etc.

Thanks in advance!

Are you going to pay him if he is? Why do you care if you are not going to pay him? Afraid of asking him, yourself?

If you want to know, send him a PM! But please, do not post his response, we don't care what he said to you.

Crab much? Even if he PMs Mike, and Mike actually answers back, over half the questions he asked will be ignored.

[JaegerBane]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

Boring stories about politics and high-brow posturing were never something that kept DA:O running,

I didn't think those parts were boring, they were my favorite sections.  

Really? Running around doing chores for inept leaders and taking sides without it meaning anything were your favourite sections?

[xkg]

Wozearly wrote...

xkg wrote...


Hey, why fire him. He was a Lead Writer for Jade Empire - and imo story of JE and JE in general was a very good game.

Maybe he should try that again (i mean the Lead Writer postion) in the next Dragon Age instalment.

Ironically close to my tongue-in-cheek 3 step proposal to solve all of Bioware's problems.

1. Commission Jade Empire 2 with Laidlaw as lead designer of Bioware's more action-driven RPG franchise
2a. Write a grovelling letter to Brent Knowles saying "Come back, all is forgiven..."
2b. Put Brent as lead designer on DA3 with a free hand to make any changes
3. Clearly market JE2 as building on the action side of DA2 and DA3 as the spiritual successor to DA:O/BG

...watch as the Gordian knot is cut and the divided fan base each have a clear franchise to get excited about that appeals to their preferences, with both going on to rock their respective flavours of the RPG genre.

Not bad idea but ...
2a - Can be a problem with that. It looks like it was Brent who left Bioware not the other way around

[ademska]

JaegerBane wrote...

Really? Running around doing chores for inept leaders and taking sides without it meaning anything were your favourite sections?

yes. orzammar proper (not the deep roads) and the landsmeet were easily two of my favorite parts of the entire game.

it's called personal preference.

[Jamie_edmo]

JaegerBane wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

Boring stories about politics and high-brow posturing were never something that kept DA:O running,

I didn't think those parts were boring, they were my favorite sections.  

Really? Running around doing chores for inept leaders and taking sides without it meaning anything were your favourite sections?

They never kept DA:O running but they did add variety to the game, rather than go kill darkspawn, but when you make an entire game like that (see DA2) it wears thin to the point of tedium. My point is when used well they can be good. 

[upsettingshorts]

JaegerBane wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

Boring stories about politics and high-brow posturing were never something that kept DA:O running,

I didn't think those parts were boring, they were my favorite sections.  

Really? Running around doing chores for inept leaders and taking sides without it meaning anything were your favourite sections?

I wouldn't describe it that way.  Hawke got to have opinions on issues, and that was fun to roleplay.  How would Hawke feel about X?  Y?  Would he compromise his beliefs this time given the stakes?  That kind of thing.

Kind of like how I doubt those who liked it would describe killing Darkspawn as "mindless, boring, tedious monster killing" like I would.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 juillet 2011 - 09:07 .

[Blastback]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

Boring stories about politics and high-brow posturing were never something that kept DA:O running,

I didn't think those parts were boring, they were my favorite sections.  

Really? Running around doing chores for inept leaders and taking sides without it meaning anything were your favourite sections?

I wouldn't describe it that way.  Hawke got to have opinions on issues, and that was fun to roleplay.  How would Hawke feel about X?  Y?  Would he compromise his beliefs this time given the stakes?  That kind of thing.

Kind of like how I doubt those who liked it would describe killing Darkspawn as "mindless, boring, tedious monster killing" like I would.

I like the idea of being more politically involved, I just wish that it had felt like our actions had more of an impact. 

[JaegerBane]

OdanUrr wrote...
The premise was that DA2 would be moving through time as DAO moved through space. That is a far more challenging task which, to my mind, DA2 didn't accomplish at all. Without getting into the companion argument again, places should change over the course of time. In DA2 they don't.

That's interesting food for thought. Nonetheless, I agree - the 'moving through time' was virtually non-existent. Hell, I've never even realised the time aspect was supposed to replace the 'moving through space' aspect, the whole '10 years' thing seemed to be such a half-arsed feature that I always assumed it was a marketing gimmick.

Yeesh.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: DA3 will be better than DA2. Why? Because if DA2 accomplished anything, it managed to put a 180-spin (or close) on the direction of the franchise, introducing some new elements like faster and improved combat, or even a more polished (to my mind) UI, if not particularly reminiscent of classic RPGs. All they have to do now is take the feedback from DA2 to heart and build upon that. DA2 introduced the paradigm shift. DA3 won't be doing that again.

I think the issue I have is the design/dev team are either so whacked out or under so much pressure that they actually went with some of the horrendous design decisions that made it into DA2 (the recycled environments for one thing, all of Act 3's lunacy for another), the implication is that any developers that go with stuff like that are not likely to produce a game I'm going to want to play.

It's a shame, really, as I thoroughly enjoyed how the DA2 mage played. But the fact that DA2 got through and released in such a state doesn't bode well for DA3, no matter how much attention they give the feedback.

I'm prepared to be proven wrong, of course, but it's been a while since I've lost so much enthusiasm for a franchise this quickly. DA3 is going to have to be pretty special to get that enthusiasm back, and I'm not confident the dev team are up to the task.

[upsettingshorts]

Blastback wrote...

I like the idea of being more politically involved, I just wish that it had felt like our actions had more of an impact. 

I don't mind that so much.  Especially since such "impact" will be ignored or glossed over in any sequel for reasons that should be obvious to everyone by now. 

The fact I got to define Hawke in ways I didn't think was possible for the Warden (or Revan or the Spirit Monk for that matter) was what was fun about DA2 for me.

[Jamie_edmo]

JaegerBane wrote...
it's been a while since I've lost so much enthusiasm for a franchise this quickly. DA3 is going to have to be pretty special to get that enthusiasm back, and I'm not confident the dev team are up to the task.

This is how I feel as well, with the exception of the team as they did create DA:O, but if they continue to go down the DA:2 route then dragon age wont be a franchise that appeals to me anymore. This is what puts me off Legacy too.

Modifié par Jamie_edmo, 10 juillet 2011 - 09:19 .

[Blastback]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Blastback wrote...

I like the idea of being more politically involved, I just wish that it had felt like our actions had more of an impact. 

I don't mind that so much.  Especially since such "impact" will be ignored or glossed over in any sequel for reasons that should be obvious to everyone by now. 

The fact I got to define Hawke in ways I didn't think was possible for the Warden (or Revan or the Spirit Monk for that matter) was what was fun about DA2 for me.

For me the emphasis is on feel.  I know that the games have to go a certain direction nomatter what for the sake of having a coherent experiance in the future, but in all of Bioware's previous games, it felt like I ackomplished something, where in DA2, I felt impotent.  Like I was a powerless observer for the most important events.  That's just not fun in my opinion.

[JaegerBane]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I wouldn't describe it that way.  Hawke got to have opinions on issues, and that was fun to roleplay.  How would Hawke feel about X?  Y?  Would he compromise his beliefs this time given the stakes?  That kind of thing.

It was cosmetic, thought. Hawke could say all sorts of lovely things but it was all just talk - it didn't actually result in anything. I mean, that whole farce with Orsino at the end was one of the most ridiculous things I've seen in a game for years.

Kind of like how I doubt those who liked it would describe killing Darkspawn as "mindless, boring, tedious monster killing" like I would.

You could call it that, but doing so effectively admits that you didn't like RPG combat, which begs the question what you were playing the RPG for....

[upsettingshorts]

I get that, I didn't feel that way in DA2. It doesn't surprise me that others did.

I felt closer to that in DAO, to be honest, but I think a lot of that is buying into the plot hook.

The fact Hawke, especially my first one who didn't want to see a fight, and definitely didn't want to have to pick one made the ending interesting to me. In that sense, I loved that he failed in his goals and couldn't ultimately change anything. But looking at every single (well, all those that tied into mages/templars or Qunari) quest from a "what can I do here that will ease tensions the most" perspective, and then having it blow up in his face anyway was fun for me, especially because it was so different. I mean, I've played all the typical BioWare formula games before too, and that particular aspect of DA2 was for me, a nice change. Would I like it in every game? Probably not. But as a change of pace it didn't bother me, especially given the "kick over sandcastle" narrative of DA2 as it concerns Thedas.

But of course I get that other people are put off by that.

[Nerevar-as]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I get that, I didn't feel that way in DA2. It doesn't surprise me that others did.

I felt closer to that in DAO, to be honest, but I think a lot of that is buying into the plot hook.

The fact Hawke, especially my first one who didn't want to see a fight, and definitely didn't want to have to pick one made the ending interesting to me. In that sense, I loved that he failed in his goals and couldn't ultimately change anything. But looking at every single (well, all those that tied into mages/templars or Qunari) quest from a "what can I do here that will ease tensions the most" perspective, and then having it blow up in his face anyway was fun for me, especially because it was so different. I mean, I've played all the typical BioWare formula games before too, and that particular aspect of DA2 was for me, a nice change. Would I like it in every game? Probably not. But as a change of pace it didn't bother me, especially given the "kick over sandcastle" narrative of DA2 as it concerns Thedas.

But of course I get that other people are put off by that.

That´s not what I want to see in a game advertised as big in the choice - consequence department (and several reviews said it was the best game so far in that regard, I want the version they played). The idea I got was of being a powerless witness to the events. A game demands too much immersion for such a ploy to work with most players.

[JaegerBane]

Blastback wrote...
For me the emphasis is on feel.  I know that the games have to go a certain direction nomatter what for the sake of having a coherent experiance in the future, but in all of Bioware's previous games, it felt like I ackomplished something, where in DA2, I felt impotent.  Like I was a powerless observer for the most important events.  That's just not fun in my opinion.

My feelings exactly. I don't really understand why anyone would actually enjoy watching their character consistently make no impression whatsoever, no matter how hard they try, but I guess there's always a few who go for the weird stuff.

Regardless, I agree. No matter what the game is that I'm playing, being made to feel that I didn't accomplish *anything* is a sure fire way of killing the fun. I mean, sure, it's different, but I'm surprised when people automatically equate being different with being good.

The reason it's different is because it's rarely done, and it's rarely done because it sucks. The last game I remember being this pointless was Pariah....

Modifié par JaegerBane, 10 juillet 2011 - 09:39 .

[infalible]

Jamie_edmo wrote...

infalible wrote...

You've got to love that part of the article:

"We didn't get it wrong, you just can't handle it."

Realistically however I think he's right. I think that the combat system in DA2 was fine, that the changes they made in that regard were perfectly acceptable. Yes, perhaps they went a little too far and ended up with an experience too far removed of DA:O and it's influences (NWN and BG) for hardcore traditionalists to stomach but I don't think they should back peddle on it. I played DA2 through to completion simply because the combat actually was quite a bit of fun, and pretty well done, and mitigated the ****** poor story.

The thing is though like you said they went too far. Not only did they go too far they lost touch with DA:O fans and the question they should have asked is: "Is this a game DA:O fans will like?",  personally for me, no.

Is it a good game? I'd say yes better than average, 7/10 imo.

Should Mike Laidlaw lose his job? Hell no, its horrible to say that. Imo however the team, not just one man should get back to what made DA:O great take what made DA:2 good (?) and go from there, i'm not saying they should make origins 1.5, but DA:2 was so far removed from origins that it didnt even feel like it was part of the dragon age series (apart from the lore obviously). Anyway thats my opinion others may prefer DA:2 over Origins fair enough, but a large part of the fanbase dislike this new direction and I hope bioware take note as they move forward (no more streamlining pls)

I've said this before and I'll say it again: refininig is the new way to develop games. What development companies like Bioware do is they take a combat system, for example, and remove the "flaws" and "quirks" and refine it down to a "better" experience. What they fail to realise is that the charm in that combat system was in those very quirks and flaws. The little bits that didn't quite work, or were a little fiddly, give it consistency and make it worthwhile.

What DA:2 suffered from was Bioware not liking the figures for DA:O. It didn't matter than fans loved it. It didn't matter than critics praised it. What mattered was that the sales weren't high enough, that the hype wasn't big enough. What they've ended up doing is creating a "do or die" franchise where responding to the low sales has resulted in a dead franchise. And the reality is that very few people outside of the hardcore fan base are going to pick up the game when DA:3 comes out UNLESS it is an amazingly awesome game. And if they don't deliver that, they will lose the core of the franchise and DA will turn inito the CoD of RPGs: high sales, no soul.

[JaegerBane]

ademska wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

Really? Running around doing chores for inept leaders and taking sides without it meaning anything were your favourite sections?

yes. orzammar proper (not the deep roads) and the landsmeet were easily two of my favorite parts of the entire game.

it's called personal preference.

No, the difference there is that you accomplished something. Loghain and Alistair didn't suddenly go mad and turn into giant mutants that need to be tanked after you'd done the work.

[ademska]

JaegerBane wrote...

My feelings exactly. I don't really understand why anyone would actually enjoy watching their character consistently make no impression whatsoever, no matter how hard they try, but I guess there's always a few who go for the weird stuff.

Regardless, I agree. No matter what the game is that I'm playing, being made to feel that I didn't accomplish *anything* is a sure fire way of killing the fun. I mean, sure, it's different, but I'm surprised when people automatically equate being different with being good.

The reason it's different is because it's rarely done, and it's rarely done because it sucks. The last game I remember being this pointless was Pariah....

that bolded bit emphasizes the great difference between your approach to games and my (and ostensibly @shorts') approach to games. i found the narrative of hawke's failure intriguing and compelling on a level i can safely say very few games have reached. it was a deconstruction of everything games have led me to expect in a narrative, and while you may not like it (or understand it, as you admitted), don't sell my intelligence or preferences short by dismissing my opinion as "equating different with good". i've put a lot of thought into my opinions about da2, thank you.

Modifié par ademska, 10 juillet 2011 - 09:46 .

[Blastback]

JaegerBane wrote...

Blastback wrote...
For me the emphasis is on feel.  I know that the games have to go a certain direction nomatter what for the sake of having a coherent experiance in the future, but in all of Bioware's previous games, it felt like I ackomplished something, where in DA2, I felt impotent.  Like I was a powerless observer for the most important events.  That's just not fun in my opinion.

My feelings exactly. I don't really understand why anyone would actually enjoy watching their character consistently make no impression whatsoever, no matter how hard they try, but I guess there's always a few who go for the weird stuff.

Regardless, I agree. No matter what the game is that I'm playing, being made to feel that I didn't accomplish *anything* is a sure fire way of killing the fun. I mean, sure, it's different, but I'm surprised when people automatically equate being different with being good.

The reason it's different is because it's rarely done, and it's rarely done because it sucks. The last game I remember being this pointless was Pariah....

Yeouch

[nijnij]

I think Mike Laidlaw has been doing a terrific job at keeping such a big game coherent in just a year.

[Blastback]

ademska wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

My feelings exactly. I don't really understand why anyone would actually enjoy watching their character consistently make no impression whatsoever, no matter how hard they try, but I guess there's always a few who go for the weird stuff.

Regardless, I agree. No matter what the game is that I'm playing, being made to feel that I didn't accomplish *anything* is a sure fire way of killing the fun. I mean, sure, it's different, but I'm surprised when people automatically equate being different with being good.

The reason it's different is because it's rarely done, and it's rarely done because it sucks. The last game I remember being this pointless was Pariah....

that bolded bit emphasizes the great difference between your approach to games and my (and ostensibly @shorts') approach to games. i found the narrative of hawke's failure intriguing and compelling on a level i can safely say very few games have reached. it was a deconstruction of everything games have led me to expect in a narrative, and while you may not like it (or understand it, as you admitted), don't sell my intelligence or preferences short by dismissing my opinion as "equating different with good". i've put a lot of thought into my opinions about da2, thank you.

I'll be the first to agree that a story with the hero failing is intresting, even good, but I just don't think that it is fun to play.  It's the sort of thing that I think should be reserved for books, or movies, or tv.  and in those mediums, I'd love it.  But it doesn't play to the strengths of a video game, where you are the one doing the failing..

And yeah, that's just my opinion.

[In Exile]

xkg wrote...
Not bad idea but ...
2a - Can be a problem with that. It looks like it was Brent who left Bioware not the other way around

From what he said in his blog, it all read very amicable. Bioware wanted the DA series to introduce elements from ME (cinematic focus, VO) and Brent wanted to design DA:O2. They split over creative differences. 

[In Exile]

Blastback wrote...
For me the emphasis is on feel.  I know that the games have to go a certain direction nomatter what for the sake of having a coherent experiance in the future, but in all of Bioware's previous games, it felt like I ackomplished something, where in DA2, I felt impotent.  Like I was a powerless observer for the most important events.  That's just not fun in my opinion.

It's interesting you put it that way, because that's essentially how DA:O made me feel. The Warden was played the Flemeth, with the only option to get back at her to refuse her plan, and defeating the archdemon does nothing to really change anything about the darkspawn (the continue to exist) and the future of the blights (there are more archdemons, and we don't even know if killing all the archdemons will stop the blight).