1502 réponses à ce sujet

[jds1bio]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

One of the reasons why Call of Duty captivates its audience so well is the adrenaline rush feeling people get when they play on multiplayer. At least that's what my friends and I have come to agree on since we play Call of Duty almost religiously.

If Dragon Age had an adrenaline rush feeling in the storyline and the combat (which means the combat needs to become incredibly tactical), it would help garner more fans.

Of course, that's not the only way the DA series could grab new fans. Most of the people I know however don't like fantasy, so it wouldn't really matter.

And that's sort of the deal right now, isn't it?  In the campaign, COD takes people on a ride, there's not quite as much work to be led through the game.

But with DA, you need to blaze more of your own path, talk to NPCs, read up on even the most basic of DA-lore terms, and suspend disbelief when it comes to magic and dragons and elves and darkspawn.  Then you have to understand who your foes are and why you must combat them, and suspend disbelief when it comes to them also.

With COD, beyond gameplay there's not much to learn about your foes in multiplayer.  Your foes are just people playing the game also, and in some cases you already know your teammates because they're your friends or family.

Modifié par jds1bio, 05 août 2011 - 06:31 .

[ademska]

KennethAFTopp wrote...

I don't think it's crying, it's about explaining his point of view and his thoughts on the dragon age franchise, and that is very cool, he does say alot of good things, but but even Legacy which is the best thing in DA2 and the best DLC of both games, still don't feel quite as good as DA:O mainly because it has the same problems as DAII has. Now I think someone said once that DAII didn't move the franchise forward, but moved it sideways and I agree with that, and if they keep going down this path I am not sure I am interested in the next Dragon Age game. I'll keep my eye on it but still the thoughts and opinions compiled here does not make me excited about the next step in the Dragon Age Franchise.

i meant crying his tears of what must surely be deep sorrow because you don't approve of a potential, vague direction of the series to which you have not actually been privy.

edit: and you were nice to me, so i'll return the favor. my primary point here is that there is no point in decrying what are at this point abstract potentialities. that said, you admitted you'd be keeping an eye on dragon age news, so you're doing better than a lot of 'fans' who throw their hands up in the air sometimes and admit vastly premature defeat.

Modifié par ademska, 05 août 2011 - 06:37 .

[thegoldfinch]

It is difficult to read the comment sections on those two links you provided to EuroGamer and PCGamer, Kothoses. There's no rational discussion. It's just this mire of hate and self-congratulation.

/shudder

I'm playing through the game again, making little notes here and there, but have yet to get to Legacy since I only just my new credit card. Gorram wallet thieves. Anyway, main observation:

This story has moments of brilliance. I mean that. I don't care what anyone says about the game, the brilliance is there. I cannot describe how much I love the Shepherding Wolves quest and how much Katojan sticks out in my mind. I love Flemeth and I love the Arishok and I love Meredith. Their personas and visual designs are fantastic. The quality is evident... but none of the shining moments tie together. It's like the whole thing should have gone through one or two more editing phases before being put out to market. That is the biggest problem for me. Not the combat or the costumes or what have you, but a narrative that did not flow well.

I really think that Athenril should have played a bigger part (or her mercenary counterpart, I don't remember that group so much so I'll just... ignore him). She is the first criminal element you encounter in the game and you spend an entire year working for this woman. She represents where you have come from, and becoming better than her is to become better than who you once where - if I can get a little flighty here.

If the Qunari landed that year also, then the Athenril arc (her "rivalry" with the Coterie) ought to have been tangled up with the Arishok troubles in order to link Hawke to the Qunari in such a way that isn't a random happenstance from a crazy dwarf. The gaatlok can be introduced through other means that make more sense. And since you or your sibling are mages, the Circle needs to come causing some real trouble at this time. Introduce a specific threatening Templar character you can focus on because Meredith is too far away to be a tangible threat right now. You don't need a massive evil warlock man for a villain in this game, but you do need someone to hate or at least be fearful of.

I write though I am not published, so I don't pretend to be some literary genius or even a great amateur writer. My grammar sucks. My brain can short out mid-sentence and I fantasize about steak and gravy while writing a scene that is supposed to be tragic. However, I do know that for an engaging narrative you must always think of the worst thing that can happen, and then do that. I simply did not see that rule taken advantage of to it's fullest.

This is what I mean by tying everything together - it's off the top of my head so it's not perfect but oh well:

(spoilers ahoy!) 

What if Isabela wasn't the only one who would steal the artifact at any cost? If the Coterie found out about how much money they could make off of it, they would surely want in on a theft so monumental. Hawke's jobs for Athenril always seem to rub shoulders with the Coterie and Hawke finds out about this information. Athenril wants to snatch this chance away from the Coterie. With the infamy it would grant her, she could grow to be more than the gang version of Carver to Hawke that she already is. I see her becoming more and more fascinated about the infamy this job would grant her, pushing and pushing at Hawke to get maps, get plans, get dates, get times. Once her fascination reaches obsession, she might threaten Hawke with the aforementioned Templar stalking Hawke/Bethany, mimicking Meredith and Bartrand's downfalls later on.

The end of the year could have culminated on board the Arishok's ship in stormy seas while a member representing the Coterie, you representing Athenril, and Isabela representing her own self all race to steal the same artifact without realizing the implications of your actions. It doesn't matter who gets there first, if you put traps to hamper each other's progress, if you decide you're not so different after all, because the fateful storm is too much and the ship (including Isabela's get-away ride) sinks. In the morning, Hawke and Isabela wade onto shore after being stranded adrift in the ocean, two ragged and exhausted survivors. They agree to get a drink and the friendship or rivalry begins. The fate of the third thief, the Coterie member, is unknown and saved for use later.

(no more spoilers)

Pretty silly and probably super lame, but you get my ultimate point - the story as it stands is disconnected and that makes the player feel disconnected. I think this is possibly the main thing that is creating this gap between the player and Hawke, an issue I keep reading complaints of, voice preferences not withstanding. Hawke meeting Isabela in a bar just doesn't seem remarkable enough for a character as pivotal to the state of everything as she is. I feel that many other companions are in the same boat.
 
I understand the purpose of the time skips was to skip the boring parts... but Athenril and the crafters you meet around Kirkwall had real potential to be memorable. Besides, collecting money for the expedition was really the tedious part. The exciting, fascinating parts were Katojan and Feynriel and the Magistrate's Order and all those main quests I can't think of right now, which all pushed mage versus templar, out of control versus ultimate control. They were awesome. 

The reason DA2 did not quite live up to the "rise to power" tag line was because we never felt powerless to begin with. Athenril and witnessing Lothering before it was blown to smithereens would have helped this, I think.

This stuff is probably all obvious and I'm just beating a dead horse, and I have a feeling would have been rectified anyway if given more time. I can't know either way. Might as well throw out my thoughts for good measure.

Otherwise, I liked everything else about the game. Companions, armor, weapons, all that business. Thought it was great. I've got suggestions for minor stuff if any of the devs are still reading, but I'll dump them in with the constructive criticism thread later.

Actually no, one more criticism.... whoever does: *pinches nose* GOOD LUCK GETTING IN. I'VE BEEN WAITING ALL DAY

I just...

D:

/long post

Modifié par pixieface, 05 août 2011 - 06:32 .

[AloraKast]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Waage25 wrote...

The Pure fact is that i only believe you are saying this because the PR people have told you it is the new buzz word to use to sell games.

Oh, I'm quite sure PR would rather I not be in this thread at all.

And I can't even convey how very glad I am that you are, indeed, in this thread.

Following this thread and the dev input contained here has been superbly illuminating... probably the most human and honest discussion I have followed on the topic of DA2 to date. And while I may not necessarily agree with you on all points or the direction of your thinking, I would much rather experience the candid and contemplative discussion like the one contained in this thread, than you simply telling me what I want to hear. Ok, I lie, yes, I would absolutely love it if you DID agree with me on all points and my way of thinking, but come on, let's be realistic here...

And while I understand the function and necessity of PR in business, I am not fond of it, to say the least. I do believe that we all can benefit from having such sincere and human exchanges... if nothing else, they will allow us to get a clearer picture of a company's thinking and goals which in turn will allow us to make more informed decisions about whether their future product is something we might enjoy.

So a very big thank you for your candid input insight Mike (and the rest of the team).

Modifié par AloraKast, 05 août 2011 - 06:42 .

[alex90c]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

One of the reasons why Call of Duty captivates its audience so well is the adrenaline rush feeling people get when they play on multiplayer. At least that's what my friends and I have come to agree on since we play Call of Duty almost religiously.

If Dragon Age had an adrenaline rush feeling in the storyline and the combat (which means the combat needs to become incredibly tactical), it would help garner more fans.

Of course, that's not the only way the DA series could grab new fans. Most of the people I know however don't like fantasy, so it wouldn't really matter.

Of course, Call of Duty is a SHOOTER while Dragon Age is an RPG. Seeing Bioawre trying to blur the line between action and RPG in to this action-adventure hybrid just makes me die a bit inside, since all they're going to do is ****** off people from both sides (RPG fans don't want combatcombatcombat, and people who want an actiony game will go play an actiony game, NOT an PRG) and as a result get neither to buy their products. I think once DA sorts out its identity crisis and kind of finds out whether it wants to be one or the other then it'll be good to go, but trying to compromise by, for example, simplifying the game down to mashing auto-attack to defeat faceless mobs to complete quests and, theoretically being able to just completely skip every single piece of dialogue by choosing the happy leaf icon and then skipping the conversations and STILL being able to comfortably complete the game I felt personally kind of insulted my intelligence.

I dunno, maybe companies need to realise that their audiences aren't as thick and stupid as they think they are when they're catering to specific people (for example, shooters are going to have some pretty stupid people playing them since all you do is point a gun, kill people, find out which guns work best and use those - whereas if you're making RPGs there's going to be one, a smaller audience since it isn't as mainstream, and two potentially a more intelligent audience since the idea of an RPG is to kinda get engrossed in the game, the characters and kind of play through the journey of the protagonist(s) which requires concentration and dedication rather than a shooter where I can just quickly fire it up, shoot some losers for a quick fix and then get back to whatever I was doing before).

[tmp7704]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Let's be frank. To my understanding the "Bioware wants to appeal to the Call of Duty crowd" myth devloped like this:

(snip the list)

There was also cases of BioWare employees going on the record to state that "Call of Duty games already have RPG like progression so we hope they will check out our game and find that they have the same elements of character development etc they already enjoy."

And if we're being frank... is the idea "Bioware wants to appeal to the Call of Duty crowd" really a myth when the PR people repeatedly point out how BioWare games can potentially appeal to the said Call of Duty crowd, and how the incoming titles like ME3 are taking direct inspiration mechanics-wise from Call of Duty, Gears of War and other blockbuster shooters?

[b1322]

I have a question for Bioware and I hope someone will answer it:

One thing I really missed from origins to be seen in DA2 is the ability to talk with your companions, I loved all the deep conversations, is this something that Bioware intents to integrate back in DA3?

[ademska]

tmp7704 wrote...

There was also cases of BioWare employees going on the record to state that "Call of Duty games already have RPG like progression so we hope they will check out our game and find that they have the same elements of character development etc they already enjoy."

And if we're being frank... is the idea "Bioware wants to appeal to the Call of Duty crowd" really a myth when the PR people repeatedly point out how BioWare games can potentially appeal to the said Call of Duty crowd, and how the incoming titles like ME3 are taking direct inspiration mechanics-wise from Call of Duty, Gears of War and other blockbuster shooters?

yes, it is a myth, primarily because one of the heads of the franchise just told you it was a myth, but circumstantially because you're equating drawing marketing similarities to another product to increase sales with actually altering content of the game, and that's a mighty big assumption on your part.

[tmp7704]

ademska wrote...

yes, it is a myth, primarily because one of the heads of the franchise just told you it was a myth

And since it doesn't quite match what the company actually does, hence my question.

but circumstantially because you're equating drawing marketing similarities to another product to increase sales with actually altering content of the game, and that's a mighty big assumption on your part.

I think drawing inspirations from specific shooter titles goes quite beyond "drawing marketing similarities" -- it's actively creating new similarities. Or as you put it, "actually altering content of the game".

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

I don't like to post what will or will not happen until the decision is made internally. For instance, follower armors is a discussion that we're having right now. Which is good. But it's a discussion, not a decision, and as such, I don't feel comfortable sharing the discussion. Hopes rise, hopes are dashed, bad feelings all around.

I have to disagree with you, here.

Look at DAO's development.  We had discussions with the dev team - particularly David and Georg - for years about all sorts of aspects of development, many of which never appeared in the game.  But allowing us to see that desicion-making process gave us a much better feel for where you guys were trying to take the game.

DA2 probably annoyed a lot more people just because its departure from DAO was such a surprise, but given time to adjust to the systems maybe some of us would have been more able to play within those designs, rather than struggle against them.

[ipgd]

tmp7704 wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Let's be frank. To my understanding the "Bioware wants to appeal to the Call of Duty crowd" myth devloped like this:

(snip the list)

There was also cases of BioWare employees going on the record to state that "Call of Duty games already have RPG like progression so we hope they will check out our game and find that they have the same elements of character development etc they already enjoy."

And if we're being frank... is the idea "Bioware wants to appeal to the Call of Duty crowd" really a myth when the PR people repeatedly point out how BioWare games can potentially appeal to the said Call of Duty crowd, and how the incoming titles like ME3 are taking direct inspiration mechanics-wise from Call of Duty, Gears of War and other blockbuster shooters?

If I recall, said CoD statement had more to do with a sentiment like "games like CoD already have RPG-like elements, and CoD players might be surprised to find they would enjoy RPGs if they were more initially accessible to players unfamiliar with the genre" than "we're going to put in CoD-like elements in order to draw in CoD players".

[CRISIS1717]

Kothoses Rothenkisal wrote...

I like to think that the 100+ pages of constructive critique at the top of this forum most of which were calmly and well presented had more of an impact than all the trolling of what seem like a good bunch of people at launch time.

That is not trolling, I have found most forum users do not know what trolling is and it has become the go-to word for an opinion you dislike. What is the difference between a constructive critique and a comment which says "this game sucks"? one is detailed and one isn't, both are valid feedback. 

If anything well detailed criticism is less honest because people tend to pull their punches, most gamers are pretty blunt and if they thought a game stinks or a change stinks they will be pretty vocal about it. If Mike Laidlaw wants to dismiss the majority of the feedback on the game because each user didn't write out a page of feedback and analysis then that's fine. 

You think your feedback is more valid than another players feedback? ok then. 

[John Epler]

tmp7704 wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Let's be frank. To my understanding the "Bioware wants to appeal to the Call of Duty crowd" myth devloped like this:

(snip the list)

There was also cases of BioWare employees going on the record to state that "Call of Duty games already have RPG like progression so we hope they will check out our game and find that they have the same elements of character development etc they already enjoy."

And if we're being frank... is the idea "Bioware wants to appeal to the Call of Duty crowd" really a myth when the PR people repeatedly point out how BioWare games can potentially appeal to the said Call of Duty crowd, and how the incoming titles like ME3 are taking direct inspiration mechanics-wise from Call of Duty, Gears of War and other blockbuster shooters?

Well, there's two parts to your post here that I want to address.

The first one - it's true. Call of Duty (and Battlefield, and now sports games what with Be A Pro) have elements that are traditionally associated with RPGs. Part of the reason why Call of Duty is so incredibly successful is that it offers a sense of progression - you get enough points, you 'level up' and gain access to new guns, new perks and new what have you (I haven't played MW2 or Black Ops so I'm not sure what else they've added). Progession is an addictive thing - beyond the social, the reason why games like World of Warcraft work is because they offer progression. People will grind for hours just to get a piece of gear that is a moderate improvement on the piece of gear they already have, so that the task of getting another piece of gear to increase their abilities is made slightly easier.

So now, you take those elements and you tell people 'hey, here's this entire genre of games out there that have progression as a core mechanic. They also have deeper stories and better characterization than the games you're currently playing, maybe you should give them a shot'. You bring them in on the strength of the commonalities, and then you introduce all the things that make your genre unique and powerful. But it's those things that both games have that you're going to try and use to bring in those new fans.

As to the second, again, you're mistaking 'these games have some things in common that we will try to use to bring in people who enjoy that other sort of game' with 'DA and CoD have experience and levelling, let's make DA like Call of Duty in every other way as well!' As to the Mass Effect team, the core combat experience of Mass Effect has a lot in common with the core combat experience of Gears of War. It would be silly of them to not at least look at Gears to see 'hey, they did X and it worked really well, what can we take from that to improve our own game'.

TLDR - I think there's a vast gulf between saying 'we have some stuff that people who play CoD might like, let's bring them in with those aspects and then show them what's unique to our games that wil hook them' and 'DA must become more like Call of Duty!'

[TEWR]

And that's sort of the deal right now, isn't it?  In the campaign, COD takes people on a ride, there's not quite as much work to be led through the game.

But with DA, you need to blaze more of your own path, talk to NPCs, read up on even the most basic of DA-lore terms, and suspend disbelief when it comes to magic and dragons and elves and darkspawn.  Then you have to understand who your foes are and why you must combat them, and suspend disbelief when it comes to them also.

With COD, beyond gameplay there's not much to learn about your foes in multiplayer.  Your foes are just people playing the game also, and in some cases you already know your teammates because they're your friends or family.

Of course, CoD is a linear story where you have no say in where it goes. And the story itself for the games since Modern Warfare have been great, but you have no say on where it leads.

With Dragon Age, the idea is that you are this character you're playing as, and you can do so many different things because friend and foe are not as black and white as you might think (theoretically, DA2 kinda blew that idea away and DAO wasn't all that better).

There is some measure of tactics that you have to use in CoD though. You have to figure out which gun works best since they have different stats, where to go, what perks to use, etc. The adrenaline rush really gets to you, and the CoD crowd isn't stupid like they're made out to be. They just prefer FPS games because it's more their cup of tea. CoD is, along with a few other FPS games, the closest thing to real warfare which is tactical.

Now, is CoD incredibly tactical? No, not really. But nevertheless there is a measure of tactics in the game. Dragon Age however has never been tactical (to me and some other people), but there are ways that it could be. Improving combat for example.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

And yet we were more transparent than we were in Origins!

I don't think you were.  It was much easier to know exactly how much damage a Fireball would do in DAO than it was in DA2, unless you were using the current build to do the math.  But knowing in advance how much a change to your Magic stat would affect spell damage, or a weapon change would affect spell damage, was much harder in DA2 (partly because the weapons' damage scores affected spell damage, and that wasn't documented anywhere).

Both games have completely inadequate documentation.  I would like to see all of the mechanics laid bare in a file somewhere so that I can read them.  When you guys stopped making big printed manuals, I would like you have switched to big PDF manuals.  But instead you just cut the manual completely and left us without mechanical explanations.

[ademska]

tmp7704 wrote...

I think drawing inspirations from specific shooter titles goes quite beyond "drawing marketing similarities" -- it's actively creating new similarities. Or as you put it, "actually altering content of the game".

mass effect 3, which has always had shooter mechanics, is drawing mechanics inspiration from call of duty. in what way has dragon age, which is what we're actually talking about, done similar? and no one say, 'dumbing down its mechanics from origins,' - let's keep the discussion intelligent.

your own post admits that the dragon age pr has only done what i suggested, which is marketing the game's similarities in character development and narrative style to appeal to a broader audience. which is their right, considering this is, y'know, a capitalist economy and sales kinda matter from triple a titles.

EDIT: OH WELL MR EPLER BEAT ME TO IT and said it in a much more eloquent and less dbaggy way.

Modifié par ademska, 05 août 2011 - 06:57 .

[Kothoses Rothenkisal]

CRISIS1717 wrote...

Kothoses Rothenkisal wrote...

I like to think that the 100+ pages of constructive critique at the top of this forum most of which were calmly and well presented had more of an impact than all the trolling of what seem like a good bunch of people at launch time.

That is not trolling, I have found most forum users do not know what trolling is and it has become the go-to word for an opinion you dislike. What is the difference between a constructive critique and a comment which says "this game sucks"? one is detailed and one isn't, both are valid feedback. 

If anything well detailed criticism is less honest because people tend to pull their punches, most gamers are pretty blunt and if they thought a game stinks or a change stinks they will be pretty vocal about it. If Mike Laidlaw wants to dismiss the majority of the feedback on the game because each user didn't write out a page of feedback and analysis then that's fine. 

You think your feedback is more valid than another players feedback? ok then. 

I think some one misunderstood what I was trying to say, or maybe I just did not type it out aswell as I thought either way let me attempt to clarify.

What I actually was trying to get across was that if you keep the flames, and the personal attacks OUT of a post your feedback is automatically more likely to get taken notice of than some one who just comes on rages calls everyone out and then leaves without contributing anything in the way of constructive dialogue.

In no way does this make MY feedback on a personal level better or worse than anyones but what it does is mean that my feedback is more likely to be taken seriously and is given more legitimacy because the first rule of debate is ALWAYS DEBATE THE POINT NEVER DEBATE THE PERSON.   This is a rule that can equally be applied to online communities.

While both are Valid feedback in some peoples eyes, personally speaking if some one chooses to attack ME as a person over a product that a company I worked for put out, I would consider that trolling.   The valid view points get lost in a sea of this as happened at launch, some of the vitriol spewed at named bioware employees was disgusting quite frankly.  The thread at the top of this forum even the short posts in it were generally well written, well thought out and presented in a polite respectful but forthright way, that is what makes good feedback.

However please do not strawman me, you project your opinion as if it were mine and then finish off by slating me for that, which is a little unfair.

Modifié par Kothoses Rothenkisal, 05 août 2011 - 07:05 .

[tmp7704]

ipgd wrote...

If I recall, said CoD statement had more to do with a sentiment like "games like CoD already have RPG-like elements, and CoD players might be surprised to find they would enjoy RPGs if they were more initially accessible to players unfamiliar with the genre" than "we're going to put in CoD-like elements in order to draw in CoD players".

Yes, that's correct. Putting in the CoD-like elements is something which was acknowledged/advertised more recently, as part of ME3 PR.

I've mentioned that other statement because that one seems to me also like an attempt to present the game --as it is-- as appealing to the CoD crowd. To clarify, i'm taking Mr.Laidlaw's statement at face value, i.e. "BioWare doesn't want to appeal to CoD crowd, that's a myth" rather than more specific and narrow interpretation of "BioWare isn't making changes to its games so they're (even more) appealing to CoD crowd"... as the latter isn't what was actually said. (although even that could be questioned, per ME3 example)

[jds1bio]

CRISIS1717 wrote...

If anything well detailed criticism is less honest because people tend to pull their punches, most gamers are pretty blunt and if they thought a game stinks or a change stinks they will be pretty vocal about it. If Mike Laidlaw wants to dismiss the majority of the feedback on the game because each user didn't write out a page of feedback and analysis then that's fine. 

I disagree with you here.  Well-detailed criticsm can be more honest and more damning of a game than less-detailed criticism.

Explaining why you think a game sucks, with reasonable detail, is always more clear and understandable than saying it was simply dumbed down, or saying you can't stand playing it anymore - even though all these comments are equally honest.  And saying you feel betrayed and hurt and lost faith and want people fired and dead, tells people NOTHING about where you think a game falls down.  In the first few months of release of DA2, there were countless posts to the forums with these brief comments.  And though some comments may have been dismissed, I don't think they've been ignored.

[TEWR]

JohnEpler wrote...

[Well, there's two parts to your post here that I want to address.

The first one - it's true. Call of Duty (and Battlefield, and now sports games what with Be A Pro) have elements that are traditionally associated with RPGs. Part of the reason why Call of Duty is so incredibly successful is that it offers a sense of progression - you get enough points, you 'level up' and gain access to new guns, new perks and new what have you (I haven't played MW2 or Black Ops so I'm not sure what else they've added). Progession is an addictive thing - beyond the social, the reason why games like World of Warcraft work is because they offer progression. People will grind for hours just to get a piece of gear that is a moderate improvement on the piece of gear they already have, so that the task of getting another piece of gear to increase their abilities is made slightly easier.

Modern Warfare 2 was basically more of Modern Warfare, but you got a bunch of new weapons and killstreaks. It was fun for a while until you met the 8 year old Campers and Noob Tubers.

Black Ops allowed you to customize your weapon and they improved on a lot of the faults with MW2's multiplayer that was due in large part to the two groups I mentioned.

So now, you take those elements and you tell people 'hey, here's this entire genre of games out there that have progression as a core mechanic. They also have deeper stories and better characterization than the games you're currently playing, maybe you should give them a shot'. You bring them in on the strength of the commonalities, and then you introduce all the things that make your genre unique and powerful. But it's those things that both games have that you're going to try and use to bring in those new fans.

Sadly though that doesn't fly with most people (at least among the many people I knew from my old high school). I'm not quite sure why, but it's probably just due to them not wanting to give RPGs a chance. Though admittedly, if you show them a badass trailer for the game they'll probably buy it.

Which is true for a lot of things. It's what advertisements do. It's sort of like brainwashing people to go out and buy something.

As to the second, again, you're mistaking 'these games have some things in common that we will try to use to bring in people who enjoy that other sort of game' with 'DA and CoD have experience and levelling, let's make DA like Call of Duty in every other way as well!' As to the Mass Effect team, the core combat experience of Mass Effect has a lot in common with the core combat experience of Gears of War. It would be silly of them to not at least look at Gears to see 'hey, they did X and it worked really well, what can we take from that to improve our own game'.

TLDR - I think there's a vast gulf between saying 'we have some stuff that people who play CoD might like, let's bring them in with those aspects and then show them what's unique to our games that wil hook them' and 'DA must become more like Call of Duty!'

I wish I hadn't immediately hit the quote button after reading the first paragraph since you were nice enough to put a TLDR at the bottom.


Anyway, there are some things that DA can examine from CoD, but a lot of things are going to require the DA series to be improved without looking at other games. Which is why the forums exist.

Like combat. I truly do hope that combat will become incredibly tactical in the future and that enemies will use the same animations/abilities the companions use. IIRC, the Carta Dwarf in Legacy uses greatsword animations and Malvernis uses Rock Armor, and I know that Maraas (who I hope will become a future companion) uses greatsword animations as well.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 05 août 2011 - 07:03 .

[nitefyre410]

jds1bio wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

One of the reasons why Call of Duty captivates its audience so well is the adrenaline rush feeling people get when they play on multiplayer. At least that's what my friends and I have come to agree on since we play Call of Duty almost religiously.

If Dragon Age had an adrenaline rush feeling in the storyline and the combat (which means the combat needs to become incredibly tactical), it would help garner more fans.

Of course, that's not the only way the DA series could grab new fans. Most of the people I know however don't like fantasy, so it wouldn't really matter.

And that's sort of the deal right now, isn't it?  In the campaign, COD takes people on a ride, there's not quite as much work to be led through the game.

But with DA, you need to blaze more of your own path, talk to NPCs, read up on even the most basic of DA-lore terms, and suspend disbelief when it comes to magic and dragons and elves and darkspawn.  Then you have to understand who your foes are and why you must combat them, and suspend disbelief when it comes to them also.

With COD, beyond gameplay there's not much to learn about your foes in multiplayer.  Your foes are just people playing the game also, and in some cases you already know your teammates because they're your friends or family.

I don't think he saying  have the game to do work.  He is talking about  presentation and pulling the player in to the story - which having played both ALOT. I can say that DA:O  and DA 2 do not very well  - IMO. 
 
Lets look at Lorthering for example -  now  in DA:O  how much more of an impact on the player would it have been  to go back there and see the devastation that  the Darkspawn  left behind, to see the party reaching to it -   Lieana in front of the  burnt out remains of the Chantry,   Morrigan taken back by scene before  her - Alastair and the Warden  actually seeing  what a  Darkspawn how does to a town and not just an army. For me at least I was more driven  to get back at Loghain for turning a leaving  than Darkspawn.  Seeing him  actually  stand there give the order and then watching the King that he swore loyality to get  crushed made the betrayal stick more. Than say hearing about afterwards  or in the case Lorthering seein a  skull and crossbone on the screen.  

DA 2 with the  Mage/Templar conflict  at the end -  how many more people would understand just how  desperate  First Enchanter  felt  if they  saw  him  watchingfighting   as mages that he raised sense children cut down. Hawke and party fighting a losing battle it would drive home what  drove him to his actions. The same if you choose the Templar side -  Seeing a Templar with his unit infront of  a group of Mages giving up only to watch the rest  his squard cut them down and throw in  his helmet or  question is what they're doing "really the right thing"  

ME 2 did  this marvelously at the Collector base  - esp. when you see either colonist or crew member  liquified .   

Modifié par nitefyre410, 05 août 2011 - 07:28 .

[ademska]

tmp7704 wrote...

I've mentioned that other statement because that one seems to me also like an attempt to present the game --as it is-- as appealing to the CoD crowd. To clarify, i'm taking Mr.Laidlaw's statement at face value, i.e. "BioWare doesn't want to appeal to CoD crowd, that's a myth" rather than more specific and narrow interpretation of "BioWare isn't making changes to its games so they're (even more) appealing to CoD crowd"... as the latter isn't what was actually said. (although even that could be questioned, per ME3 example)

...how is that functionally any different? we're getting the same game regardless of marketing to a peripheral demographic, period. it's just semantics at this point.


edit: @nitefyre, it's interesting that you consider pure cinematics necessary to draw you into the game. i agree, actually, but a good chunk of the vocal posters on these boards feel vehemently the opposite.

Modifié par ademska, 05 août 2011 - 07:07 .

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

And yet we were more transparent than we were in Origins!

I don't think you were.  It was much easier to know exactly how much damage a Fireball would do in DAO than it was in DA2, unless you were using the current build to do the math.  But knowing in advance how much a change to your Magic stat would affect spell damage, or a weapon change would affect spell damage, was much harder in DA2 (partly because the weapons' damage scores affected spell damage, and that wasn't documented anywhere).

Both games have completely inadequate documentation.  I would like to see all of the mechanics laid bare in a file somewhere so that I can read them.  When you guys stopped making big printed manuals, I would like you have switched to big PDF manuals.  But instead you just cut the manual completely and left us without mechanical explanations.

It is rare that I will apply a totaly unqualified "this" to a Sylvius post, so I am marking this occasion by responding with more than just that singular word.

[ipgd]

tmp7704 wrote...

I've mentioned that other statement because that one seems to me also like an attempt to present the game --as it is-- as appealing to the CoD crowd. To clarify, i'm taking Mr.Laidlaw's statement at face value, i.e. "BioWare doesn't want to appeal to CoD crowd, that's a myth" rather than more specific and narrow interpretation of "BioWare isn't making changes to its games so they're (even more) appealing to CoD crowd"... as the latter isn't what was actually said. (although even that could be questioned, per ME3 example)

It's fairly obvious what he meant in context. If you want to make a semantic squibble about how he could have worded it more specifically, well... I'm pretty sure people can figure it out.

Modifié par ipgd, 05 août 2011 - 07:09 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It is rare that I will apply a totaly unqualified "this" to a Sylvius post, so I am marking this occasion by responding with more than just that singular word.

My frustration with DA2's lack of transparency is made worse by how easily tremendous amounts of transparency were added to DAO with the Detailed Tooltips mod.

That mod was a blueprint that DA2 should have followed.  That standard of transparency is the bare minimum any game should provide out of the box.