1502 réponses à ce sujet

[erynnar]

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.

[Saintthanksgiving]

Comparing Hawke to Jar Jar Binks WILL get you banned.... there are limits here.

Learned that one the hard way.

[TEWR]

Please tell me Mike that you guys will change the Chalkspawn Hurlock grunts back into their old form (I liked the new Hurlock Alphas though).

And make the Ogres purple again and tweak their faces.

And tweak the Hurlock Emissaries by getting rid of the elf ears and the S&M equipment.

And don't mess with the old design for the Shrieks or the new Genlocks.


I really didn't like the Chalkspawn

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 04 août 2011 - 04:22 .

[Realmzmaster]

Reading a big manual does not make a game accessible. For example Baldur's Gate has a 157 page manual. Only the first 34 pages had anything to do with game mechanics. Pages 35-68 was backstory on the realms. Pages 69-157 explained D & D mechanics. Baldur's Gate 2 manual was even worst in this regard and clocked in at 263 pages. The first 46 pages had to do with game mechanics. pages 47-65 backstory and pages 66-263 explained the AD & D mechanics.

Sorry not fun to read just to play the game.

Bioware learned with Neverwinter Nights they included a tutorial at the beginning. This allows the gamer to load up and dive right in. It still had a hefty manual at 217 pages, but it was not required reading. The manual does tell you about the inner workings of the game and how the rules are applied and is good for reference.

Developers have to offer different ways to learn the game. Everyone does not learn the same way. Having a beginner's tutorial that more verse players can skip is a good idea. Tips that can be turn on or off is another. Some gamers can learn using the manual.

The idea is not to dumb down the game but ease the learning curve.

Simulations are a different matter. You may have to wade through a large manual if you want to learn how to control an F4 fighter. But even those simulations have tutorials.

Portal2 is an example of a game that introduces and explains new concepts as you go through it.

The backstory should be in the codex like Bioware is doing not in the manual. That way it can be read in game.
To save on trees have a in-game searchable manual.

But somethings in a game may be broken and will not be brought over to the next game. It may have to do with implementation or they have not found a way to make it work correctly without breaking something else.

There may be a fundamental difference in gamer view and developer view. Some gamers did not like the designer's view for DA2. Some like the view but the implementation sucked wind. And other gamers were happy.

If you do not like the designer's view then you probably will have to look elsewhere or try to change the designer's mind to come closer to your view. But we as gamers have to remember that the designer takes all views into consideration. Given the views on this forum some people are not going to be happy one way or the other so compromises will have to be made.
But as Stanley Woo stated We listen to the fans, but are not govern by them.

[KennethAFTopp]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
/Snip

5. Loot, you really need to fix loot. Is a junk button fine? Yes.
Is junk loot okay? Why yes it is, but the way you did it with a little drawing of a trashcan and some text you could have had a "A pile of ****" as your junk loot. Make the items matter more. Also make the values make more sense.

Also make armor and weapons usuable by all again, Puh-leeeeaaase.

[AloraKast]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

Ok, still making my way through this thread, so apologies for the lag here, but I do have a question which hopefully you guys can help me answer. And I do not wish to get into the debate of what makes an RPG an RPG here, but rather am looking for help in trying to understand a point.

It pertains specifically to the paragraph where Mike talks about making the RPG game experience less terrifying, more accessible to new players. I totally get aiming to appeal to a wider audience, but what I never understood was the notion that, while making the game more accessible to a wider audience, of course there will be some stripping involved of the more complex aspects of an RPG or finding some way to simplify those more complex aspects... well, in doing that you may very well appeal to new audience but at the same time how can there remain a belief that this new version will also appeal to your already established audience?

I may not be getting my point across very well, so let me quote erynnar here: think of the concept of "jack of all trades while master of none". Wouldn't it make better sense to focus on the elements that work for an RPG, enhance those things that work and improve things that don't quite work that well... instead of trying to appeal to everyone (which is quite impossible)? In attempting to make an action-RPG hybrid, don't you lose on both sides? The average action/shooter player won't have much interest in playing an RPG while an RPG fan won't have much interest in playing an action/shooter game.

Perhaps my view of DA2 is coloured thusly that I do tend to view it as a step back in an RPG experience, one that I was looking for from a sequel to DA:O. I also understand that you guys may have very well sought  in making those changes appeal to new audiences while believing that you are keeping enough of the base to appeal to your already established fans as well. Although to me, the changes made with DA2 seemed rather drastic, veering too much to one side, as opposed trying to strike that delicate balance.

PS. To clarify, basically I am wondering why you would want to aim for that "Master of none" when I'm thinking you really ought to aim for "Master of this trade".

Modifié par AloraKast, 04 août 2011 - 05:21 .

[jds1bio]

erynnar wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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 that was already done.  The lore worked.  Some of the clothing and armor measurements worked.  Many of the talents worked.  Some of the characters were so good they were brought back for DAO DLC or made an
appearance in DA2.  The base party-combat scheme worked.

As for things like skills and crafting, yeah they were simplified in DA2.  But I can't tell you how many reviews of RPGs I've read in the past few years that basically say "crafting - meh", including everyone's lauded TW2.  And skills seem to have always fallen somewhere between pure stats and talents/abilities.  A survivalist skill that lets me talk to animals but isn't very useful for the majority of situations in the game is hardly worth the cost in skill points.  And even when a skill helps you unlock a companion's abilities like KOTOR's Repair skill did, your expectation is that the other skills will have similar scope and impact on your gameplay.  When they don't, it's disappointing.

Modifié par jds1bio, 04 août 2011 - 05:15 .

[Kothoses Rothenkisal]

To talk about Crafting in a single player game always felt strange to me, like it never quite belonged. I mean its one thing to make a few potions but forging a sword or armour for your self just doesnt feel right to me.

Its strange how this topic has gone from discussing community influences to just being another dragon age 2 mechanics discussion though it is interesting that the topic of manuals and accessibility has come up. One thing I do agree with is that the paper manual is a largely outdated concept now. Most of my games are purchased digitally these days, and a large paper manual just doesnt work in PDF format, good solid ingame tutorials a few and I do mean a few well placed tooltips and intuitive design of the UI make for a much much more rounded experience.

I remember some one once saying that if it takes more than 3 clicks to achieve an action, you are doing it wrong.

[jds1bio]

Kothoses Rothenkisal wrote...

Its strange how this topic
has gone from discussing community influences to just being another
dragon age 2 mechanics discussion though it is interesting that the
topic of manuals and accessibility has come up.

Well, part of the explanation is that the thread was hijacked by the lead designer (not a complaint) and points were made about the mechanics of the game!

Also, the conversation could swing back the other way at any time.  Sure, there are lots of discussions on mechanics, but the community can't predict with certainty which discussions will be phrased and timed sufficiently to trigger developer responses, or predict the change in current those responses bring.

Modifié par jds1bio, 04 août 2011 - 05:32 .

[TEWR]

I'm not sure why people didn't like Varric using Bianca and only Bianca. There's obviously a significance it has to him beyond just being a really great crossbow.


edit: whoops may have gotten my threads mixed up, as I could've sworn I saw the topic of weapon restrictions come in here. If I did mix them up, just ignore this post.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 04 août 2011 - 05:44 .

[Giltspur]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

I don't think you have to simplify RPG's to make them less terrifying.  I think you (game designers in general) have to do a better job of teaching people to play the game.  You know new players can learn to play a complex game because there's WoW, where grandmothers can raid.  What does WoW have going for it?  Well, its design and its community.  The game itself teaches you how to play by how the encounters are designed.  Early on you learn not to pull aggro from a tank.  But the enemies are wimpy.  So a mistake isn't devastating.  By Scarlet Monastery, the instances are constructed with tighter, bigger packs.  So you learn the importance of movement and pulling.  Pull two packs and you die.  That means you can't just run around like an idiot stirring up trouble.  Later there are patrols.  And you have to pull the patrol in the right places.  You don't want them to join in while you're fighting something else, of course. Then there are mage patrols that have to silenced or LOS'd (you go somewhere they can't target you and force them to reposition) to get them to come to you.  And then there are characters that can run from you like archers that run backwards...so you might want to up them in your "kill order" so that you can lock them down and kill them fast before they run back and maybe trigger another group.  And so forth.  Or if you have a boss fight that combines say 1) boss postioning of something with a frontal cleave, meaning don't let it face others 2) wearing effective health gear as opposed to avoidance gear or damage gear because higher health can be the difference between being able to take 1 hit or 2 hits before heal and this is more important than a higher dodge when the "time to death" is so short 3) dodging bombs in a phase 4) keeping a defensive ability up at all times 5) using a proper threat rotation...then it helps to have already been introduced to concepts 1 through 5 in pieces during earlier encounters rather than all at once in an unforgiving encounter.  (I'm just giving examples from another game about encounter progression--not suggesting Dragon Age should copy WoW in details.  After all there's a fundamental difference between DA and WoW.  In WoW you control one person. In DA you control four.)

So what about in Dragon Age? "What has to happen for a person to learn how to taunt with a warrior or drop or shift aggro with their rogue? (I'm not sure why anyone would know this unless they already knew it from another game and then noticed how DA2 is different.) What's going to teach a person what the most important thing to kill is?  (I guess it's plainly obvious that assassins need to die.  But it's not a lot of variety.) What's a good order to kill things in? (Kill order only matters when there's a variety and in DA2 most things are mindless.  But kill order is a source of problem solving and fun.) What's going to cause a person to learn how to move his party?  (You could argue that ARW and the last boss in Legacy are out of nowhere because they might be the only time you ever have to think about party movement.)  So I'd rather you guys know what skills you're going to test and then design progressive encounters that let new players pass those tests a piece at a time so that they can graduate to the deeper rewards of RPG combat as the game goes on.  So you shouldn't dumb down so much as teach up.  (Yes, I agree there's needless complexity that can be eliminated.  But there's good complexity that must be saved and built upon!)

I think RPG's are often bad teachers that rely on the motivated gamer that's going to read the tables in the instruction manual or alt-tab to the forum cheatsheet or to some wiki.  Take Baldur's Gate II.  At the beginning of the game there's a clay golem that can't die unless you use blunt weapons on it.  If someone doesn't know AD&D...well, how many players quit that game in the first dungeon because they didn't know to equip a stupid staff or something?

At any rate, I think you can keep all the complexity you want so long as you build a bridge to it.  That's one point.

The other point goes back to WoW again.  Some people have the motivation to read an instruction booklet, or experiment in game and read combat logs or go read a strategy guide on a wiki.  But most don't.  In WoW, those people ask the few nerds every guild has what to do.  They're the ones that dig deeper.  And they teach everyone else.  There's no teacher inside a single-player game though to help those players.

So maybe the NPC's should be there to help the player.  Combat banter.  Especially early on.  Aveline can talk about the sorts of things she can do in a fight (without breaking the fourth wall) and tooltips after early companion interaction can explain the UI (which does break fourth wall--but it's okay).  

Hell, maybe not just combat banter.  Maybe I could click on Merrill and ask for help on a puzzle.  She's supposed to be smart, right?  "Hmm, let's see here.  What about this pattern on a wall?  Do you think that's some kind of hint as to what kind of order we should be arranging things?  Part of a puzzle is figuring out what you're supposed to do, right?  Hmm, I wonder if anyone ever designed one of these mazes and put a puzzle in and then deliberately put hints on the walls that wouldn't help.  They would just mislead and you'd spend forever doing the wrong thing.  Hmm, maybe that's where all the dead bodies come from. I...no, nevermind me."  Thanks, Merrill.

Modifié par Giltspur, 04 août 2011 - 06:49 .

[Kothoses Rothenkisal]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I'm not sure why people didn't like Varric using Bianca and only Bianca. There's obviously a significance it has to him beyond just being a really great crossbow.


edit: whoops may have gotten my threads mixed up, as I could've sworn I saw the topic of weapon restrictions come in here. If I did mix them up, just ignore this post.

I was not complaining it was more whimisical musing than anything, I love the fact the Devs came in and basically proved that a rational debate on the forum between adults acting with maturity can and does get their attention.

[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. 

[Dragoonlordz]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

You have to be careful doing such things like this if you are forced to adapt too much, change too much to bring in those new players which range from never picked up a controller to haven't played this genre of game then by the time you have simplified and 'made accessible' the end result is it it merely a title which has nothing in common with the concept of what franchise started as and meant to be. Where the only link between the original concept and the newest title is just the name. DA2 for me (headed) in that direction and if took few more steps other than the banter, couple cameos plus monster names with models that no longer look like seen in the original (Qunari, Elves, Darkspawn to name few) and title it wouldn't even be related to DAO. Then theres how far do you take it.. Do you have dialogs which explain what the difference between loading and saving is? Theres always someone who wont understand something and if trying to appeal to everyone how far is too far or not enough.

[Saintthanksgiving]

So wait, does Mike hate origins or not? Did we settle that issue?

[AngryFrozenWater]

The impression I have from DA2 is not that the changes were made because of gameplay improvements, but the changes were mainly made because of economic reasons. Streamlining had one purpose: cost reduction. And that includes companion armor, human only PC, no playable background story, removal of dual wielding and archery from the warrior, removal of most skills, removal of comparison with other companions than are in your party in storage chests and stores, removal of a simple check box to allow all of the character's tactics to be disabled, removal of the dialogue log, usage of full screen user interface instead of a convenient tabbed window, etc., etc.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 04 août 2011 - 06:51 .

[craigdolphin]

I haven't posted in a while because I've just about given up on DA as a franchise: despite DAO being my favorite game of all time. But I saw ML's posts and wanted to say I like some of what I'm hearing.

Some.

I want to customize armor on my companions too so I'm glad you're revisiting how that system will work. Unlike many, I didn't hate the voiced protagonist or waves, though the waves definitely will be better for not being as obvious and if used more sparingly. (Though I still preferred the fewer/stronger mobs balance in origins over DA2).

I dislike the choice presented regarding re-use vs content. That suggests to me that you lacked sufficient resources (time, money) to make the game right. I thought DA2 was already a big step down in the amount of content from DAO. I hope that the devs and EA are able to consider allocating more time/resources for DA3. That said, I think that's the first time I've seen a dev say they think (in retrospect) they may have made a wrong call re: DA2. That's worth a brownie point or two, even if I hate either of the 'solutions'.

If it's possible to hear about the devs thoughts on the conversation system, and a tactical camera for AOE spells I would be interested to hear what you are thinking.

The conversation system is probably the bigggest issue for me (besides my subjective and visceral dislike for the new art direction: but I have zero hope that Bioware intend to change that). The inability to initiate conversations with companions outside their home base destroyed the sense/illusion of them being real 'people' for me. Once you leave that place, they became nothing more than walking combat statistics to me. I really hope that the devs are reconsidering this system as, for me, it is the biggest reason I think I felt totally unconnected to the companions. (And too I disliked many of them as well, but that's a bit more subjective).

And the AOE spell placement on PC was very irritating. I don't care if the camera is an overhead view, or some other system, but when you can't place the spell where you want to because all the mobs are in the way of the mouse pointer, then the system just sucks worse than a venturi on steroids.

I can't say that referring to Legacy as 'evidence you're listening' is all that helpful if the goal is to use it as a demonstration for those who, like me, are upset about DA2. I am not going to pay $10 for an addon to a game that I already dropped over $120 on, and that ended up feeling like a sucker punch to the gut. (You may not have intended DA2 to be a raised middle finger but it still came across like one; and the 'you just can't cope with change' remarks in interviews only reinforced that impression). If you want Legacy to be the thing that brings back the disillusioned fans, then not releasing it as a free DLC was a poor strategic choice IMO. Which is not to say I'm one of those who thinks all DLC should be free: far from it. I bought a lot of DLC for DAO. I just think that your design choices for DA2 alienated a lot of your DAO fans. You stated that you understood that pre-launch, but were confident we would like the end result once we played it. It turns out that for many of us, that wasn't true. You lost sales of the base game because of it. You're losing sales of DLC because of that. The well has been poisoned for DA3 because of that. If Legacy is the shining point of light in the gathered darkness, then why the heck would you obscure it behind a pay wall? Obviously, that's your choice to make. But it strikes me as being a triumph of tactics over strategy.

I don't mean to be insulting to any of the devs, I'm just trying to explain where I'm at currently and try to figure out whether /I/ should just give up and go away, or not. I have many other issues with DA2, detailed in a wall-of-text constructive criticism post previously, that I would like to hear more about. But the conversaton system is the main thing I'm wanting to know about right now. DA is just not DA to me without companions that I can talk to on the road. (And triggering cutscenes, banter etc does not scratch that itch because the player has no choice about initiating it).

I loved the experience and promise of Origins, and on the strength of that, I do want the franchise to continue and to make you guys pots of money. But DA2... DA2... it felt like a totally different beast altogether, and it's an experience I really do not care to repeat ever again. My pessimism meter is off the scale currently. You guys would have to work hard to swing that needle back the other way again. I'm not even sure if you care enough to try because maybe I'm just one of those disposable customers you're willing to sacrifice.

Whatever happens, though, I really won't be buying more than one copy of DA3 like I did for DAO, DAA, and DA2. Neither myself or my wife liked DA2 enough to want to pay for two copies again. Both of us are going to be perfectly content to wait for the other to play through first next time around, if we get it at all. And right now, neither one of us has any interest in any DLC or further sequels if DA2 is a reliable predictor of what's to come. We have lost too much interest in it. And that's really sad. For me at least.

[Kaiser Shepard]

JohnEpler wrote...

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. 

One would assume just that to be your (as in, the team's) standard modus operandi when developing a sequel, at least for a couple more games. It doesn't really make any sense to overhaul the entire engine, game design and graphical design when your previous game was both critically and commercially acclaimed.

[erynnar]

JohnEpler wrote...

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. 

Good to hear, and what I figured he meant. I just wanted to make sure.

[Redcoat]

For all the talk of the Call of Duty crowd, I'd like to use Modern Warfare 2 as an example. That game was easily the best-selling of the series, having taken the series from a PC FPS based on the Quake III Arena engine to a multi-platform behemoth. Infinity Ward won a lot of fans, and when CoD 3 came out and was produced by Treyarch, there were some people who bemoaned the fact that IW weren't the ones making it.

But while Modern Warfare 2 got record sales, there was a lot of grumbling along with it. People felt that the game was just a vehicle to nickel-and-dime them with DLC, and they bemoaned the lack of dedicated servers. (PC gamers came down hard on the game, observe the 3.7/10 Metacritic user rating, and the PS3 and X360 user scores aren't so hot, either, standing at 5.8/10 and 6.0/10 respectively). This is why I predict that Modern Warfare 3 will sell less than its predecessor, and that the CoD franchise could very well go the way of Activision's "other" cash-cow franchise, Guitar Hero.

So what does this have to do with DA2? Well, it did the same thing MW2 did: it poisoned the well for future installments. A very common sentiment I've heard expressed is, "I preordered DA2, no way I'm making that mistake again!" They no longer trust BioWare. Reputation is critical in the video game industry - people buy games from companies like BioWare or Blizzard on the very first day without even waiting for reviews because that company has a reputation of producing what fans want. But for many that trust isn't there any more. Even if DA3 fixes the most of the glaring issues, such as the reused maps and the flawed implementation of wave combat, I imagine there will be a significant portion of former fans who simply won't show up. I'm hoping BioWare can manage to reconcile the DA:O fans with the DA2 fans, but there's not much we can do but wait and see at this point.

[erynnar]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

The impression I have from DA2 is not that the changes were made because of gameplay improvements, but the changes were mainly made because of economic reasons. Streamlining had one purpose: cost reduction. And that includes companion armor, human only PC, no playable background story, removal of dual wielding and archery from the warrior, removal of most skills, removal of comparison with other companions than are in your party in storage chests and stores, removal of a simple check box to allow all of the character's tactics to be disabled, removal of the dialogue log, usage of full screen user interface instead of a convenient tabbed window, etc., etc.

I also got the impression--right or wrongly--that the changes were made to try and grab audiences that don't like RPGs. Sorry, but I like companion customization, I like details, easter eggs, descriptions. I am not a shooter or whatever games that don't do that kind of player.

[Dragoonlordz]

With sequels I think as do many other that when you have a highly successful title, between that and the next make small changes and slight improvements aka often words used "baby steps" because what happens when do that it your always moving forward. When you make drastic changes in either direction or wide sweeping changes that ovehual the original system, without exception your always going to have an element of backpeddling much like as seen yourselves with both DA2 > Legacy (less waves, new locations, main character and families history) and ME2 > ME3 (RPG elements, exploration, cutting back on the horrible strip mining mini game) etc.Surely it's better to do first method always going forward then second where in the end have to go backwards.

Just my own opinion.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 04 août 2011 - 08:02 .

[erynnar]

Redcoat wrote...

For all the talk of the Call of Duty crowd, I'd like to use Modern Warfare 2 as an example. That game was easily the best-selling of the series, having taken the series from a PC FPS based on the Quake III Arena engine to a multi-platform behemoth. Infinity Ward won a lot of fans, and when CoD 3 came out and was produced by Treyarch, there were some people who bemoaned the fact that IW weren't the ones making it.

But while Modern Warfare 2 got record sales, there was a lot of grumbling along with it. People felt that the game was just a vehicle to nickel-and-dime them with DLC, and they bemoaned the lack of dedicated servers. (PC gamers came down hard on the game, observe the 3.7/10 Metacritic user rating, and the PS3 and X360 user scores aren't so hot, either, standing at 5.8/10 and 6.0/10 respectively). This is why I predict that Modern Warfare 3 will sell less than its predecessor, and that the CoD franchise could very well go the way of Activision's "other" cash-cow franchise, Guitar Hero.

So what does this have to do with DA2? Well, it did the same thing MW2 did: it poisoned the well for future installments. A very common sentiment I've heard expressed is, "I preordered DA2, no way I'm making that mistake again!" They no longer trust BioWare. Reputation is critical in the video game industry - people buy games from companies like BioWare or Blizzard on the very first day without even waiting for reviews because that company has a reputation of producing what fans want. But for many that trust isn't there any more. Even if DA3 fixes the most of the glaring issues, such as the reused maps and the flawed implementation of wave combat, I imagine there will be a significant portion of former fans who simply won't show up. I'm hoping BioWare can manage to reconcile the DA:O fans with the DA2 fans, but there's not much we can do but wait and see at this point.

Well spoken as always Redcoat. I won't preorder, but I bought Legacy (well it was a gift, but I was going  to buy it from everyone's reviews). So I haven't given up on DA franchise completely. The preorder numbers might not be there on DA3 though, true.

[hoorayforicecream]

Redcoat wrote...

So what does this have to do with DA2? Well, it did the same thing MW2 did: it poisoned the well for future installments. 

Um... historical fact shows otherwise. The best selling Call of Duty game is actually the Treyarch-produced Black Ops. BLOPS sold 25 million, and Modern Warfare 2 sold 22 million units overall.

[Dragoonlordz]

erynnar wrote...

Well spoken as always Redcoat. I won't preorder, but I bought Legacy (well it was a gift, but I was going  to buy it from everyone's reviews). So I haven't given up on DA franchise completely. The preorder numbers might not be there on DA3 though, true.

Sold my copy of DA2 ages ago since rather have money in bank than game don't like and won't play. Now paying extra for all DLC and expansions wouldn't make sense if don't like the original game to begin with however if all the expansions and DLC turn out to be highly rated from the people I trust like yourself and other in my friends list who have simular opinions to myself about the franchise and DA2 then I might pick up another copy.

When and more importantly if they do a GOTY like DAO UE the investment could possibly be worth it with all DLCs and expansions might make up for the poor quality original title they bundled with. But if all or majority of the DLCs and expansions are not upto par and go back in anyway to what made DA2 fail imho so badly then sorry not interested. With baby steps mentioned earlier I or we wouldn't even be in this situation but whats done is done.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 04 août 2011 - 08:04 .