230 réponses à ce sujet

[Aaleel]

The re-use of areas was one of the main things that ruined the game for me. You were already stuck in the same city for most of the game, so seeing the same places over and over when you got to leave was just too much.

ME1 reused areas correctly to add content. Optional side quests. BUT and this is the main difference. When the story said you were going somewhere new, it was new. Citadel, Feros, Virmire, Ilos, Noveria, etc, the storyline missions were new areas.

If the story tells you you're going somewhere new, it should be somewhere new, not the same area without one stitch of alteration. I've always been a fan of fewer areas that were longer, than a bunch of short area missions anyway.

[Huntress]

Aaleel wrote...

I think it's easier for RPG players to get into shooters than it is the other way around. I've played COD4, Crysis and BF2-BC because friends pestered me until I tried them lol.

But the problem with going from shooters to RPGs, which those same friends can't stand. There's way too much dialogue for them to sit through even skipping it all. If they made the next COD or BF game where it spans 5 years. You go to war, come home spend time on leave and go through everyday life, and then get deployed again. Where is goes deeply into the soldiers personal life, It would flop. I guarantee people would call it boring.

You can streamline and compromise on A LOT of stuff in an RPG, but the one main thing that makes it an RPG is the one thing you can't compromise on, the main character/story. That's why I don't see how you ever appeal to shooter players. They should really focus on Action/Adventure players.

I dont think many will  agree with you, I was playing Quest for glory 5 and Birthright  when I read about Unreal tornament 1999, let me tell you, shooting didn't do it for me, I had internet and still i thought it was ... stupid. Hehe, I know ME2-3 are space cadet crew, and probably fun, but m not interested on shooting games.
Any way after trying UT in 2000  I put it in the garbage and went back to the store and got Diablo2 I still got this game after 11 years it came out and play it from time to time " when I want to kill other players for the heck of it" gogo ladder realms.!.
So no, not everyone leave rpg for shooter games.

[Aaleel]

Huntress wrote...

I dont think many will  agree with you, I was playing Quest for glory 5 and Birthright  when I read about Unreal tornament 1999, let me tell you, shooting didn't do it for me, I had internet and still i thought it was ... stupid. Hehe, I know ME2-3 are space cadet crew, and probably fun, but m not interested on shooting games.
Any way after trying UT in 2000  I put it in the garbage and went back to the store and got Diablo2 I still got this game after 11 years it came out and play it from time to time " when I want to kill other players for the heck of it" gogo ladder realms.!.
So no, not everyone leave rpg for shooter games.

Uhh, I think you misunderstood what I wrote.  I didn't really like shooters, especially FPS.  But when I'm in the mood just to kill some stuff, I'll start one up and do a mission lol.  But my friends who are really into FPS, hated RPGs because there was too much downtime for them.  They really only play the campaign to strengthen their characters for multiplayer, they just didn't want all the story at all.

All I said was that I think it would be easier for RPG players to go to shooters than the other way around.  Never said everyone would leave RPGs for shooters.

[Phaelducan]

Babli wrote...

Makes me confident that until Laidlaw is in charge, this series is dead to me.

Its just so funny. DA: O was a winning formula, best selling Bioware game and they ****ed it up so much.

DA:O sold  more than ME2?

Also... many people play *gasp* shooters as well as RPG's. Progression is not limited to the RPG genre.

Metroid and Zelda had progression, yet weren't RPG's. This idea of exclusive genre characteristics is absurd. It's not even obsolete as it was never accurate in the first place.

[Steppenwolf]

I just really hope Mike Laidlaw understands that DA2 underperformed because it was a mediocre game that was rushed out the doors and doesn't still blame Origins' fans and their refusal to accept change. It was never that. Some people will that many of us had condemned the game before it ever came out, but you have to remember that right from the start they were redesigning everything and giving us a Shepard-like character. And it wasn't aversion to change that made people reject that. It was the fact that they liked Origins because it was Origins and didn't want anyone fundamentally altering the franchise just to make it more like Mass Effect or make it appeal more to a fan base that has/had no interest in Dragon Age. Just because we didn't want those changes doesn't mean we didn't want any changes.

[Realmzmaster]

I would rather Bioware add more content through re-using the environment than having content cut because they did not have time to make a unique area for it. What Bioware should have done was disguise the re-use better. Bioware did this with the cave under Harimann's mansion. Most people could not tell it was a re-used area because they disgused the re-use.

Re-using area is an old CRPG tactic. The other CRPGs did it. Those games simply disguised the re-use better.

Wave mechanic is nothing new a great many CRPGs use it. Icewind Dale II back in 2002 used the tactic. The gamer had to find an enemy playing a drum to call reinforcements. Reinforcements would keep coming until the drum was destroyed. This was done on the path leading to the cave. It was done several times in the cave. The enemy would simply keep spawning. Which was great if you wanted to grind to the next level, but a pain if you wanted to progress the story.

DA2 implementation was flawed. But this is the type of discussion that is going on in the other thread. So join us on the other thread and lend your voice in a civil manner to the discussion.

[Phaelducan]

BasilKarlo wrote...

I just really hope Mike Laidlaw understands that DA2 underperformed because it was a mediocre game that was rushed out the doors and doesn't still blame Origins' fans and their refusal to accept change. It was never that. Some people will that many of us had condemned the game before it ever came out, but you have to remember that right from the start they were redesigning everything and giving us a Shepard-like character. And it wasn't aversion to change that made people reject that. It was the fact that they liked Origins because it was Origins and didn't want anyone fundamentally altering the franchise just to make it more like Mass Effect or make it appeal more to a fan base that has/had no interest in Dragon Age. Just because we didn't want those changes doesn't mean we didn't want any changes.

It was partially Origins fans. I'm not saying DA2 was better than Origins (I don't think it was), but I do think it never had a chance to succeed. It was doomed from the start by a fairly psychotic fanbase (much love, DA:O fans).

[Realmzmaster]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Laidlaw comes across the complete hack and his wretched vision for Dragon Age is so far removed from Origins I know I’m done with the franchise so long as he is involved. No amount of pointless pontificating will convince me that Dragon Age 2 was anything other than an exercise in cutting corners; a cynical attempt to cash in on the excellence of Origins, whilst attempting to reinvent it as something more appealing an ADHT crowd. As for Mike’s concessions, all they do is validate the many legitimate grumbles people have with regards his horrible, horrible game. Hows about you shelve the hotrodding stick, put away the awesome button and actually take the time to produce a Dragon Age game worthy of the name?

Suit yourself. That is your choice. But as far as appealing to the ADHT crowd I am not one of them (The statement in and of itself is insulting to many who suffer from it) and I happen to like DA2 as well as many on this forum.Many of us have been playing CRPGs longer than some of you have been breathing. I do not think it is a horrible game, but you have your opinion and I repect that.

[Night Prowler76]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Davasar wrote...
“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,” Laidlaw adds.

So that means making an RPG for people who don't like RPGs (FPS/action game crowd who do not like reading and have the attention span of a gnat) and alienating and purposefully pissing on your original fan base.

No, it means giving people who don't identify as RPG fans the credit they deserve for liking something different than what you like, and letting them know that some of the things they like about their favoured game genre also exist in RPGs. Yes, we decided to let some new people into your exclusive club.

Working out great, just look at how the sales went....

Oh...wait...

Now look at how and what we're communicating about how DA2 went and what we hope to improve on in the future. Perhaps you don't make mistakes and have to learn to improve for the future, but we certainly do. What we would like to do--and what we've been trying to encourage since DA2's release--is to get constructive feedback from our community, which contain some of our closest, most passionate, and most articulate fans. The key word here is "constructive." It's so easy to pile on the hate and pout and whinge and grump about what we did wrong, but those who are truly interested in the future of Dragon Age are also talking about stuff they liked and didn't like, stuff they missed from DAO and stuff they hope we never do again. Sure, they're blaming us for making mistakes, but then they're moving past that and helping us talk about the future.

Looks like broken promises, appeasement to people who don't like RPGs, lies and bait and switching didn't do so well for you EAware.

Name-calling, ranting, and flaming don't help anyone. If that's what you want to do, then fine, do it within the rules and you can keep doing it. But we're past that. We've got big ideas and we're hoping that improved communication between developers and our community will help us make better games and help you better understand some of what we do and why we do it--why we have to make the hard decisions, why we can't please everyone all the time, how this business works, what we expect from the fans and what they can expect from us.

I'll never believe anything you say again in regards to making a game the likes of DAO (which you've pointedly said you will not be doing EVER again).  Making crappy, short term profits grabbing games?  Sure...I can believe you'll go all out for that.

If you choose not to believe us, then there's not much more we can say. Hope you find our future products more to your liking, but you'll have to take an even bigger risk now that you've closed yourself off from us. We'll continue to talk to everyone else, if it's all the same to you.

As I have said before:

We will at least respect you if you come out and say flat out:  "We hate you people who liked DOA.  We aren't making games for you anymore.  Get lost."

That's not what we've said, that's not what we're saying, and that's not what we'll ever say. But you're not looking for a response, so this is for everyone else who haven't closed their minds completely and still want to feel hope for what's coming down the pipe in future Dragon Age projects.

We. Are. Listening.

The thing is Stanley, when you guys made all the changes to DA2, there was alot of of people on this forum giving you opinions on how watered down they would make the game, did you guys listen then? No, in fact we got brushed aside so you guys could make the game more appealing to a wider audience (which judging by sales, this didnt happen).

So if you you did not bother listening to the forums then, why would anyone believe you would listen for the next installment? Im asking you to answer honestly, because nothing I have seen would lead me to think that DA3 will be much different than DA2 other than less re use of environments and better enemy spawning.

I wish you good luck with DA, but I have to agree with the previous poster, Origins made this series, not DA2, if you continue to make the games like DA2, there will be no series, going from 4.5 millon in sales to 2 million in sales would be the first indicator that you made a huge mistake, I know if I was selling a product that sold twice as much as another, I would continue to sell that product, not change to the other one and tell your customers they are insignificant and afraid of change.

[Slayer299]

Phaelducan wrote...
It was partially Origins fans. I'm not saying DA2 was better than Origins (I don't think it was), but I do think it never had a chance to succeed. It was doomed from the start by a fairly psychotic fanbase (much love, DA:O fans).

Please explain that since DAO fans could not alone have drummed everything up as it turned out in DA2 and more than a few non DAO buyers had the same complaints about DA2. So I don't see how dropping the blame for DA2's major issues on it's "psychotic fanbase" as the root cause of DA2's problems.

[Phaelducan]

Did you read? I said partially. I don't defend DA2 as an overly maligned superior product. I do think Origins was better. However, DA2 was totally crucified before it launched. It didn't have a chance, and the fanbase from Origins is largely why.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Phaelducan wrote...

Did you read? I said partially. I don't defend DA2 as an overly maligned superior product. I do think Origins was better. However, DA2 was totally crucified before it launched. It didn't have a chance, and the fanbase from Origins is largely why.

A lot of people on the DAO side of the argument will say word of mouth helped DAO's sales enormously, then when it comes to why DA2 didn't do so well, they'll say "word of mouth isn't that powerrful!"  There is a double standard.  DA2 is not perfect, but the hate campaign didn't help either.

[ArcanistLibram]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

ArcanistLibram wrote...

I probably should have just cut content to reduce the re-use, but that’s a tough call to make in the moment.

What.

Basically he was saying they had a choice of having more content that reused maps, or cutting that content. Which is why the map reuse never bothered me to the level it bothered others. Personally, I'd rather have more content and felt he made the better call.

But there was a third option they missed. Which was reuse maps, but make it less 'beat you over the head' obvious. For example doing lighting and atmospheric changes. Or blocking a door with a big boulder, instead of a blatant white concrete slab that doesn't match the dungeon. And finally, make the minimaps not show areas you can't get to. A little creativity could have gone a long way there.

There's also the fourth option of taking more time and putting more effort into the game in order to have more content and less area re-use. This just cements my opinion that Bioware just didn't care DA2. If Bioware wants to make games fast and cheap, that's fine. But I'm not paying for games that aren't done well.

[Slayer299]

Phaelducan wrote...

Did you read? I said partially. I don't defend DA2 as an overly maligned superior product. I do think Origins was better. However, DA2 was totally crucified before it launched. It didn't have a chance, and the fanbase from Origins is largely why.

Yes, I did read thank you. However, my point was that the fanbase could not have made such a huge splash as to kill DA2 alone. Sure, there was disappointment previously with what was seen for DA2, but I saw a zillion and a half people here also hugely excited/anticpatory and they were the majority not the minority. But to drop the problem as to DAO fans killing it for everyone else is just a bit of an exaggeration to be certain.

[syllogi]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

Did you read? I said partially. I don't defend DA2 as an overly maligned superior product. I do think Origins was better. However, DA2 was totally crucified before it launched. It didn't have a chance, and the fanbase from Origins is largely why.

A lot of people on the DAO side of the argument will say word of mouth helped DAO's sales enormously, then when it comes to why DA2 didn't do so well, they'll say "word of mouth isn't that powerrful!"  There is a double standard.  DA2 is not perfect, but the hate campaign didn't help either.

Are people who enjoyed DA:O and didn't like DA2 supposed to keep their mouths shut, for some reason?  I know a co-worker who bought DA:O about a year after it came out, and seemed to enjoy it.  When we were talking about DA2, he had already heard bad things about it, and while I didn't completely bash it, I had to honestly tell him that it was not going to be a lot like DA:O, and he should wait till it's on sale or comes with all DLC, like he did with the first game, if he gets it.  I don't think there's a conspiracy to keep DA2 down...people just talk about things they do or don't like.

[Yrkoon]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...


this notion that people have that "CoD players are idiots who dislike reading" is one of the biggest loads of horse**** I've ever seen on here.
 

   A Monkey can play Call of Duty.

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...


A lot of people on the DAO side of the argument will say word of mouth helped DAO's sales enormously, then when it comes to why DA2 didn't do so well, they'll say "word of mouth isn't that powerrful!"

What?   Point me to one of these double-standard-spouting people.    Anyone who claims that Word of mouth isn't the most powerful advertising tool there is simply doesn't know jack about Advertising.  And Yes, word of mouth  (bad word of mouth to be specific) is absolutely the reason for DA2's lackluster sales.   I've not seen anyone here  arguing otherwise, though, so.... 

Modifié par Yrkoon, 08 août 2011 - 05:26 .

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

TeenZombie wrote...

Are people who enjoyed DA:O and didn't like DA2 supposed to keep their mouths shut, for some reason?  I know a co-worker who bought DA:O about a year after it came out, and seemed to enjoy it.  When we were talking about DA2, he had already heard bad things about it, and while I didn't completely bash it, I had to honestly tell him that it was not going to be a lot like DA:O, and he should wait till it's on sale or comes with all DLC, like he did with the first game, if he gets it.  I don't think there's a conspiracy to keep DA2 down...people just talk about things they do or don't like.

My point... you proves it...

[John Epler]

If we start down the 'people who enjoy X game are idiots' path, I will start banning.

It's one of the most ridiculous myths that some people on these forums seem to perpetuate, and I can't help but feel that it survives based on the idea that it puts those who -don't- like those sorts of games on some sort of pedestal.

Either way, we're not doing it.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Yrkoon wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...


this notion that people have that "CoD players are idiots who dislike reading" is one of the biggest loads of horse**** I've ever seen on here.
 

   A Monkey can play Call of Duty.

A monkey wouldn't fall for a viral advertisement.  But you did.

[Yrkoon]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...


this notion that people have that "CoD players are idiots who dislike reading" is one of the biggest loads of horse**** I've ever seen on here.
 

   A Monkey can play Call of Duty.

A monkey wouldn't fall for a viral advertisement.  But you did.

Sense... You make none...

Modifié par Yrkoon, 08 août 2011 - 05:31 .

[FieryDove]

Phaelducan wrote...

Did you read? I said partially. I don't defend DA2 as an overly maligned superior product. I do think Origins was better. However, DA2 was totally crucified before it launched. It didn't have a chance, and the fanbase from Origins is largely why.

I don't understand. A lot of origin fans pre-ordered. I did at least.

[syllogi]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

TeenZombie wrote...

Are people who enjoyed DA:O and didn't like DA2 supposed to keep their mouths shut, for some reason?  I know a co-worker who bought DA:O about a year after it came out, and seemed to enjoy it.  When we were talking about DA2, he had already heard bad things about it, and while I didn't completely bash it, I had to honestly tell him that it was not going to be a lot like DA:O, and he should wait till it's on sale or comes with all DLC, like he did with the first game, if he gets it.  I don't think there's a conspiracy to keep DA2 down...people just talk about things they do or don't like.

My point... you proves it...

I still don't get your point.  Again, was I not supposed to share my opinion, because I didn't enjoy it as much as the first game?  

[Sherbet Lemon]

Yrkoon wrote...

Sense... You make none...

Yrkoon, it's not a real experiement.  That's the sentiment.  It's false. It's a marketing trick.

EDIT:  The 20th Century Fox in the left corner is a dead giveaway.  It's a promo for this film.

Modifié par Village Idiot, 08 août 2011 - 05:39 .