1502 réponses à ce sujet

[Wozearly]

Kothoses Rothenkisal wrote...

Eldred wrote...

Ye that is how I see it as well but from how I understood you on the video is that you also wanted the fan to come up with the solution. I'd say good feedback would be sufficient to have information like;

Ideally yes that would be the best response, but listing what you felt was wrong and why is not a bad response, just not the ideal, in my opinion.

I'm with Kothoses on this one. Indicating that something is wrong is useful feedback, but without explaning the why, describing what the underlying problem (and valued bits) are or indicating a good way to address it risks developers highlighting a problem and then providing the wrong solution which may, in fact, create a new (worse) problem as a result.

For example;

A) I don't want to spend ages trying to work out where I should be putting points in my characters and companions.

Dev: Hmm, okay. Maybe we should reduce the number of stats down to three and fix companion values.

  I don't want to spend ages trying to work out where I should be putting points in my characters and companions, it wastes time if I'm worrying that I'll make poor decisions and struggle later on in the game.

Dev: Ah, right. Then we'll have armour that levels up with you, stars to indicate quality rating, link key stats to certain careers and remove some of the 'flavour' resistances and attack types so its all more straightforward.

C) I don't want to spend ages trying to work out where I should be putting points in my characters and companions, it wastes time if I'm worrying that I'll make poor decisions and struggle later on in the game. I like the variety you've offered and the different choices and don't want you to change that, but it would be great if you could show the effect of decisions on the level up and character screens, e.g. if I put 2pts in Dexterity, what does that actually do for my attack and defence rating against the enemies I'm facing.

Dev: Gotcha. We'll leave all the stats and companion choices as they are, but we'll display the to hit / be hit values for Dexterity (and other stats) so you can make an informed choice.

Same person. Same grumble. Three different proposed solutions - only one of which would actually please them.


Plus, describing a possible solution also helps flag what you're actually trying to address. Working back from the requirements of the solution is one way to highlight the criteria you need to test against to make sure your solution is working as designed.

[Wozearly]

Separate point, in terms of critiquing the handling of the DA2 drama, the impression I initially got from Bioware was a highly defensive one in the face of the initial wave of fan dissatisfaction (whilst noting there was also a wave of fan satisfaction).

Its clear they expected some division, I think its widespread and furious nature probably took them by surprise, and a lot of the initial announcements and responses were a) irregular and fairly slow, implied that Bioware believed the dissatisfied fans were in the wrong - such as the backlash over the fan interpretation of Mike Laidlaw's comment that "DA2 isn't dumbed down - put it on Nightmare, you have to be really tactical then (paraphrased)".

I sympathise. Devs shouldn't rush to agree with fan groups bashing a game they've worked hard on and, presumably, have confidence in - but the feedback thread and more constructive engagement could have begun earlier...arguably pre-launch, given it was expected to be divisive and every review had mentioned that it was very different to Origins. A lot of commenters seemed shocked that DA2 felt nothing like DA:O, and this seemed to drive a lot of vocal issues.

After that, there was a turning point, where it seemed the weight of negative (and positive) fan feedback and the sales figures were telling a fairly coherent story. At this point, Bioware impressed me - the formal statements and interviews made, and the informal comments across the board, have been hugely constructive.

They haven't promised to fix (x,y,z) specifically, and it wouldn't be fair to expect that, but they've been clear to defend the directions and decisions they feel strongly about, whilst indicating they're genuinely looking to listen to what the community has to say...and commenting on various suggestions and posts being made.

I think Bioware has actually handled it fairly well in the round. The challenge for them is that the DA community does feel like it fractured somewhat, and a reasonable number of long-term fans have made it clear they have less trust in Bioware now, particularly with regard to pre-ordering games.

[Kothoses Rothenkisal]

Wozearly wrote...

Separate point, in terms of critiquing the handling of the DA2 drama, the impression I initially got from Bioware was a highly defensive one in the face of the initial wave of fan dissatisfaction (whilst noting there was also a wave of fan satisfaction).

Its clear they expected some division, I think its widespread and furious nature probably took them by surprise, and a lot of the initial announcements and responses were a) irregular and fairly slow, implied that Bioware believed the dissatisfied fans were in the wrong - such as the backlash over the fan interpretation of Mike Laidlaw's comment that "DA2 isn't dumbed down - put it on Nightmare, you have to be really tactical then (paraphrased)".

I sympathise. Devs shouldn't rush to agree with fan groups bashing a game they've worked hard on and, presumably, have confidence in - but the feedback thread and more constructive engagement could have begun earlier...arguably pre-launch, given it was expected to be divisive and every review had mentioned that it was very different to Origins. A lot of commenters seemed shocked that DA2 felt nothing like DA:O, and this seemed to drive a lot of vocal issues.

After that, there was a turning point, where it seemed the weight of negative (and positive) fan feedback and the sales figures were telling a fairly coherent story. At this point, Bioware impressed me - the formal statements and interviews made, and the informal comments across the board, have been hugely constructive.

They haven't promised to fix (x,y,z) specifically, and it wouldn't be fair to expect that, but they've been clear to defend the directions and decisions they feel strongly about, whilst indicating they're genuinely looking to listen to what the community has to say...and commenting on various suggestions and posts being made.

I think Bioware has actually handled it fairly well in the round. The challenge for them is that the DA community does feel like it fractured somewhat, and a reasonable number of long-term fans have made it clear they have less trust in Bioware now, particularly with regard to pre-ordering games.

Given what you said above (Very well constructed breakdown of events by the way and in the most I very much agree with you) Do you think SW:ToR and ME 3 will have extra pressure to deliver, given that Bioware did injure its reputation with "some" of its fanbase do you think these two games will repair it / bring in new ones, or will it take a well delivered DA 3 to relly restore the confidence of those players who are now feeling a bit burned.

For those of you who enjoyed the direction DA 2 took, if DA 3 went back to a more Origins style feel would you be upset, happy or indifferent?

[Eldred]

Wozearly wrote...

Kothoses Rothenkisal wrote...

Eldred wrote...

Ye that is how I see it as well but from how I understood you on the video is that you also wanted the fan to come up with the solution. I'd say good feedback would be sufficient to have information like;

Ideally yes that would be the best response, but listing what you felt was wrong and why is not a bad response, just not the ideal, in my opinion.

I'm with Kothoses on this one. Indicating that something is wrong is useful feedback, but without explaning the why, describing what the underlying problem (and valued bits) are or indicating a good way to address it risks developers highlighting a problem and then providing the wrong solution which may, in fact, create a new (worse) problem as a result.

For example;

A) I don't want to spend ages trying to work out where I should be putting points in my characters and companions.

Dev: Hmm, okay. Maybe we should reduce the number of stats down to three and fix companion values.

  I don't want to spend ages trying to work out where I should be putting points in my characters and companions, it wastes time if I'm worrying that I'll make poor decisions and struggle later on in the game.

Dev: Ah, right. Then we'll have armour that levels up with you, stars to indicate quality rating, link key stats to certain careers and remove some of the 'flavour' resistances and attack types so its all more straightforward.

C) I don't want to spend ages trying to work out where I should be putting points in my characters and companions, it wastes time if I'm worrying that I'll make poor decisions and struggle later on in the game. I like the variety you've offered and the different choices and don't want you to change that, but it would be great if you could show the effect of decisions on the level up and character screens, e.g. if I put 2pts in Dexterity, what does that actually do for my attack and defence rating against the enemies I'm facing.

Dev: Gotcha. We'll leave all the stats and companion choices as they are, but we'll display the to hit / be hit values for Dexterity (and other stats) so you can make an informed choice.

Same person. Same grumble. Three different proposed solutions - only one of which would actually please them.


Plus, describing a possible solution also helps flag what you're actually trying to address. Working back from the requirements of the solution is one way to highlight the criteria you need to test against to make sure your solution is working as designed.

Exacty what Im meant "Dev: Gotcha. We'll leave all the stats and companion choices as they are, but we'll display the to hit / be hit values for Dexterity (and other stats) so you can make an informed choice." this is the solution and as you say this is dev created we do agree. What you did in your examples is saying what is bad, why it is bad and what you want out of a certain function. But you did not tell the developer what to do. well not exactly at least but this is an easy example. There are alot of things in games, especially DA2 that I sure as hell can't say do this and it would worked. I just know I did not like that function for this and that reason. Just like if you are driving a car you can tell you dont like the handeling and would like it to be stiffer or softer. But you do not necessarily know what changes are best implemented to make this the case. 

Modifié par Eldred, 02 août 2011 - 06:47 .

[Kothoses Rothenkisal]

Oh there is no doubt the end solution has to come from the developer, but the community feedback can and should help guide it in the right direction.

Giving them as much information and ideally examples as we can should if they are a listening company ensure that the end solution is somewhere near what we want to see too.  I think this is something everyone in this thread is basically saying just with different examples.

Its interesting though to compare the way things are now with the way they were in 2001 a lot has changed in ten years eh guys?

Modifié par Kothoses Rothenkisal, 02 août 2011 - 07:35 .

[Wozearly]

Kothoses Rothenkisal wrote...

Given what you said above (Very well constructed breakdown of events by the way and in the most I very much agree with you) Do you think SW:ToR and ME 3 will have extra pressure to deliver, given that Bioware did injure its reputation with "some" of its fanbase do you think these two games will repair it / bring in new ones, or will it take a well delivered DA 3 to relly restore the confidence of those players who are now feeling a bit burned.

For those of you who enjoyed the direction DA 2 took, if DA 3 went back to a more Origins style feel would you be upset, happy or indifferent?

Difficult to say. As the three are made by totally separate pieces of Bioware, if fans rate DA3 based on ME3 that's in a way quite harsh - the audience isn't necessarily the same although, undoubtedly, there is overlap and parallels can be drawn in how ME changed during ME2 and DA:O changed in DA2.

We know that ME3 is going to be a bit more like ME in some ways, so fans that do / don't want to see the DA franchise make a similar move will probably be watching to see what Bioware do and how fans react on the assumption that there's a halo effect in decision-making - such as if ME3 has more roleplaying focuses and its a success then the same approach might well influence decisions in DA3, for better or worse.

TOR has a risk that with a major shift in style, it might annoy fans of the KOTOR series because they liked the single player elements and may dislike the changes when it becomes an MMO, even if they like the setting. You can bet DA2 critics will leap on that as examples of why DA3 should be Origins mkII.

In reality, the acid test for DA:O / DA2 fans will be DA3. To restore the faith in the franchise of DA fans who liked Origins but disliked DA2, DA3 will need to appeal to them. It might, it might not. Doing so might lose DA2 fans who disliked several elements of DA:O, for example.

As for new fans, each new release is bound to bring in new players to Bioware - but if Bioware makes a definitive shift away from its more traditional style of RPGs to a more action-driven style, this will have a greater impact. There are people who love that and see it as the way forward, Mike Laidlaw included. There are fans who disagree and will see that shift as a reason to look away from Bioware at other developers. 

Equally, dropping the action-driven format would see some of the fans drawn to Bioware (or more happy with them) because of it look elsewhere. How to balance those two, or whether they need to be treated as distinct groups with franchises tailored to each one, is something that Bioware is going to have to determine for itself.

Modifié par Wozearly, 02 août 2011 - 10:23 .

[Kothoses Rothenkisal]

I see, personally I am of the opinion that ToR and ME 3 will go a long way to restoring that Bioware name that some of us have seen dulled a little bit. I think in part since the EA dael a lot of people were looking hard at Bioware to see if they would go the way of Westwood and a lot of other good studios that faded into mass produced mediocrity after joining EA. DA 2 was the evidence the doomspeekers felt they needed.

To me DA wasnt as bad as people make out but it was not as good as many claim, it feel into the grey zone of average, I think the resulting complaints (I was vocal about its shortcomings too) is probably the biggest compliment anyone could pay Bioware.

That being said another DA 2 like disappointment (For me) would change my view greatly) but a return to form in DA 3 and ME 3 will mean I will see DA 2 as little more than an uncomfortable blip.

PS lets hope there are no real money auction houses in ToR......

[Wozearly]

Kothoses Rothenkisal wrote...

I see, personally I am of the opinion that ToR and ME 3 will go a long way to restoring that Bioware name that some of us have seen dulled a little bit. I think in part since the EA dael a lot of people were looking hard at Bioware to see if they would go the way of Westwood and a lot of other good studios that faded into mass produced mediocrity after joining EA. DA 2 was the evidence the doomspeekers felt they needed.

To me DA wasnt as bad as people make out but it was not as good as many claim, it feel into the grey zone of average, I think the resulting complaints (I was vocal about its shortcomings too) is probably the biggest compliment anyone could pay Bioware.

That being said another DA 2 like disappointment (For me) would change my view greatly) but a return to form in DA 3 and ME 3 will mean I will see DA 2 as little more than an uncomfortable blip.

PS lets hope there are no real money auction houses in ToR......

I hope that TOR and ME3 do restore people's faith in Bioware, but as neither franchise is trying to replicate the style and approach of Origins, this can only be done if they are a) successes in their own right, or make the kind of decisions we want to see the DA3 team doing. I'm not sure it'll be conclusive on that count.

Your comments on DA2 echo my view. Its not that its a bad game per se, its just a major disappointment compared to Bioware's previous releases and a change in direction that not all of the DA fanbase agreed was necessary or desirable.

[Firky]

I had a listen. The issue of how communities receive games (not just DAII either) is something I'm very interested in, primarily because I really think that all the silly and vitriolic stuff is counterproductive to the promotion of gamers as a mature audience (which is something I care about.)

But, you're saying that devs will listen if feedback is more constructive. The thing is, I think many people (and lots around here - not me, but I'm playing devil's advocate for a sec) would argue that the way to get devs to listen is to stomp on the game as hard as possible. Like, to try to stamp the game with "crap" despite the fact that the truth is surely much more complex.

I don't agree with this approach, but is there logic behind it? Stamp the game as "crap", people start to think they are idiots if they like it, there is a bad taste in your mouth, less people buy it and related products, devs are forced to try to address the problem. I don't think it's possible to prove that devs only ever listen to constructive feedback, because it's entirely possible that they are influenced by vocal detractors, too.

Personally, I think the nastier detractors are making themselves and gamers look bad. And the whole 0 scoring on MetaCritic and similar sites thing really devalues something that should (IMO) be very valuable; user reviews. If 90% of users gave authentic scores, that would be really valuable. But, right now, (IMO) user reviews just look silly and there isn't much point reading them.

Sigh. But, it's always good to think about these issues.

[Kothoses Rothenkisal]

Firky wrote...

I had a listen. The issue of how communities receive games (not just DAII either) is something I'm very interested in, primarily because I really think that all the silly and vitriolic stuff is counterproductive to the promotion of gamers as a mature audience (which is something I care about.)

But, you're saying that devs will listen if feedback is more constructive. The thing is, I think many people (and lots around here - not me, but I'm playing devil's advocate for a sec) would argue that the way to get devs to listen is to stomp on the game as hard as possible. Like, to try to stamp the game with "crap" despite the fact that the truth is surely much more complex.

I don't agree with this approach, but is there logic behind it? Stamp the game as "crap", people start to think they are idiots if they like it, there is a bad taste in your mouth, less people buy it and related products, devs are forced to try to address the problem. I don't think it's possible to prove that devs only ever listen to constructive feedback, because it's entirely possible that they are influenced by vocal detractors, too.

Personally, I think the nastier detractors are making themselves and gamers look bad. And the whole 0 scoring on MetaCritic and similar sites thing really devalues something that should (IMO) be very valuable; user reviews. If 90% of users gave authentic scores, that would be really valuable. But, right now, (IMO) user reviews just look silly and there isn't much point reading them.

Sigh. But, it's always good to think about these issues.

It could be argued that there is a vast amount of difference between getting noticed and being taken notice of.  Yes if you act like a spoilt kid stamp your feet and rage you will get noticed, but I dont think you will be taken notice of as much as the people who put thought effort and logic into feedback.  Though all voices of dissent are heard the loudest the ones that are just rage and anger are easier to shrug off both from a personal and a business standpoint. 

It does bring me to an interesting thought though, do you ever get the feeling that some develipers/publishers use forums almost as A a giant slurry pit for people to dump their rage in and B a way to put news out rather than to get feedback.?

I know a lot of game developers who view the official forums as generally a drain on resources, have people doing moderation and responses in lunch breaks ect as opposed to having full time staff monitoring and responding to customer feedback.   It has to be said Bio are one of the better companies for responding to forum threads but the point still stands, I feel many developers view forums the way IT was viewed by businesses in the 90's IE a place where money goes away not a place where value can be gained.

Modifié par Kothoses Rothenkisal, 03 août 2011 - 08:20 .

[Firky]

Here's an interesting article.

http://jeff-vogel.bl...ould-never.html

Also, I've been meaning to play Avadon for ages.

[Eldred]

Firky wrote...

Here's an interesting article.

http://jeff-vogel.bl...ould-never.html

Also, I've been meaning to play Avadon for ages.

Really good read, and it is so true as well. 
The Penny Arcade comic he linked to is really dead on as well. Fans can be so mean and counter productive

[Kothoses Rothenkisal]

Vogel does talk a lot of sense, but I do think it would be worth while to encourage community managers to bring the well constructed feedback, good and bad, for the developers them selves to occasionally respond to. The disconnect between community and company is a 50/50 split in terms of blame. Rage kids raging and then CMs towing the "company line" really does lead to a feeling of disconnection which only enhances some peoples frustration.

Vogels article is a good one though, very thought provoking.

[Wozearly]

Firky wrote...

I had a listen. The issue of how communities receive games (not just DAII either) is something I'm very interested in, primarily because I really think that all the silly and vitriolic stuff is counterproductive to the promotion of gamers as a mature audience (which is something I care about.)

But, you're saying that devs will listen if feedback is more constructive. The thing is, I think many people (and lots around here - not me, but I'm playing devil's advocate for a sec) would argue that the way to get devs to listen is to stomp on the game as hard as possible. Like, to try to stamp the game with "crap" despite the fact that the truth is surely much more complex.

I don't agree with this approach, but is there logic behind it? Stamp the game as "crap", people start to think they are idiots if they like it, there is a bad taste in your mouth, less people buy it and related products, devs are forced to try to address the problem. I don't think it's possible to prove that devs only ever listen to constructive feedback, because it's entirely possible that they are influenced by vocal detractors, too.

Personally, I think the nastier detractors are making themselves and gamers look bad. And the whole 0 scoring on MetaCritic and similar sites thing really devalues something that should (IMO) be very valuable; user reviews. If 90% of users gave authentic scores, that would be really valuable. But, right now, (IMO) user reviews just look silly and there isn't much point reading them.

Sigh. But, it's always good to think about these issues.

My guess is that there is logic behind it, although probably not as strategic as "if we say its crap, there'll be a negative feedback loop that will hurt the devs and force changes". Some people might post when angry, others will adopt a more extreme or exaggerated viewpoint to ensure that the complaint is recognised - the aim isn't necessarily to be constructive in raising it, but to ensure that its noticed.

For example, the 0 metacritic ratings. Is the game really, truly, that awful? For some people it might be, but its hard to believe that's true for the majority - so the 0 raters are doing something intentional. They're giving DA2 a visible smacking to try to ensure that Bioware become aware of the general issue (ie, there was a major fan/public rejection of the game).

This isn't as useful to the devs as constructive feedback...and seeing it be widespread is a cause of concern, because it suggests that the posters don't believe the developers will listen unless something is stuck right under their noses. Arguably Bioware reinforced that when they did the most visible listening exercise I can remember after a sustained barrage of negative feedback.

Part of this is an intrinsic problem of brand communities. If you invite fans to come together in a shared group of people who love your product/brand, or at least like it and want to engage with others who do, two things happen.

Firstly, as a company, you get a boost. You get a more contactable fan-base, they're able to generate their own hype and discussion, you can communicate with them in a more interactive fashion than an e-mail list, etc.

Secondly, you transmit a portion of power and influence to your fan group. By giving them a method to speak their mind where you can hear it, and where others can hear it, they will...and they'll start to provide suggestions, feedback, complaints, criticism...and expect that this is listened to, in return for the fans listening to what the developer / brand has to say.

As a general rule, communities exaggerate the effect of good and bad decisions. If you make something great, they're a fantastic tool in helping to hype for you. If you make a mistake, they'll ensure it gets thrown back at you over and over again, even if normally it would have gone away.

Not every company (and not just talking games company here) actually wants to create communities around its brand for this exact reason - and most that do still try to keep the interactions primarily one-way, with the company retaining ultimate control of the conversation and using the community as a communications tool, not a feedback mechanism.

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.

[Stanley Woo]

Awesome discussion happening here. Thank you all.

[Parahexavoctal]

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.

This, this, and a hundred times this.

Even if the message is that something I doesn't like isn't going to change (or vice versa), I'd much prefer to know. And I would very much prefer the information delivered in this manner as opposed to the PR statements and fluff delivered in many interviews and presentations.
I know the presentations at least are unlikely to change, and they probably aren't the place for this kind of concise feedback on concerns raised. But it would be nice if it was available somewhere. I've seen posts like that on the forums before, like Laidlaw firmly stating that voiced protagonist is here to stay (and why). Though it would be preferable if we didn't have to sift through all Bioware posts on the boards to keep up with information in this format (or maybe we just need a blue-tracker equivalent), and I'd love to see more of it.

[Realmzmaster]

The Vogel article speaks to a lot of what goes on here at the Bioware forums. I give the developers at Bioware credit for coming here and interacting with the fanbase. I also understood why Mike Laidlaw stayed away from the forums.

 Yes, I believe (actually I know)  the developers made mistakes in DA2, but from some of the people on the forum you would think the developers personally went over and shot their pets or flooded their homes with sewage water.

IMHO, Legacy showed that Bioware does listen. But for some forum mates Bioware can do nothing but wrong.

I read forum mates asking for people to be fired. They are asking that they be fired for the degree they hold not because of performance. One forum mate wrote that EA should go down the list and fire anyone with an MBA.

I understand people's passion, but in the end people have to remember it is a game. It is not like someone poisoned your last meal!

Every company has had a mediocre game or two in their portfolio. I liked Dragon Age 2, but other consider it to be mediocre. I will not argue the point.

All of a sudden Bioware has destroyed the Dragon Age franchise and started the decline of western CRPGs.
The Witcher 2 and Elder Scrolls:Skyrim are the only ones who can save the genre.

Bioware's fanbase has been betrayed.  I give most of my forum mates credit for being very reasonable. Those reasonable people posted their constructive criticism and express their disappointment in a way that developers would be able to compile useful input.

I was once told you learn a lot more from your mistakes than your successes. I know I do. Bioware will learn from this miscue. Legacy is a step in that direction in my opinion. Everything stated here is my opinion. You may or may not agree with it, but there it is.

[Kothoses Rothenkisal]

Parahexavoctal wrote...

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.

This, this, and a hundred times this.

Even if the message is that something I doesn't like isn't going to change (or vice versa), I'd much prefer to know. And I would very much prefer the information delivered in this manner as opposed to the PR statements and fluff delivered in many interviews and presentations.
I know the presentations at least are unlikely to change, and they probably aren't the place for this kind of concise feedback on concerns raised. But it would be nice if it was available somewhere. I've seen posts like that on the forums before, like Laidlaw firmly stating that voiced protagonist is here to stay (and why). Though it would be preferable if we didn't have to sift through all Bioware posts on the boards to keep up with information in this format (or maybe we just need a blue-tracker equivalent), and I'd love to see more of it.

Part of the issue I think is Marketing and PR aswell as accountancy it strikes me that as games have become more high budget and more mainstream developers and publishers are getting more and more scared to speak frankly with their fans and community.  

This is inverted with the community too, as games become bigger and bigger the communites express them selves a lot more forcefully which only compounds the problem in many ways.  With huge amounts of money riding on games, forums are beocming more and more a place for PR and less and less a place for honest frank engagement between company and customer.  The sad part about this is it means that when the developers do engage with forum goers it is often in a firefighting effort to contain problematic posters than to actually enter into open discussion.

Add to that the obsessive nature of video game fans who will pour over every word a developer says and read 100s of different meanings into it, and it starts to become clear why in many ways forums are becoming outdated even as they are becoming mainstream.    Again Bioware are one of the better companies for engaging with their community here (nice to see Mr woo in the thread thanks) .  But I do think that the way many developers use forums needs to be re-evaluated because they are in danger of becoming little more than a dumping pit in many ways and that would be a shame, the biggest advantage of the internet is communication.


PS for those who like it, Episode 3.1 (Further discussion of the Real money auction house) is up on the You Tube Channel.

Modifié par Kothoses Rothenkisal, 03 août 2011 - 09:46 .

[Valcutio]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Awesome discussion happening here. Thank you all.

.... It's your youtube video isn't it, Stanley?

*sighs*

[Kothoses Rothenkisal]

Valcutio wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Awesome discussion happening here. Thank you all.

.... It's your youtube video isn't it, Stanley?

*sighs*

I wish I was as cool as a QA Ninja..... sadly I am not a ninja....

[Firky]

Valcutio wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Awesome discussion happening here. Thank you all.

.... It's your youtube video isn't it, Stanley?

*sighs*

I'm pretty sure he's also Jeff Vogel. And Batman. Probably.

I think this forum is a dumping ground, but that's not the fault of devs, and I'm guessing it's not really what they want their forum to look like. I don't think any dev is obliged to talk to fans, at all. They can if they want to, at their own peril, these days. But I don't see why they should *have* to.

It possible that they started the Constructive Criticism thread, just for the purpose of giving everyone their 500 (or 5000) words of fame so they'd be more likely to shut up, but they said they were reading it, and I tend to think that they probably are interested. (Who exactly "they" is, I'm not sure. And what exactly "interested" means, I'm not sure, either.)

They made their design decisions, based on factors everyone seems to think are totally transparent and that they can guess perfectly, but no outsider can really know the process. They're games designers. They know that "proper RPG" means choosing armour. It's not like it's a revelation. Why did they make follower armour fixed? Maybe they really did just want Isabela to look like Isabela. It's entirely consistent with a more cinematic approach. Much as I personally don't mind non-voiced protagonist, you'd probably have a hard time selling that for future "mainstream" RPGs.

I guess the idea that devs *have* to listen to constructive criticism also undermines those of us who thought DAII was a great game. One of the Drs said that many fans were "delighted" by DAII, and I think that's a pretty good word to describe by reaction. Just because a whole bunch of gamers tried to stamp the game as "crap" doesn't mean that it is crap. Just like, just because a large number of people post eloquent and relevant criticism in the right place, doesn't necessarily mean that they know all the ins and outs of design and that it is ultimately useful.

Sure, people can express what they want in a game, devs can listen, but they don't *have* to. (IMO)

[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.

[Saintthanksgiving]

As one of the more... polarized... voices around here, I think its only fair to step in here and defend the loud and angry group that has been referenced on this thread.  To be fair though, I will first give credit where credit is due.

I honestly believe that the game developers DO listen to their fans.  I wholeheartedly believe that they are reading what is being discussed here, and the occasional useful idea is brought into the development process moving forward.

The level of access that Bioware Dev's grant to their customers is something that is rare, and it is commendable.  Though I personally, and usually vehemently, disagree with what they have to say; It says a lot that they at least answer.  I was shocked to find myself arguing with the Lead Writer in a thread at one point.  I'm sure that is not the norm in the industry.

To get back to my usual track though,

I have a problem with someone peeing on my leg and telling me it is raining.

It is understandable that a lot of the early Dev responses were defensive in nature, but as time goes on the "talking points" that we cant get away from are starting to abrade... and they show that a lot of the changes in DA2 are deep shifts in policy that probably came from a Corporate level.  If the Lead Designer of a successful game felt that he had no option but to quit after he disagreed with the direction being taken in the sequel... we can assume that a lot of decisions were being made above his pay grade. 

To Be Specific:

Telling fans that they are foolish to expect a sequel to give a similar expierience to the original shows a lack of respect for the customer.  It is compounded to an almost laughable level when a huge amount of the sales for that sequel came from PREORDERS.  No effort was made to mend this breach of trust.

There is a problem with taking a niche product and stripping everything out of it that made it appealing to its core audience.  Gutting a product to make it accessible to a wider audience will most certainly draw anger from its original audience.  There has never been an effort to reach out to the fans that felt disenfranchised by the direction DA2 took towards a new and undefined audience.

The freefall in production value is the most serious concern going forward.  There has been some effort made to reach out to the community on this issue, but if DA2 is a success there is no real incentive to extend production deadlines in DA3 to ensure quality.  There was once trust here in Bioware that I for one will not be extending again.

These are Fundamental issues that show the General Direction that the series seems to be taking.  Criticisms on the Forums might get small changes, but to shift the entire direction of the product will probably take more than a few clever posts.  To get to THAT level of clout, one needs to affect the bottom line.  Dollars and Cents.

Do I think the Devs are listening?  Yes I do.  Do I think that signifigant changes will come without a directly financial motivation? No, I do not.

I spout fire and brimstone at every opportunity because I need the villagers to pick up their torches and pitchforks. 

Even for people who enjoyed DA2 (I understand that there are three of them... somewhere in Canada)  some effort has to be made to ensure that future titles do not continue to sacrifice quality for a quick buck.

Talk to the Devs, tell them what you liked, tell them what you didnt like... but just understand that you can hate DA2 all you want, but if you buy DLC like legacy and item packs.... THAT is telling them something too, and your credit card speaks a lot louder than your forum post.

Fundamentally Yours,
The Real Champion.

EDIT: just read the Mike Laidlaw's post.  :::digging through my drawers for my "I WANT TO BELIEVE" shirt from my X-Files days:::

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.

Modifié par Saintthanksgiving, 04 août 2011 - 02:21 .

[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.