63 réponses à ce sujet

[Kothoses Rothenkisal]

In episode 2 of Promoting thought we discuss how a community can engineer change and help a developer to improve its gaming products through the use of calm rational feedback.

http://www.youtube.c...ser/quinnthalas

Speaking of feedback, please leave me plenty guys and girls  I am having a ball making these and would love to hear suggestions as to what to do next.



EDIT ; - I have uploaded a new video in direct response to and covering the content of this thread

Love the discussion guys keep it up.


Edit two regarding spoilers

For all your spoiler filled posts to discuss storyline in an environment similar to this thread.
social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/304/index/8047637


Episode 5 is now up and covers community content and calls for more community centric and sandbox games

Modifié par Kothoses Rothenkisal, 07 août 2011 - 11:11 .

[Stanley Woo]

Awesome discussion happening here. Thank you all.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Wozearly wrote...
Bioware is definitely one of the better companies on this score, all the more impressive given that they're a major developer...but they could do more. Summarising the pieces of feedback they've heard and indicating what they feel does and doesn't need changing would go a long way to helping people know that they really are listening, without having to wait for the cast iron proof of a future release.

I would love to do so, but there are two issues preventing it becoming an immediate reality:

1) 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.

2) I believe, especially on these boards, that a few months ago was not a time for productive discussion, particularly. The accusations were flying thick, and the suppositions being made were wildly off base. Now, Legacy, I think, goes a long way towards demonstrating that we are listening, that we are aware of the weaknesses of DAII, and that we will continue to address them, and so the atmosphere changes a little. Pause is given as people wonder if, just maybe, Legacy is a hint that Dragon Age is not trying to be Call of Duty, or Devil May Cry or whatever other franchise people have prognosticated in dire tones and with furious shaking of head will be the future of DA. And that's a great development; and one that I think required us to both put up and shut up. Saying we were listening would always be less effective than releasing something that demonstrates it.

That said, I think we can cross off #2 as a concern, leaving us with #1 to address. That's a strictly internal process, but I'm committed to letting you folks know what's coming ahead of time with the next major DA release. It'll be a bit before we get there, but once we are, I'll likely use the bio blog to talk about things that are different and why they are, similar to how I outlined the follower armor decision for DAII on the podcast.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Wozearly wrote...
Bioware is definitely one of the better companies on this score, all the more impressive given that they're a major developer...but they could do more. Summarising the pieces of feedback they've heard and indicating what they feel does and doesn't need changing would go a long way to helping people know that they really are listening, without having to wait for the cast iron proof of a future release.

Oh, and to go some distance toward what you want and look at some hot-button items:

1. Area Re-use.

An obvious problem, and one we are keenly aware of. Not an intentional issue, and certainly not "by design" but something that happened and needs to be addressed. Players should not have to accept that Cave A is also Caves B through D. While -some- assets will be reused in the course of any game (and should be, otherwise games would simply be too expensive to create), they should be done so with considerably more discretion. In retrospect, I probably should have just cut content to reduce the re-use, but that's a tough call to make in the moment.

2. "Wave" combats

When everyone talks about how it's raining men in DAII, there's clearly something wrong. Simple problem: waves were introduced as a mechanic and overused without enough time to tune them. Fan reaction prompted us to start making adjustments to the system pretty much immediately, and Legacy demonstrates the start of the result. I am amused when people note that waves are "gone" from Legacy. They're actually there, just done much better. So, yes, the bad waves are gone. Still more work to do, but a good start.

3. Impact of choice

We knew we were taking a risk making a story about a major even in Thedas that was pretty much going to happen, and reaction has been very mixed. While some folks love the "sound of inevitability" that pervades DAII, there are a number of weak spots in the impact they feel they should have on the world. Fair point. If we're going to offer you a decision, it should matter. Easy fix would be to cut decisions, but that's not what DA is about, so we're going to have to get better about clear impact of those decisions within the same game you're currently playing. Addressable, but not within a DLC, as they are pretty self-contained items.

4. Follower customization

A mixed bag. Lots of folks liked unique looks for followers. Many more hated losing the ability to put new platemail on Aveline. Completely understandable, and likely aggrivated by finding platemail that your mage character would likely never be able to equip. Needs to change, but we'll cement how before talking in detail. Also not really addressable in a DLC, as there would be fundamental changes to the core game needed, which goes beyond the scope of what a DLC can deliver.

There's more issues out there, for sure, but those are some that I'm comfortable talking about at this point.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

2nd EDIT: Just read the second Laidlaw post where he directly agrees to "Fundamental Changes" specifically in follower armor and loot.  I think my work here is done.  Your Welcome everyone.... Fundamentally.

While feedback is appreciated, I would like to take a moment to discourage people who think that torches and pitchforks is the way to fix things, as you advocated, Saint. It is not.

The end result of a successful campaign to prevent all sales of DA games would likely be the end of DA, not a redesign from the ground up. And while some might call that a "win," I don't see how losing one of the increasingly rare crop of fantasy RPGs out there benefits anyone.

Reasonable, passionate feedback is the best possible thing to provide. Seeing strongly negative reaction to DA II, and strongly positive reaction to Legacy, even from some of DAII's strongest detractors (and yes, I know it's not universal, but what is), is incredibly useful.

[John Epler]

congealeddgtllvr wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

I am amused when people note that waves are "gone" from Legacy. They're actually there, just done much better. So, yes, the bad waves are gone. Still more work to do, but a good start.

One thing I liked about Legacy was how each encounter felt a little unique.  The repetitiveness and similarity of encounters was not unique to DA2, but could also be found in Origins, imo.  

I wonder, how difficult would it be to maintain that kind of variety and creativity for each encounter over the course of a full game?  If it were a choice between more uniquely designed encounters and more total encounters, I would prefer the former.  

I think there's certainly an understanding among the team that the encounters in the base game felt a little too - well, gamey. Quite aside from the parachuting Templars, there were opportunities for encounters to feel a little bit better tied into the narrative that we weren't able to capitalize on, and I feel that in a game like either of the Dragon Age games, you need to have the narrative in mind. Therefore, while I can't comment with the authority of Mike (as I am but a Cinematic Designer), I feel that Legacy would be far more in line than Dragon Age 2's base campaign with how encounters are going to be looked at, going forward.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

First, Torches and Pitchforks withdrawn to a safe distance.

Whew.

Second, I think that the stuff you outlined above are all great things and I honestly hope DA3 will be something special.

Wewt!

Third,  I apologize for suggesting you were a fan of the Star Wars Prequels in an earlier thread.  That was uncalled for.

No kidding! Talk about a personal attack.

EDIT: on review, something else occurred to me.  If DA3 were to repeat the mistakes of DA2, I wouldnt be buying it anyway.  If not spending 10 bucks now ensures that I WILL spend 70 bucks later... thats a trade off I think we can both live with. 

Deal.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Instead, the successes were diminished, the aspects which were debatable became battlegrounds and the flaws became offenses worthy of death.

Nah. Firings. Of me. Because it's good to have someone to blame.

And I really don't mind. The designers that I respect the most in this industry don't pass the buck. They "own" their games and their role in them, and learn from their successes and failures. I can both respect and aspire to that.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Ryenke wrote...

1.  The use of generic icons for loot items made me feel like I was playing an unfinished beta product.  This feeling was compounded by the generic names for things like rings - there was no way to distinguish one ring from another visually, or by name.  A little thing, yes.  But that impression lasted the whole game on most every piece of loot and colored my experience and was part of what made me feel bored doing the typical RPG things in inventory.  Please don't strip inventory down more - that would be the opposite of what I'm saying.  But the DA2 inventory and loot experience was excessively dull (especially on a console, where I could not even examine a piece of loot when picking it up.)

Yup. Agreed. Loot needs some loving overall. I'm leaning towards "less, but more special" but we'll see what develops.

2.  "Choices that matter" - I don't think every choice has to change the world - but one of the great gems in DAO are the small pathing choices.  For instance the fight with Ser Cauthrien when you free Anora. First I could choose here from 2 paths:  to fight Cauthrien, or to surrender.  If I surrendered, I found myself in prison where I could choose from more paths:  wait to be rescued, sneak my way out, or fight my way out.  Same result to the world - but vastly different experiences for my character(s).  As Hawke I felt I had virtually no choices, even saying NO more often than not didn't change what my Hawke would have to do.  Small choices/branches can greatly enhance the gameplaying experience, yet don't have to cause the headaches of world changing/plot flag/carry over to next game type of choices.  I'd love to see these small pathing choices brought back (maybe the way you can reuse assets gracefully? (grin))

This exact scenario is in Legacy, where you are given different content based on a choice. Some have claimed it's "meaningless," but I'm very glad to see someone's looking for that kind of thing. I suspect that people disliking the choice in Legacy are concerned that small-content choices might be all we ever do, ever again, which would be a concern if that were true, but it's not, so it's not.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Brockololly wrote...

Or make a concerted effort to have meaningful, reactive consequence to BIG choice in a sequel. Like you know that whole Old God Baby/Warden/Morrigan/Eluvian thing... Do something awesome with that plot line and I will give you all my money Mike:wizard: Thats really the only reason I'm hanging around at this point.

And here I thought it was just to post "gameplay vidz please!" as soon as we announce something new for old time's sake.

[Mike Laidlaw]

csfteeeer wrote...

i do not want it to die, but i also don't know if i'm fully compeled by the way it's going right now, and that is why i try hard for my voice to be heard.

And it has been.

Up until Legacy, though, I don't think anyone would have believed me if I'd said we were going to take it into account. A lot of people on this forum had built up a grand conspiracy theory where we were deliberately stripping RPG out of Dragon Age because we are MEAN.

I've said it before, and I will say it again: we stripped some stuff out of DA becuase it was busted. Other stuff was simply a design choice, and some of it was circumstance. There is no way you guys could know exactly what falls on what side of that triangle, and as devs we are not always able to be crystal clear on that kind of thing, especially immediately after a controversial game launch when the community was so far out for blood that they took my suggestion that setting a game that was too easy to a higher difficulty might be a good call was some sort of gigantic, egotistical middle finger to the entire fanbase. That was not a time for reasonable discussion, clearly.

Now is the time. And I'm still very interested to hear what you folks have to say (unless it is a demand for gameplay videos before we announce anything, that is. ), and we are still working on the formula. If I'm going to ****** you guys off, it's going to be because I still firmly believe that RPGs do need to be more accessible to new players. Not dumbed down, not "consolized" (whatever that means. There are insanely complex games on the console), not diminished, but made less imposing and less terrifying to new players. In part because I want more people to play Dragon Age, and in part because there have been a lot of improvements in gameplay and UI design in the past 15 years, and we can learn from them.

So on that point, I'm sure we can all agree to disagree, so long as the end product is more choice-driven, offers more "twiddle" to the player's experience in terms of equipment, offers satisfying, constructed encounters and a deep story. DAII clearly didn't deliver on all fronts for you guys. For some it did, but I'm truly, deeply cognizant of the parts that are weak, and while we're not going to agree on everything, there's a game out there that's better than both Origins and DAII, and I'll be damned if the talented folks of the DA team can't find it.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Alas, I can't comment on all features/story bits/origins, etc. Some are game dependent, some are tech dependent, some are just still under discussion. My goals with this thread (which I sorta hijacked, apologies!) were to give you guys a sense of my top line items that we will continue to address. We'll deep dive a bit more later, as I'm able.

[John Epler]

Melca36 wrote...

Hey Mike

I truly believe that any spoiler thread when a game comes out should be deleted immediately.

 That huge spoiler thread that developed from forum regulars who got the game earlier, tainted it for everyone. I think there should be a rule about posting spoilers before the official game release day.

This is something we try to do, but unfortunately - there are only so many people who are experienced enough with the forums that they can quickly and effectively deal with this sort of thing. That's not to say we can't improve how we respond to these sorts of things, though - there's always someone who thinks that ruining someone else's experience is the height of comedy, and we need to recognize that and deal with it.

But certainly, it would be nice to have better moderation around the time that a product releases. Of course, when half of the people moderating are the same ones who've just come out of a significant crunch to get that some project completed, there's a tendency to avoid the forums for a bit to decompress and get your brain back to a state where thoughts longer than 'Food good' are possible.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Brockololly wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
...there's a game out there that's better  than both Origins and DAII, and I'll be damned if the talented folks of  the DA team can't find it.

I'll help.

Or maybe this'll help too.

See, you're not just here for the god baby. You're here to be a wise ass. Good times as always.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Anarya wrote...

About accessibility, I don't think "accessible" necessarily has to mean "oversimplified". I think drawing a distinction between the two is important, and like Bryy said, it's more about how you teach the mechanics.

That is precisely the distinction I'm trying to draw. DA II is not a "simple" game when held up in comparison to the current crop of games out there. It is, however, more simple than Origins, and I understand why people are upset about that.

It doesn't mean the solution is to just revert to Origins, however.

[John Epler]

erynnar wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Anarya wrote...

About accessibility, I don't think "accessible" necessarily has to mean "oversimplified". I think drawing a distinction between the two is important, and like Bryy said, it's more about how you teach the mechanics.

That is precisely the distinction I'm trying to draw. DA II is not a "simple" game when held up in comparison to the current crop of games out there. It is, however, more simple than Origins, and I understand why people are upset about that.

It doesn't mean the solution is to just revert to Origins, however.

It doesn't mean not to look really long and hard at Orgins and implement what worked though either, I would hope.

I think Mike means that, when we look at Origins, we're not going to just take stuff that work and say 'good enough, it worked then so it should work now!' It means that, when we look at Origins, we're going to ask -why- certain things worked the way they did - and what problems came along with that particular implementation. Understanding which mechanics work is a good start, but understanding why they worked and then looking at the areas in which they didn't work is even better. Because there are very few mechanics in any game that are perfect, but if you have an understanding of exactly why they do/don't work, you can find new solutions to old problems.

Which I guess is a rambling way of saying that we're always looking at every game we've made to find that balance. 

[Mike Laidlaw]

Kothoses Rothenkisal wrote...

There was an obvious disconnect between what the Dragon Age community were looking for in DA 2 and where Bioware thought the series should go, now that it has been acknowledged, do you feel the new DLC goes part the way back towards what we wanted, or is it just polishing something unmentionable.

There's also a very large disconnect between where the Dragon Age community thinks we are headed and where we are actually going. As I've noted before, there's two data points in terms of major releases, and I think people have been rather hasty in drawing a line from DAO to DA2 to Devil May Cry. There's a LOT of territory between DA2 and DMC, and if we were truly headed in that direction, we would have made much larger changes. Cut party, remove crafting, one class, etc would all be changes that show a move to action game, but none of those happened. A lot of doom was perceived in the wave combat and changing follower equipment, exaggerated by other faults with the game.

In part, I believe that's a communication error on our part. I know we were not universally reassuring about the direction of DA during the DAII marketing campaign or even here on these forums. There were a number of reasons for that, many of which are not fit for public consumption, but rest assured that we'll take steps to rectify that over the next little while.

And wahey! I kept it on topic this time. Woo.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Kothoses Rothenkisal wrote...
  Is there a single point you will take aware as something to do or avoid when the next launch comes out?

No, not really. It's nigh-impossible to predict the circumstances of each launch. I could say "be more careful in my postmortem interviews" but that's a lie. Nothing I said was meant in a tone of arrogance, but it was certainly construed that way. I could say "Be here on the forums and take my lumps," but, that would probably also be a lie. At the end of a project, most devs are more than a bit hollowed out and in serious need of some recouperation. And even the best-received games have people on forums that despise them. Human nature dictates that we can skim 17 pages of YAY and linger on the BOO as if it were a bell tolling our doom.

Ultimately, it's not about the launch. It's about preparing the community for the launch, so they know what they're getting. DA II shocked some people, and shocked people tend to have strongly emotional reactions. I'd rather the shock be minimal, if only because I want people to make an informed choice in the games they purchase.

[David Gaider]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
One concern that I've had for a while has been for the visual style of DA2. What I've noticed specifically is that Kirkwall is actually a very good looking city, with a lot of iconic looking imagery. Unfortunately, most of that imagery was above the normal sight line, and I ended up not seeing it unless I stopped playing, and started looking.

Just wanted to thank you for your post, HFIC-- excellent examples and reasoning, and it actually started an interesting discussion here. Much appreciated.

[Mike Laidlaw]

G00N3R7883 wrote...

I'm all for more people playing RPGs. This is my favourite genre, the stories, the characters, the choices ... most of my favourite games of all time are RPGs. And I especially want more people to play Bioware RPGs, as your games make up a large chunk of my top 10.

My thought is this - you can talk about making the RPG genre more accessible to new players (and I hope you are honest about not dumbing down, although I could certainly give examples of mechanics that I think are more simple in ME/DA than they were in BG/NWN) - but have you also given any thought to how you could educate new players? Could you leave the RPG formula as it is, even make it more complex, and then do things, either inside or outside the game, to help new players get a better understanding of what RPGs are all about and what existing RPG fans love so much about them.

That's pretty much my goal. Always has been. Lots of people misinterpret "making the game easier to get into" as "stripping out the complexity" but I have never seen those two things as coupled.

If anything, DA's future is more complex, but more subtle and intuitive in how it's presented.

[Mike Laidlaw]

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

• Greg Zeschuk comments in an interview that Bioware aspires to sell to a larger audience, and that numbers like Call of Duty's 10 million are the long-term goal.
• DAII's combat is, in fact,  faster, and more "actiony." Some RPG elements are removed (skills), and others are changed (iconic follower armor, rather than complete customization).
• Magical Alchemy happens and "Apparently Dragon Age only wants Call of Duty players to play their game." is the result.

In truth, what we would like is for there to be 10 million RPG fans out there, not to toss aside RPG fans. If anything, I suspect that we didn't put enough focus on stats, cross-class combos, and so on in our message, which would have helped.

And to be really honest, if we were dead-set on cutting RPG systems, we could have cut much, much deeper.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Tommy6860 wrote...
I honestly don't know how much more Bioware can cut, before any vestiges of role playing in the series, is considered being more of an action/adventure game. Sales count hugely, and rightfully so, but DA:O on average is the better seller and grabbed an audience I bet Bioware thought they couldn't considering how well it sold on the consoles. Wouldn't logic state that, maybe, just maybe, going back to most of those elements (not the Warden's story perse) may be the way to go?

My point was more that if we actually wanted to make an action-adventure game, we would have done so much more thoroughly.

[Mike Laidlaw]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

@RinpocheGoofyname: I think the former complexity is more fun than the latter. I think DA needs both, but it needs to be layered in such a way that a newbie knows enough to play on normal very easily and simply. But I need to be able to see all the complex numbers on Nightmare.

Very much this.

DAII attempted to do this, and they did the first part pretty well. They did the latter very poorly. They didn't oversimplify the game, but they did obfuscate the information. There was almost zero transparency with how all the stats were determined. Fireball does 65 damage, but there's Bo indication of how that's determined. That's the kind of thing that I, as a veteran RPG gamer, want and need to know.

And yet we were more transparent than we were in Origins! Clearly we have more work to do.

[Mike Laidlaw]

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.

[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!'