180 réponses à ce sujet

[Joy Divison]

txgoldrush wrote...

ever heard of editorals....

thats how I write, get used to it.

Editorials typically go through a sceeening process which prevent those from proclaiming opinions to be objective realities from ever being published.

[Captain_Obvious]

Joy Divison wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

ever heard of editorals....

thats how I write, get used to it.

Editorials typically go through a sceeening process which prevent those from proclaiming opinions to be objective realities from ever being published.

That's peer-reviewed journals.  Editorials are by definition always opinion pieces. 

[nitefyre410]

Karsciyin wrote...

I feel like what REALLY hurt Bioware was the time constraints. They didn't have enough time to do market research, extensive environmental modelling, ACTUAL QUESTS instead of just giving out junk and excessive enemy spawning etc.... given a couple more years, and the chance for more detail, Dragon Age 2 wouldn't have gottens o much flak.

 


Duke Nukem  Forever and Too Human(And I REALLY wanted to like Too Human because I like Norse Mythology) 

Those games had 10 years and various developement issues and so on. Oh and alas Starscraft:Ghost.  gone but it everyreally saw the world.   

Yet Always you have to look at what you competiors are doing a extra six months or so would have  DA 2 going up against BF 3.  Extra  year or so - give or take   and  DA 2 is going head to head with  Mass Effect 3.  Great for the fans - not so good from business stand point... then again some creative marketing and little of not playing it  safe. So yes I agree  DA 2 could have definetly used some more time in the oven  to get all nice and golden.  I just don't see where without pushing it back to holiday 2012.  

[txgoldrush]

Wozearly wrote...

xkg wrote...

From Lead Designer of DAO:

We were nearing the end of active work on design content for Dragon Age… there was still a lot more bug fixing/polishing/ and fill-content generation ahead but the core plot/writing and level design was finished. My work was rapidly shifting into that of reviewing what the team had put together.
Discussion on Dragon Age 2 began around this time and looking ahead I knew that I wasn’t going to be satisfied with what Dragon Age 2 would be.

http://blog.brentkno...08-summer-2009/

Discussing the direction of the franchise isn't quite the same as fixing it in stone - but I accept your point. I wasn't aware they'd been discussing things in enough detail for the lead designer to decide to jump ship on that basis (although he may have felt the time had come in any case).

txgoldrush wrote...

Then the #1 problem is not DAII,
but the fans of Origins who want the same things over and over again.
The same conservative style, the same gameplay, the same style of
characters, the same story. If Bioware listened to them, everything
would be THE SAME. Why can't fans be open minded? I don't think Bioware
should cater to fans that don't accept change.

Really, Wind Waker
and Twilight Princess proved how completely idiotic fan bases are.
Remember the "Celda" controversey when cartoon Link was intorduced the
first time. Because idiot fans wanted Ocarina of Time all over again.
Then the games release shut them the hell up, especially about its art
style. Then comes Twilight Princess, pure fan service. After incredible
hype before and during release, the game truly showed what it was. A
cliched by the numbers Zelda that didn't stand the test of time and was
even surpassed by a more innovative Zelda style game in Okami in
acclaim. Even the creator wasn't happy with Twilight Princess. And look
which game won GameFAQs game of the decade....Majora's Mask, the most
oddball and progressive Zelda game.

Change for change's sake is not necessarily a good thing, y'know.

Making dramatic changes that your customer base hasn't bought into is, to say the least, a bit of a step into the unknown. Innovation can produce some pretty amazing things, I agree...I'm glad that the likes of Ion Storm, Looking Glass Studios, Bethesda and Paradox Interactive all went in unexpected directions with the types of games they created.

...however, that said, you'll note that their sequels tend to echo the core qualities of the original / previous game...and often play and 'feel' very familiar, rarely changing huge amounts in a single release. Its actually a well-trodden product development and branding process - mainly because its proven to be a successful approach in most cases.

Radical innovation is more usually kept for something new, to avoid exactly the problems Bioware ran into with DA:O fans not liking DA2 because so many things were different (and not necessarily better), and appealed to different qualities in a player.

The best example of this is dear ol' Coca Cola. In blind taste tests, people hugely preferred a new formula they'd worked on, so they replaced the original with it. Without much in the way of warning or fanfare. Absolute uproar ensued - they got grief from all directions, people were going out of the way to buy up 'old' coke and after a relatively short time Coca Cola abandoned the idea and went back to the original formula.

Its fine to take a theoretical standpoint and accuse the millions of Coke customers of being idiots as they didn't like the 'superior-tasting' version and wanted to go back to the original, but the fact that it wasn't the Coke they expected and thought they were buying was exactly the issue that generated the fury. It was an error of branding, not of product.

Its still regarded as one of the world's worst marketing disasters.

However rehashing the same formula over an dover again its not good either, especially after a long while.

DAII did echo the core qualities of the originial....its tactical combat and the "gambit" system. It just put an action focus to it and made it faster. In fact, the only real change from the console version of DAO is faster speed and no auto attack. 

Innovative ideas can fail, but they can also succeed, and when they do, they become more legendary than any rehash. Look at Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar. It not only went against the convention of the series at the time, but also the entire genre. It now still remains THE most important cRPG ever after the first Ultima and Wizardry. Its innovations took the genre from kill the bad guy plots (hell, Ultima IV HAS NO villain) to a medium that can be taken seriously, inspiring the Bioware heads, Chris Avellone, Warren Spector (who directed an Ultima game), and more. Imagine if Richard Garriot rehashed Ultima III all over again because it was successful....Yikes.

Pools of Radiance...innovative...Wasteland and Fallout..innovative...Baldur's Gate...innovattve...Deus Ex...innovative.....Ultima Underworld...innovative....Planescape Torment...innovative...even Diablo was innovative at the time. You can also count Bioware's KOTOR and Mass Effect series. Not only were they good, they brought something new to the table. And even if a game is not innovative mechanically, its narrative can set the game apart, see games like Mask of the Betrayer and Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines. Arcanum is another example with its unique setting. Jade Empire, while following the formula of KOTOR too much, has a very unique setting for a WRPG.

And even if a game does fail or doesn't execute....if its innovation is noteworthy, its a step forward.

And just because a major innovation in a series failed doesn't mean going back to the normal formula means success again. Look at Heroes of Might and Magic V, it got an even WORSE reception than Heroes IV despite going back to the Heroes III formula. Now we have fans whining over Heroes VI changes and not reserving judgement until release.

The problem with DAO is despite it being a new franchise, borrows way too many elements from past RPGs and have the same Bioware formula of past games. The problem is that DAO was a new franchise but FAILED to innovate (as you said innovation should be saved for something new), so when Bioware failed to do that, it made them want to change things up for the sequel. I think Hellforges Bioware Cliche Chart really did affect the DA team.

And really, if they did follow DAO formula for the sequel, then it would be criticized for following formula and not breaking from it, which would have also hurt Bioware's repuation as creative game and story writers.

This is not the New Coke....because DAO is not being replaced. Old Coke was being replaced, that what the outrage was. Even if DAII and DAIII changes direction, DAO is still available, that wasn't the case for Coca Cola.

[Realmzmaster]

nitefyre410 wrote...

xkg wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...
Been with Bioware all way  back  days  BG and Icewind dale days and it  does not bother me and I have played both console and PC.  Really  a lot i think is overly dramic Its not like the pulled a Arksys  who took Guilty  Gear from a fighting game to a brawler now that was crazy move   the entinre fighting community was like... "Herp"

So you have been "with Bioware" for so long and you don't know that Icewind Dale isn't a Bioware game ?

You know sir  you are right getting  forgotful in  my old age...  


Hard to remember when both  take place in the sam D&D universe and both play pretty much the same.  

 Icewind Dale was by Black Isle using the Bioware Infinity engine which is why it plays much like Baldur's Gate. Also as you state the same universe (Forgotten Realms) is used. Also Black Isle used Baldur's Gate as a template for their games. So it is not surprising you may confuse them. No harm and no foul. I am also in that forgetful age group.

[Sidney]

Karsciyin wrote...

I feel like what REALLY hurt Bioware was the time constraints. They didn't have enough time to do market research, extensive environmental modelling, ACTUAL QUESTS instead of just giving out junk and excessive enemy spawning etc.... given a couple more years, and the chance for more detail, Dragon Age 2 wouldn't have gottens o much flak.

Time crunch problem was that they didn't just cut n' paste the DAO engine. If they'd not switched up a lot of stuff and just done the DAA approach of using the same underlying mechanics and animations and then laid a new story  on top of it they might have gotten away (hell would have) with the shorter timeline. When they decided to make a lot of underlying changes it affects the ability to use those sorts of architectural changes well and so you get waves and recycled environments plus the shoddy QA work for the game and the balancing issues.

As much as I like the new skill trees, the voiced protagonist the more repsonsive combat and so forth the price they paid was a loss in quality on a lot of other areas.

[bEVEsthda]

[quote]txgoldrush wrote...
However rehashing the same formula over an dover again its not good either, especially after a long while.[/quote]
But a sequel to DA:O would hardly be repeating a formula over and over again. DA:O was a unique game, there isn't any like it and there wasn't any before, so this argument that you repeat over and over again lack foundation, it floats unsupported over a void, that far, far below lets you maybe discern something that maybe looks like Baldurs Gate.

So obviously, what you consider old, repeated, etc is just the western RPG genre's general approach to gameplay.
Meanwhile, we are up to above our heads in the extremely old and non-innovative Donkey Kong/Nintendo gameplay paradigm that you think is so hot: Any goofy mechanics&symbols it takes to represent -> proceed, bash baddies, proceed, peck on boss for long time, pick up the glowing jewels, go to next section along the path...
I'm pretty convinced (from your writings) that you are unable to view games from any other reference frame than this, and I don't think you're even aware of it. But switching game genre to a different isn't innovation. It's just a switch. And the Nintendo genre is neither newer nor more innovative than what you label as "oldschool". Nor is there any evidence at all to support that "oldschool" should have lost its appeal on the market.

There is nothing innovative about DA2. It's been said many times before, but it apparently needs to be said again.
The only thing it does is that it makes a Donkey Kong console game of DA. It's a different game for different gamers. Regardless of it's merits or faults, that is what is DA2's central problem.

Just consider the combat gameplay. There's not even a hint of realism. It's just different symbolic, cartoonish representations of bashing the baddies. And every class has every type of effect. close|area|ranged. They're really all the same. They just come in different colors. It's just that the mage is a more powerful ranged fighter than any of the other. In other ways you don't really need a mage. Because everyone has fantastic and unrealistic powers. Like Varric's hail of arrows. It's a gameplay that has given up all pretensions of realism, immersion or simulation. It's just symbolic. A Nintendo platformer.

There isn't anything really bad about that of course (except that it's very old and worn), and you can absolutely make 'fun' gameplay of it. But DA:O, just like BG, Morrowind, W2 has a more serious tone, where this kind of unrestrained gameplay doesn't fit in. Neither does the railroad story or new cartoony art style with horns, spikes and feathers.

DA2 makes another big critical change as well. It goes from a roleplay game to a watch-story game. Japanese style. Again, I get the feeling from all your writings that you're not even aware of the difference. That you're so used to and familiar with the watch-story type that you don't even react.

It's not that DA2 is a bad game. It's that DA2 is a different type of game which many DA:O fans have absolutely ZERO interest in. Different, not "innovative".

And I think that's a big problem for DA's future. Because I don't think they can switch back to Origin style again, without abandoning a lot of players once again. I think Bioware have found a recipe for killing a game franchise. What also annoys me is that they didn't realize this, because I'm pretty sure I could have told them long in advance.

I don't know what the best way for the future is. I don't really believe in splitting into two different franchises. Bioware are very ficklish about pretending quality, and they wouldn't want to release two low-budget rehashes of DA:O and DA2. My guess is that they're going to try to go forward with a modified DA2 model. They're going to lose a lot of old fans, but maybe they will be able to build a new market. They seem to have managed that with ME. It doesn't include me. I think ME2 is very uninteresting. While environment and story narrative is much more cohesive and of greater quality than DA2, it ultimately doesn't have anything to offer for me. It's just a bad shooter. I play better shooters.[/quote]

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 29 juillet 2011 - 01:15 .

[Joy Divison]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

ever heard of editorals....

thats how I write, get used to it.

Editorials typically go through a sceeening process which prevent those from proclaiming opinions to be objective realities from ever being published.

That's peer-reviewed journals.  Editorials are by definition always opinion pieces. 

Even lowly newspapers have a process in which opinion pieces are screened and edited.

Even the most mediocre of editorials will not presume opinion is fact and thus at least make allusions to something which might substantiate them.

[Stanley Woo]

Let's get this topic back on track, please. Thank you.

[TheRealJayDee]

txgoldrush wrote...

However rehashing the same formula over an dover again its not good either, especially after a long while.

Again, DA:O = first game of a new franchise, which may have already brought in a lot of new fans through the consoles, people who weren't as familiar with past BioWare RPG classics as some diehard PC veterans. Obviously many people liked the game, so the classic formula might just have some appeal. As for changing a game in regards of deviating from the standard 'BioWare formula', why not? Still no need to radically change most aspects of the previous game, and no excuse for bad execution of said changes.

txgoldrush wrote...

And even if a game does fail or doesn't execute....if its innovation is noteworthy, its a step forward.

Sadly, little of the DA2 'innovation' is widely considered being a step forward. Some may be, but given the scope of the changes it's just not that much. We'll see...

txgoldrush wrote...

And really, if they did follow DAO formula for the sequel, then it would be criticized for following formula and not breaking from it, which would have also hurt Bioware's repuation as creative game and story writers.

We don't know that, and quite probably never will.

txgoldrush wrote...

This is not the New Coke....because DAO is not being replaced. Old Coke was being replaced, that what the outrage was. Even if DAII and DAIII changes direction, DAO is still available, that wasn't the case for Coca Cola.

Sadly it kind of is. If DA:O ends up being 'the last of it's kind', I would consider this type of game pretty much being replaced. Sure, DA:O will always be there, but that wouldn't make it less painful watching the DA story continue in a form I might not like. Even DA:O doesn't provide unlimited enjoyment...

[TheRealJayDee]

bEVEsthda wrote...
It's not that DA2 is a bad game. It's that DA2 is a different type of game which many DA:O fans have absolutely ZERO interest in. Different, not "innovative".

And I think that's a big problem for DA's future. Because I don't think they can switch back to Origin style again, without abandoning a lot of players once again. I think Bioware have found a recipe for killing a game franchise. What also annoys me is that they didn't realize this, because I'm pretty sure I could have told them long in advance.

Yeah, I'm totally unsure how to continue the franchise. While I want/need a return to a more DA:O type of game (with the neccessary improvements) and a change of the look of the game to something more like the old visual design, most of the people who love DA2 probably won't. Really hard to find a satisfying compromise...

And, as you said, this whole situation just seems so frustratingly unneccesary, because completely avoidable.

[txgoldrush]

[quote]bEVEsthda wrote...

[quote]txgoldrush wrote...
However rehashing the same formula over an dover again its not good either, especially after a long while.[/quote]
But a sequel to DA:O would hardly be repeating a formula over and over again. DA:O was a unique game, there isn't any like it and there wasn't any before, so this argument that you repeat over and over again lack foundation, it floats unsupported over a void, that far, far below lets you maybe discern something that maybe looks like Baldurs Gate.

So obviously, what you consider old, repeated, etc is just the western RPG genre's general approach to gameplay.
Meanwhile, we are up to above our heads in the extremely old and non-innovative Donkey Kong/Nintendo gameplay paradigm that you think is so hot: Any goofy mechanics&symbols it takes to represent -> proceed, bash baddies, proceed, peck on boss for long time, pick up the glowing jewels, go to next section along the path...
I'm pretty convinced (from your writings) that you are unable to view games from any other reference frame than this, and I don't think you're even aware of it. But switching game genre to a different isn't innovation. It's just a switch. And the Nintendo genre is neither newer nor more innovative than what you label as "oldschool". Nor is there any evidence at all to support that "oldschool" should have lost its appeal on the market.

There is nothing innovative about DA2. It's been said many times before, but it apparently needs to be said again.
The only thing it does is that it makes a Donkey Kong console game of DA. It's a different game for different gamers. Regardless of it's merits or faults, that is what is DA2's central problem.

Just consider the combat gameplay. There's not even a hint of realism. It's just different symbolic, cartoonish representations of bashing the baddies. And every class has every type of effect. close|area|ranged. They're really all the same. They just come in different colors. It's just that the mage is a more powerful ranged fighter than any of the other. In other ways you don't really need a mage. Because everyone has fantastic and unrealistic powers. Like Varric's hail of arrows. It's a gameplay that has given up all pretensions of realism, immersion or simulation. It's just symbolic. A Nintendo platformer.

There isn't anything really bad about that of course (except that it's very old and worn), and you can absolutely make 'fun' gameplay of it. But DA:O, just like BG, Morrowind, W2 has a more serious tone, where this kind of unrestrained gameplay doesn't fit in. Neither does the railroad story or new cartoony art style with horns, spikes and feathers.

DA2 makes another big critical change as well. It goes from a roleplay game to a watch-story game. Japanese style. Again, I get the feeling from all your writings that you're not even aware of the difference. That you're so used to and familiar with the watch-story type that you don't even react.

It's not that DA2 is a bad game. It's that DA2 is a different type of game which many DA:O fans have absolutely ZERO interest in. Different, not "innovative".

And I think that's a big problem for DA's future. Because I don't think they can switch back to Origin style again, without abandoning a lot of players once again. I think Bioware have found a recipe for killing a game franchise. What also annoys me is that they didn't realize this, because I'm pretty sure I could have told them long in advance.

I don't know what the best way for the future is. I don't really believe in splitting into two different franchises. Bioware are very ficklish about pretending quality, and they wouldn't want to release two low-budget rehashes of DA:O and DA2. My guess is that they're going to try to go forward with a modified DA2 model. They're going to lose a lot of old fans, but maybe they will be able to build a new market. They seem to have managed that with ME. It doesn't include me. I think ME2 is very uninteresting. While environment and story narrative is much more cohesive and of greater quality than DA2, it ultimately doesn't have anything to offer for me. It's just a bad shooter. I play better shooters.[/quote]
[/quote]

DAO is HARDLY unique.

The combat system is ripped from FFXII





Talk about JRPG influence...lol...why not rip one off.....

And lets not forget the Hellforge Bioware Cliche chart when it comes to narrative. Yes, DAO is a new franchise, HOEVER, it borrows heavily from other past Bioware games so it loses its identity as a new franchise.

And how is DAO not cartoonish...it has the same disbelief  And DAO has a hail of arrows ability as well, so much for that games "realism". If you want to talk dark and gritty, DAII is FAR darker than DAO, especially in its narrative tone. And DAO didn't railroad???? It railroaded except that you had four train stations to pick from in the mid game.
Funny how you mention Nintendo when they are the most innovative company in gaming......

And how does DAII innovate....

Well the friendship rivalry meter allows you to have more character development paths and now more than ever, you can disagree with a party member without them leaving or losing approval with you so you lock their character quests or development. Bioware should expand on this idea by offering alternate companion quests for friends and rivals instead of one.

For Bioware only innovation, it breaks the formula that games past had almost completely. Also the tone is not triumphant like the other games.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 30 juillet 2011 - 01:53 .

[csfteeeer]

txgoldrush wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
However rehashing the same formula over an dover again its not good either, especially after a long while.

But a sequel to DA:O would hardly be repeating a formula over and over again. DA:O was a unique game, there isn't any like it and there wasn't any before, so this argument that you repeat over and over again lack foundation, it floats unsupported over a void, that far, far below lets you maybe discern something that maybe looks like Baldurs Gate.

So obviously, what you consider old, repeated, etc is just the western RPG genre's general approach to gameplay.
Meanwhile, we are up to above our heads in the extremely old and non-innovative Donkey Kong/Nintendo gameplay paradigm that you think is so hot: Any goofy mechanics&symbols it takes to represent -> proceed, bash baddies, proceed, peck on boss for long time, pick up the glowing jewels, go to next section along the path...
I'm pretty convinced (from your writings) that you are unable to view games from any other reference frame than this, and I don't think you're even aware of it. But switching game genre to a different isn't innovation. It's just a switch. And the Nintendo genre is neither newer nor more innovative than what you label as "oldschool". Nor is there any evidence at all to support that "oldschool" should have lost its appeal on the market.

There is nothing innovative about DA2. It's been said many times before, but it apparently needs to be said again.
The only thing it does is that it makes a Donkey Kong console game of DA. It's a different game for different gamers. Regardless of it's merits or faults, that is what is DA2's central problem.

Just consider the combat gameplay. There's not even a hint of realism. It's just different symbolic, cartoonish representations of bashing the baddies. And every class has every type of effect. close|area|ranged. They're really all the same. They just come in different colors. It's just that the mage is a more powerful ranged fighter than any of the other. In other ways you don't really need a mage. Because everyone has fantastic and unrealistic powers. Like Varric's hail of arrows. It's a gameplay that has given up all pretensions of realism, immersion or simulation. It's just symbolic. A Nintendo platformer.

There isn't anything really bad about that of course (except that it's very old and worn), and you can absolutely make 'fun' gameplay of it. But DA:O, just like BG, Morrowind, W2 has a more serious tone, where this kind of unrestrained gameplay doesn't fit in. Neither does the railroad story or new cartoony art style with horns, spikes and feathers.

DA2 makes another big critical change as well. It goes from a roleplay game to a watch-story game. Japanese style. Again, I get the feeling from all your writings that you're not even aware of the difference. That you're so used to and familiar with the watch-story type that you don't even react.

It's not that DA2 is a bad game. It's that DA2 is a different type of game which many DA:O fans have absolutely ZERO interest in. Different, not "innovative".

And I think that's a big problem for DA's future. Because I don't think they can switch back to Origin style again, without abandoning a lot of players once again. I think Bioware have found a recipe for killing a game franchise. What also annoys me is that they didn't realize this, because I'm pretty sure I could have told them long in advance.

I don't know what the best way for the future is. I don't really believe in splitting into two different franchises. Bioware are very ficklish about pretending quality, and they wouldn't want to release two low-budget rehashes of DA:O and DA2. My guess is that they're going to try to go forward with a modified DA2 model. They're going to lose a lot of old fans, but maybe they will be able to build a new market. They seem to have managed that with ME. It doesn't include me. I think ME2 is very uninteresting. While environment and story narrative is much more cohesive and of greater quality than DA2, it ultimately doesn't have anything to offer for me. It's just a bad shooter. I play better shooters.

DAO is HARDLY unique.

The combat system is ripped from FFXII





Talk about JRPG influence...lol...why not rip one off.....

And lets not forget the Hellforge Bioware Cliche chart when it comes to narrative. Yes, DAO is a new franchise, HOEVER, it borrows heavily from other past Bioware games so it loses its identity as a new franchise.

And how is DAO not cartoonish...it has the same disbelief  And DAO has a hail of arrows ability as well, so much for that games "realism". If you want to talk dark and gritty, DAII is FAR darker than DAO, especially in its narrative tone. And DAO didn't railroad???? It railroaded except that you had four train stations to pick from in the mid game.
Funny how you mention Nintendo when they are the most innovative company in gaming......

And how does DAII innovate....

Well the friendship rivalry meter allows you to have more character development paths and now more than ever, you can disagree with a party member without them leaving or losing approval with you so you lock their character quests or development. Bioware should expand on this idea by offering alternate companion quests for friends and rivals instead of one.

For Bioware only innovation, it breaks the formula that games past had almost completely. Also the tone is not triumphant like the other games.

ok saying that da2 looks darker and grittier than DAO is outright bullS**t.

Modifié par csfteeeer, 30 juillet 2011 - 02:46 .

[Forsoothe]

What's the witcher?

[txgoldrush]

csfteeeer wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
However rehashing the same formula over an dover again its not good either, especially after a long while.

But a sequel to DA:O would hardly be repeating a formula over and over again. DA:O was a unique game, there isn't any like it and there wasn't any before, so this argument that you repeat over and over again lack foundation, it floats unsupported over a void, that far, far below lets you maybe discern something that maybe looks like Baldurs Gate.

So obviously, what you consider old, repeated, etc is just the western RPG genre's general approach to gameplay.
Meanwhile, we are up to above our heads in the extremely old and non-innovative Donkey Kong/Nintendo gameplay paradigm that you think is so hot: Any goofy mechanics&symbols it takes to represent -> proceed, bash baddies, proceed, peck on boss for long time, pick up the glowing jewels, go to next section along the path...
I'm pretty convinced (from your writings) that you are unable to view games from any other reference frame than this, and I don't think you're even aware of it. But switching game genre to a different isn't innovation. It's just a switch. And the Nintendo genre is neither newer nor more innovative than what you label as "oldschool". Nor is there any evidence at all to support that "oldschool" should have lost its appeal on the market.

There is nothing innovative about DA2. It's been said many times before, but it apparently needs to be said again.
The only thing it does is that it makes a Donkey Kong console game of DA. It's a different game for different gamers. Regardless of it's merits or faults, that is what is DA2's central problem.

Just consider the combat gameplay. There's not even a hint of realism. It's just different symbolic, cartoonish representations of bashing the baddies. And every class has every type of effect. close|area|ranged. They're really all the same. They just come in different colors. It's just that the mage is a more powerful ranged fighter than any of the other. In other ways you don't really need a mage. Because everyone has fantastic and unrealistic powers. Like Varric's hail of arrows. It's a gameplay that has given up all pretensions of realism, immersion or simulation. It's just symbolic. A Nintendo platformer.

There isn't anything really bad about that of course (except that it's very old and worn), and you can absolutely make 'fun' gameplay of it. But DA:O, just like BG, Morrowind, W2 has a more serious tone, where this kind of unrestrained gameplay doesn't fit in. Neither does the railroad story or new cartoony art style with horns, spikes and feathers.

DA2 makes another big critical change as well. It goes from a roleplay game to a watch-story game. Japanese style. Again, I get the feeling from all your writings that you're not even aware of the difference. That you're so used to and familiar with the watch-story type that you don't even react.

It's not that DA2 is a bad game. It's that DA2 is a different type of game which many DA:O fans have absolutely ZERO interest in. Different, not "innovative".

And I think that's a big problem for DA's future. Because I don't think they can switch back to Origin style again, without abandoning a lot of players once again. I think Bioware have found a recipe for killing a game franchise. What also annoys me is that they didn't realize this, because I'm pretty sure I could have told them long in advance.

I don't know what the best way for the future is. I don't really believe in splitting into two different franchises. Bioware are very ficklish about pretending quality, and they wouldn't want to release two low-budget rehashes of DA:O and DA2. My guess is that they're going to try to go forward with a modified DA2 model. They're going to lose a lot of old fans, but maybe they will be able to build a new market. They seem to have managed that with ME. It doesn't include me. I think ME2 is very uninteresting. While environment and story narrative is much more cohesive and of greater quality than DA2, it ultimately doesn't have anything to offer for me. It's just a bad shooter. I play better shooters.

DAO is HARDLY unique.

The combat system is ripped from FFXII





Talk about JRPG influence...lol...why not rip one off.....

And lets not forget the Hellforge Bioware Cliche chart when it comes to narrative. Yes, DAO is a new franchise, HOEVER, it borrows heavily from other past Bioware games so it loses its identity as a new franchise.

And how is DAO not cartoonish...it has the same disbelief  And DAO has a hail of arrows ability as well, so much for that games "realism". If you want to talk dark and gritty, DAII is FAR darker than DAO, especially in its narrative tone. And DAO didn't railroad???? It railroaded except that you had four train stations to pick from in the mid game.
Funny how you mention Nintendo when they are the most innovative company in gaming......

And how does DAII innovate....

Well the friendship rivalry meter allows you to have more character development paths and now more than ever, you can disagree with a party member without them leaving or losing approval with you so you lock their character quests or development. Bioware should expand on this idea by offering alternate companion quests for friends and rivals instead of one.

For Bioware only innovation, it breaks the formula that games past had almost completely. Also the tone is not triumphant like the other games.

ok saying that da2 looks darker and grittier than DAO is outright bullS**t.

DAII IS darker and grittier....especialy its story.

[Travie]

Yay quote tunnels?

[nitefyre410]

Snipping Long Post now matter how  good  they are - makes the thread smile.

Though everytime I see that side byside pic of DA:O tatics screen and FF XII tatics screen I smile a little bit more at irony of it.

Modifié par nitefyre410, 30 juillet 2011 - 03:30 .

[BlueMagitek]

Seriously guys, learn to <snip>. ~_~

Anyway, back to the main topic; Bioware seems to not only listen to fan, but also that bit of data that they collect (who many people complete the game, what Origin/class did they play, m/f, etc). The data probably speaks more than our opinions, really, because it'd hold the story for a greater number of players than something like a poll or a topic would. ^^

[nitefyre410]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Seriously guys, learn to <snip>. ~_~

Anyway, back to the main topic; Bioware seems to not only listen to fan, but also that bit of data that they collect (who many people complete the game, what Origin/class did they play, m/f, etc). The data probably speaks more than our opinions, really, because it'd hold the story for a greater number of players than something like a poll or a topic would. ^^

You sir are using logic and that does not belong on the internet...


btw


I  agree

[Atakuma]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Seriously guys, learn to <snip>. ~_~

Anyway, back to the main topic; Bioware seems to not only listen to fan, but also that bit of data that they collect (who many people complete the game, what Origin/class did they play, m/f, etc). The data probably speaks more than our opinions, really, because it'd hold the story for a greater number of players than something like a poll or a topic would. ^^

I agree, I just wish Bioware would be less gung ho with their response to feedback. Try to improve upon what's there istead of just completely changing it.

[BlueMagitek]

I'll admit that I was a tad annoyed with how they upgraded ME2. But then I was one of the few people who enjoyed the Mako, in all of the steep cliffed glory, so who knows what I know, right?

Unfortunately the changes that I disliked the most (voiced VA, lack of race changes), are probably here to stay (being tied to one another ~_~). I don't mind that the character isn't the Warden; that's fine. New character every game, new region; that's cool, I want to explore DA's world anyway. But hey, I'm just a fan.

But yes, just by posting on the forums we're the vocal (and split) minority; if everyone who played a Bioware game posted here the poor forum would break (I can barely keep up with the ME3 board as it is). So the telemetry (is that right?) data is the way to go, I guess.

I'm sure they pay some consideration to us though.

[csfteeeer]

txgoldrush wrote...

csfteeeer wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
However rehashing the same formula over an dover again its not good either, especially after a long while.

But a sequel to DA:O would hardly be repeating a formula over and over again. DA:O was a unique game, there isn't any like it and there wasn't any before, so this argument that you repeat over and over again lack foundation, it floats unsupported over a void, that far, far below lets you maybe discern something that maybe looks like Baldurs Gate.

So obviously, what you consider old, repeated, etc is just the western RPG genre's general approach to gameplay.
Meanwhile, we are up to above our heads in the extremely old and non-innovative Donkey Kong/Nintendo gameplay paradigm that you think is so hot: Any goofy mechanics&symbols it takes to represent -> proceed, bash baddies, proceed, peck on boss for long time, pick up the glowing jewels, go to next section along the path...
I'm pretty convinced (from your writings) that you are unable to view games from any other reference frame than this, and I don't think you're even aware of it. But switching game genre to a different isn't innovation. It's just a switch. And the Nintendo genre is neither newer nor more innovative than what you label as "oldschool". Nor is there any evidence at all to support that "oldschool" should have lost its appeal on the market.

There is nothing innovative about DA2. It's been said many times before, but it apparently needs to be said again.
The only thing it does is that it makes a Donkey Kong console game of DA. It's a different game for different gamers. Regardless of it's merits or faults, that is what is DA2's central problem.

Just consider the combat gameplay. There's not even a hint of realism. It's just different symbolic, cartoonish representations of bashing the baddies. And every class has every type of effect. close|area|ranged. They're really all the same. They just come in different colors. It's just that the mage is a more powerful ranged fighter than any of the other. In other ways you don't really need a mage. Because everyone has fantastic and unrealistic powers. Like Varric's hail of arrows. It's a gameplay that has given up all pretensions of realism, immersion or simulation. It's just symbolic. A Nintendo platformer.

There isn't anything really bad about that of course (except that it's very old and worn), and you can absolutely make 'fun' gameplay of it. But DA:O, just like BG, Morrowind, W2 has a more serious tone, where this kind of unrestrained gameplay doesn't fit in. Neither does the railroad story or new cartoony art style with horns, spikes and feathers.

DA2 makes another big critical change as well. It goes from a roleplay game to a watch-story game. Japanese style. Again, I get the feeling from all your writings that you're not even aware of the difference. That you're so used to and familiar with the watch-story type that you don't even react.

It's not that DA2 is a bad game. It's that DA2 is a different type of game which many DA:O fans have absolutely ZERO interest in. Different, not "innovative".

And I think that's a big problem for DA's future. Because I don't think they can switch back to Origin style again, without abandoning a lot of players once again. I think Bioware have found a recipe for killing a game franchise. What also annoys me is that they didn't realize this, because I'm pretty sure I could have told them long in advance.

I don't know what the best way for the future is. I don't really believe in splitting into two different franchises. Bioware are very ficklish about pretending quality, and they wouldn't want to release two low-budget rehashes of DA:O and DA2. My guess is that they're going to try to go forward with a modified DA2 model. They're going to lose a lot of old fans, but maybe they will be able to build a new market. They seem to have managed that with ME. It doesn't include me. I think ME2 is very uninteresting. While environment and story narrative is much more cohesive and of greater quality than DA2, it ultimately doesn't have anything to offer for me. It's just a bad shooter. I play better shooters.

DAO is HARDLY unique.

The combat system is ripped from FFXII





Talk about JRPG influence...lol...why not rip one off.....

And lets not forget the Hellforge Bioware Cliche chart when it comes to narrative. Yes, DAO is a new franchise, HOEVER, it borrows heavily from other past Bioware games so it loses its identity as a new franchise.

And how is DAO not cartoonish...it has the same disbelief  And DAO has a hail of arrows ability as well, so much for that games "realism". If you want to talk dark and gritty, DAII is FAR darker than DAO, especially in its narrative tone. And DAO didn't railroad???? It railroaded except that you had four train stations to pick from in the mid game.
Funny how you mention Nintendo when they are the most innovative company in gaming......

And how does DAII innovate....

Well the friendship rivalry meter allows you to have more character development paths and now more than ever, you can disagree with a party member without them leaving or losing approval with you so you lock their character quests or development. Bioware should expand on this idea by offering alternate companion quests for friends and rivals instead of one.

For Bioware only innovation, it breaks the formula that games past had almost completely. Also the tone is not triumphant like the other games.

ok saying that da2 looks darker and grittier than DAO is outright bullS**t.

DAII IS darker and grittier....especialy its story.

The Story yes, you will hear no arguments from me on that.
it doesn't LOOK darker.

[Wozearly]

txgoldrush wrote...

However rehashing the same formula over an dover again its not good either, especially after a long while.

DAII did echo the core qualities of the originial....its tactical combat and the "gambit" system. It just put an action focus
to it and made it faster. In fact, the only real change from the
console version of DAO is faster speed and no auto attack.

(...and the rest of the post)

Heh...we could probably get into a lengthy debate about what the core qualities of DA:O were - and we'd probably never agree, because what is perceived as critical or highly desirable is different for different people. I don't feel that the things I valued the most were retained in DA2.

As for innovation, you don't *have* to be innovative with a new series in terms of its gameplay, graphics, story structure, etc. Its just the best opportunity to do so.

To me, DA:O wasn't an innovative breakthrough in terms of any specific piece inside it. It was a string of improvements and well-adopted ideas which blended together very well.

Gameplay-wise, it reminded me of BG and KOTOR, but with a series of small, but transformative additions, like the use of tactics. Story-wise, I wasn't surprised to hear that David Gaider had been reading George Martin's novels. In terms of style and feel they managed to blend a relatively grim, humourless setting with tactical use of companions and NPCs to add a comedic uplift.

Innovative? No...but a fantastic improvement on previous Bioware RPGs and, for that matter, other recent RPGs practically across the board. And take the sales figures rather than my word for it.


DA2 didn't innovate especially either. What it did was make further transformative additions, changes and removals, such as;

1) Abilties were now more awesome ™, which meant enemies died faster, which meant we needed much more of them to preserve gameplay challenge, which led to wave combat and the feeling that Hawke was auditioning for a part in Sparta.

2) Graphical reimagination of characters and races established in the original, plus a major graphical overhaul of the look, style (e.g. background object lite - see interview with David Silverman) and feel of characters, weapons, armour and user interface...that was always going to be divisive, and whether you prefer it or not is going to be purely down to aesthetics and/or if you hold the view of "it ain't broke, so don't fix it".

3) Junk loot. Limited ability to visually change companions. Warriors no longer able to dual wield or use bows. No secondary weapons. Arguably these all added something to the game, but most people feel they took something away that was valued in DA:O


It was the transformative bits I always felt were the wrong move. There were too many, and even if the core qualities remained, DA2 had a completely different style and feel.

[Cornelius119]

Player feedback is important but there's always a limit to what they should listen to, not all advice is good advice.

[Perles75]

I'm sure bioware is able to filter interesting and constructive comments from trolly trash