220 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Saintthanksgiving wrote...
As always though, I have a HUGE problem with their continued use of the DA2 isnt ORIGINS 2 talking point.  I think it is being done as a personal insult to ME at this point.  There can be no other rational explanation for their insistence on repeating this nonsense, other than they know it makes my blood boil and shakes me to the very foundations of my sanity.

As an aside, in a different thread, one poster said flatly this is the main problem with DA2, and that anyone who disagrees is clearly lying and ignoring the evidence.

I can even give you a quote if you like. But basically, there are people saying exactly this. 

[IanPolaris]

In Exile wrote...

Saintthanksgiving wrote...
As always though, I have a HUGE problem with their continued use of the DA2 isnt ORIGINS 2 talking point.  I think it is being done as a personal insult to ME at this point.  There can be no other rational explanation for their insistence on repeating this nonsense, other than they know it makes my blood boil and shakes me to the very foundations of my sanity.

As an aside, in a different thread, one poster said flatly this is the main problem with DA2, and that anyone who disagrees is clearly lying and ignoring the evidence.

I can even give you a quote if you like. But basically, there are people saying exactly this. 

No need.  I said it and I stand by it.  That said I am also insulted with the talking point and here's why:  You don't make a game called "Kibbles" and then a couple years later make a game called "Kibbles II" and have anyone NOT expect it to be at least a reasonable continuation of the first....yet that is exactly what BW is saying.  They are blaming their customers for thinking that a game called Dragon Age Two should in any way be similiar to Dragon Age Origins, and that's just too much for a reasonable person to swallow.

I strongly feel (and have reason to suspect), that had Dragon Age 2 been called, "Adventures in Kirkwall" or something else, it would have been much better received.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 11 août 2011 - 05:49 .

[Zanallen]

And yet few people take issue when Final Fantasy VI is different from V which was different from IV.

They named the game Dragon Age 2, not Dragon Age: Origins 2.

[taine]

Zanallen wrote...

And yet few people take issue when Final Fantasy VI is different from V which was different from IV.

They named the game Dragon Age 2, not Dragon Age: Origins 2.

FFVI was not very different from V, or IV, or III or II or I for that matter. 

I can see why people are getting worked up, but really this is just marketing speak from someone who is, as far as I've been able to tell, not really involved at all in the actual game-making process. Not that I don't have respect to the Dr.s for founding a great company, but I find it difficult to take anything they say as more than empty PR. 

One thing I do have a question about though is Bioware's persistent claim that they somehow innovated with DA2. Now, I actually had fun with the game and do not hate it with the passion of some people around here, but I fail to see how DA2 did anything that could be considered innovative (inventing or applying new ideas). The framed narrative and more personal narrative? Been done before, most recently in Assassin's Creed 2. Time skipping narrative? Also done before, and has never worked well. If anything, the combat reminded me more of a clunkier KotOR than anything new.

I'm not asking this to be snide, it just seems incongruous. Not that anyone from Bioware is likely to respond to questions about marketing speak. Perhaps they mean that they were trying something new *for themselves* rather than for games? If so, then all the talk of innovation comes off as a bit self-satisfied.

[Zanallen]

taine wrote...

FFVI was not very different from V, or IV, or III or II or I for that matter. 

I can see why people are getting worked up, but really this is just marketing speak from someone who is, as far as I've been able to tell, not really involved at all in the actual game-making process. Not that I don't have respect to the Dr.s for founding a great company, but I find it difficult to take anything they say as more than empty PR. 

One thing I do have a question about though is Bioware's persistent claim that they somehow innovated with DA2. Now, I actually had fun with the game and do not hate it with the passion of some people around here, but I fail to see how DA2 did anything that could be considered innovative (inventing or applying new ideas). The framed narrative and more personal narrative? Been done before, most recently in Assassin's Creed 2. Time skipping narrative? Also done before, and has never worked well. If anything, the combat reminded me more of a clunkier KotOR than anything new.

I'm not asking this to be snide, it just seems incongruous. Not that anyone from Bioware is likely to respond to questions about marketing speak. Perhaps they mean that they were trying something new *for themselves* rather than for games? If so, then all the talk of innovation comes off as a bit self-satisfied.

Have you played those Final Fantasy games? They are all very different, beyond having different protagonists and being set in different universes. FF1 didn't even have set protagonists. You created a party of your choice and played the game with it. FF2 introduced set protagonists, changed the class system found in 1 and didn't even use experience based levels. FF3 introduced the job system, which is a revamp of the system found in FF1, summon spells and autotargeting. FFIV ditched the job system and went back to characters with set classes. It also had various protagonists only present during certain parts of the game. FFVI was the first FF game that had multiple characters that you could switch out to make up your own party. It also had a very different magic system from its predecesors and, despite having set characters, had no real protagonist.

[taine]

Zanallen wrote...


Have you played those Final Fantasy games? They are all very different, beyond having different protagonists and being set in different universes. FF1 didn't even have set protagonists. You created a party of your choice and played the game with it. FF2 introduced set protagonists, changed the class system found in 1 and didn't even use experience based levels. FF3 introduced the job system, which is a revamp of the system found in FF1, summon spells and autotargeting. FFIV ditched the job system and went back to characters with set classes. It also had various protagonists only present during certain parts of the game. FFVI was the first FF game that had multiple characters that you could switch out to make up your own party. It also had a very different magic system from its predecesors and, despite having set characters, had no real protagonist.

Yes, I've played 1-7, back when they came out and a couple times again after that. They are all the same essential formula, with cosmetic and system changes built on as the series progressed. There is very little difference in gameplay between them. There is more focus on plot in later entries, and somewhat deeper and more varied combat, but that was more a function of time and improved tech and more money than any essential revamping of the formula. There's nothing wrong with that, I enjoyed the early FF games a lot. But they didn't make any huge changes between games for a reason: they had a formula that worked well and a solid fanbase. Why would they?

[Zanallen]

taine wrote...

Yes, I've played 1-7, back when they came out and a couple times again after that. They are all the same essential formula, with cosmetic and system changes built on as the series progressed. There is very little difference in gameplay between them. There is more focus on plot in later entries, and somewhat deeper and more varied combat, but that was more a function of time and improved tech and more money than any essential revamping of the formula. There's nothing wrong with that, I enjoyed the early FF games a lot. But they didn't make any huge changes between games for a reason: they had a formula that worked well and a solid fanbase. Why would they?

I see the same amount of differences between the various FF games as I do between Origins and DA2.

[Bryy_Miller]

IanPolaris wrote...
I strongly feel (and have reason to suspect), that had Dragon Age 2 been called, "Adventures in Kirkwall" or something else, it would have been much better received.

-Polaris

I highly doubt it.

[IanPolaris]

Zanallen wrote...

taine wrote...

Yes, I've played 1-7, back when they came out and a couple times again after that. They are all the same essential formula, with cosmetic and system changes built on as the series progressed. There is very little difference in gameplay between them. There is more focus on plot in later entries, and somewhat deeper and more varied combat, but that was more a function of time and improved tech and more money than any essential revamping of the formula. There's nothing wrong with that, I enjoyed the early FF games a lot. But they didn't make any huge changes between games for a reason: they had a formula that worked well and a solid fanbase. Why would they?

I see the same amount of differences between the various FF games as I do between Origins and DA2.

I find that difficult to believe.  Sure there were upgrades and differences between the various FF games (I've played some if not all), but the basic story and playing style remained pretty much the same.  DA2 with it's voiced main character with no control of the background, "Framed Narrative", and much more more play like a completely different game, and this was intentional.  There is much more, but basically DA2 is nothing like DAO and that is a huge part of the problem for an audience expecting a SEQUEL to DAO because it was called "Dragon Age TWO" after all.

Who's to blame for this?  Honestly?  Bioware but they won't admit it.

-Polaris

[esper]

IanPolaris wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

taine wrote...

Yes, I've played 1-7, back when they came out and a couple times again after that. They are all the same essential formula, with cosmetic and system changes built on as the series progressed. There is very little difference in gameplay between them. There is more focus on plot in later entries, and somewhat deeper and more varied combat, but that was more a function of time and improved tech and more money than any essential revamping of the formula. There's nothing wrong with that, I enjoyed the early FF games a lot. But they didn't make any huge changes between games for a reason: they had a formula that worked well and a solid fanbase. Why would they?

I see the same amount of differences between the various FF games as I do between Origins and DA2.

I find that difficult to believe.  Sure there were upgrades and differences between the various FF games (I've played some if not all), but the basic story and playing style remained pretty much the same.  DA2 with it's voiced main character with no control of the background, "Framed Narrative", and much more more play like a completely different game, and this was intentional.  There is much more, but basically DA2 is nothing like DAO and that is a huge part of the problem for an audience expecting a SEQUEL to DAO because it was called "Dragon Age TWO" after all.

Who's to blame for this?  Honestly?  Bioware but they won't admit it.

-Polaris

I gave up on FF after 12. There IS a hughe difference between DA2 and DAO, but I happens to love both games and I actually think we were warned with the changes in DA2, espacially with the demo, and I am very curious as to where they will go with DA3.

[IanPolaris]

esper wrote...

I gave up on FF after 12. There IS a hughe difference between DA2 and DAO, but I happens to love both games and I actually think we were warned with the changes in DA2, espacially with the demo, and I am very curious as to where they will go with DA3.

No we weren't.  Not really.  Otherwise they wouldn't have called it Dragan Age TWO.  They would have called it something else.  I also remember the Demo was released less than two weeks before the game hit the shelves which I thought was very strange at the time, but makes perfect sense now....assuming that at least someone in Bioware had an inkling the fans weren't going to like it...and the Demo wasn't very well recieved as I remember either, but a lot of us talked our way out of it by saying, "It's only a Demo.  The main game has to be better."  Well it wasn't.

-Polaris

[AtreiyaN7]

IanPolaris wrote...

esper wrote...

I gave up on FF after 12. There IS a hughe difference between DA2 and DAO, but I happens to love both games and I actually think we were warned with the changes in DA2, espacially with the demo, and I am very curious as to where they will go with DA3.

No we weren't.  Not really.  Otherwise they wouldn't have called it Dragan Age TWO.  They would have called it something else.  I also remember the Demo was released less than two weeks before the game hit the shelves which I thought was very strange at the time, but makes perfect sense now....assuming that at least someone in Bioware had an inkling the fans weren't going to like it...and the Demo wasn't very well recieved as I remember either, but a lot of us talked our way out of it by saying, "It's only a Demo.  The main game has to be better."  Well it wasn't.

-Polaris

This obsession with the name seems completely ridiculous. Mike Laidlaw stated something in another thread that's been said/pointed out before: that the Dragon Age series was never meant to be about one hero and that it's about Thedas and its history as a whole (I'm paraphrasing, of course). It's perfeclty legitimate to call the game Dragon Age 2 as the second entry into the series

Since you've made it clear that you hate the game (and are an "ex-customer"), I really fail to see how a swtich to something like "Dragon Age: Kirkwall" would somehow make gameplay fundmentally appealing to you or anyone else who disllikes the changes to the gameplay mechanics, etc. Furthermore, the whole purpose of a demo is that it be indicative of the actual gameplay, and it was. If you wanted to put blinders on and hope the main game was going to somehow harken back to DA:O, then that was your mistake, wasn't it? You already didn't like the demo, so maybe you should have taken that as a sign that the game wasn't going to be something that you would enjoy.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 11 août 2011 - 07:19 .

[IanPolaris]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

esper wrote...

I gave up on FF after 12. There IS a hughe difference between DA2 and DAO, but I happens to love both games and I actually think we were warned with the changes in DA2, espacially with the demo, and I am very curious as to where they will go with DA3.

No we weren't.  Not really.  Otherwise they wouldn't have called it Dragan Age TWO.  They would have called it something else.  I also remember the Demo was released less than two weeks before the game hit the shelves which I thought was very strange at the time, but makes perfect sense now....assuming that at least someone in Bioware had an inkling the fans weren't going to like it...and the Demo wasn't very well recieved as I remember either, but a lot of us talked our way out of it by saying, "It's only a Demo.  The main game has to be better."  Well it wasn't.

-Polaris

This obsession with the name seems completely ridiculous. Mike Laidlaw stated something in another thread that's been said/pointed out before: that the Dragon Age series was never meant to be about one hero and that it's about Thedas and its history as a whole. It's perfeclty legitimate to call the game Dragon Age 2 as the second entry into the series

The NAME is very much the point.  It's the first thing the customer sees, and it's the first thing the customer basis is judgement of the product on (to buy or not buy).  The name and visual presentation of the product (any product) is incredibly important.

Laidlaw can spew a thousand words to the contrary, but if you see a product called "Kibbles 2" then you expect to see something very much like "Kibbles" and no amount of obfuscation will change that.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 11 août 2011 - 07:20 .

[AtreiyaN7]

IanPolaris wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

esper wrote...

I gave up on FF after 12. There IS a hughe difference between DA2 and DAO, but I happens to love both games and I actually think we were warned with the changes in DA2, espacially with the demo, and I am very curious as to where they will go with DA3.

No we weren't.  Not really.  Otherwise they wouldn't have called it Dragan Age TWO.  They would have called it something else.  I also remember the Demo was released less than two weeks before the game hit the shelves which I thought was very strange at the time, but makes perfect sense now....assuming that at least someone in Bioware had an inkling the fans weren't going to like it...and the Demo wasn't very well recieved as I remember either, but a lot of us talked our way out of it by saying, "It's only a Demo.  The main game has to be better."  Well it wasn't.

-Polaris

This obsession with the name seems completely ridiculous. Mike Laidlaw stated something in another thread that's been said/pointed out before: that the Dragon Age series was never meant to be about one hero and that it's about Thedas and its history as a whole. It's perfeclty legitimate to call the game Dragon Age 2 as the second entry into the series

The NAME is very much the point.  It's the first thing the customer sees, and it's the first thing the customer basis is judgement of the product on (to buy or not buy).  The name and visual presentation of the product (any product) is incredibly important.

Laidlaw can spew a thousand words to the contrary, but if you see a product called "Kibbles 2" then you expect to see something very much like "Kibbles" and no amount of obfuscation will change that.

-Polaris

What do I expect if I get a Dragon Age game? The only thing I expect is that the game will A) take place during the bloody Dragon Age period and  that it will be somewhere in Thedas. And that happens to be what we got. There's no magical guarantee anywhere that any game in a series will be JUST like the preceding games.

Was Fallout 3 EXACTLY like Fallout 2? I think not. There were quite a few differences, not the least of which were a complete shift from isometic graphics to 3D graphics. Same universe, totally different graphics, totally different geographical area (the Capitol wasteland), totally different protagonist, the addition of a more cinematic approach to conversations/story (such as it was), and changes in combat (although rather like keeping the ability to pause and play in DA2, one still has V.A.T.S.). Was Ultima Underworld like Ultima IV? No, they weren't, and they happen to be from the same series.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 11 août 2011 - 07:35 .

[In Exile]

I swear I wasn't trying to flamebait when I said what I did. I can't explain this last page.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

In Exile wrote...

I swear I wasn't trying to flamebait when I said what I did. I can't explain this last page.

Choices & Consequences.

[IanPolaris]

Oh please....this is just simple and obvious obfuscation and frankly finding excuses for bioware.

When a reasonable person sees Jaws II as a book besides another book called Jaws, that person should reasonble expect to read a tale about another Great White Killer Shark or something very much like it. At very least, the reader would be well within his rights to be outraged if Jaws II turned out to be a cookbook regarding the culinary attributes of Bovine Jaws when it was sold by Jaws, had almost the same cover and trademark as Jaws, sold by the same company as Jaws, etc.

That's almost exactly what Bioware did with DA2. It was a classic bait-and-switch with their original customers, and now bioware wonders why so many of them are less than amused......

-Polaris

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

If you are selling something, it could be nearly anything, and attach a name to it. Then you sell something with the same name and a "2 " after it, that means you are either getting twice the number of the original, or you are getting a newer version of the original which has been improved while holding all the main traits of the first object. To me DA 2 was false advertising and bad merchandising. They really should of called it something else in my opinion. I still think "Hawke's Big Score" would of been far better...and Inon Zur could of drawn reference from Isaac Hayes' Shaft soundtrack. It would of been great, just imagine Hawke with an afro dressed in plate armor with bellbottoms!

[Cutlass Jack]

IanPolaris wrote...

When a reasonable person sees Jaws II as a book besides another book called Jaws, that person should reasonble expect to read a tale about another Great White Killer Shark or something very much like it. At very least, the reader would be well within his rights to be outraged if Jaws II turned out to be a cookbook regarding the culinary attributes of Bovine Jaws when it was sold by Jaws, had almost the same cover and trademark as Jaws, sold by the same company as Jaws, etc.

Fair enough. So when I see a game called Dragon Age 2, I should reasonably expect it to be a game that takes place in the Dragon Age. Like the first game.

Modifié par Cutlass Jack, 11 août 2011 - 07:48 .

[AtreiyaN7]

IanPolaris wrote...

Oh please....this is just simple and obvious obfuscation and frankly finding excuses for bioware.

When a reasonable person sees Jaws II as a book besides another book called Jaws, that person should reasonble expect to read a tale about another Great White Killer Shark or something very much like it. At very least, the reader would be well within his rights to be outraged if Jaws II turned out to be a cookbook regarding the culinary attributes of Bovine Jaws when it was sold by Jaws, had almost the same cover and trademark as Jaws, sold by the same company as Jaws, etc.

That's almost exactly what Bioware did with DA2. It was a classic bait-and-switch with their original customers, and now bioware wonders why so many of them are less than amused......

-Polaris

You really do seem to love to ignore facts unless they suit you. It's also nice how you excised the portion of my earlier post in which I point out that you acknowledged playing the DA2 demo and not liking what you saw. You have only yourself to blame as far as I'm concerned. There was no bait & switch, no deception when there were all the podcasts and screenshots from the game prior to release.

A bait & switch would have involved promising that we were going to get an exact clone of DA:O with everyhting exactly the way that it was, and they never did that. Furthermore, it is no "obfuscation" to cite real-world examples that clearly exist. Sorry, but I pointed out TWO game series with sequels (or later games in the series) that radically differed from each other. But please, by all means continue tuning out what you don't want to hear. And, again, a name change is in no way going to alter how people feel about game mechanics that they have some fundamental disagreement with. I can't believe that anyone can say that with a straight face.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 11 août 2011 - 08:00 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

To be fair, they are not directly applicable, with Ultima Underworld not actually part of the main Ultima series and Fallout 3 being made by a different developer with a different game engine almost a decade after the last game.

But I'd agree with the idea that it wouldn't people's opinions of the game. It would however, change people's opinions of BioWare drastically if they had a hypothetical DA:O 2 in development which promised to fall under DA:O's design and mechanics rather than having BioWare indicate that DA 2's direction is the only direction moving forward. Because then, you'd have a main series of games falling under the direction of Origins and the possibility of side games that experiment more and follows DA 2's direction.

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

[In Exile]

mrcrusty wrote...

Choices & Consequences.

So a lazy post has DA2 beat? 

mrcrusty wrote...
But I'd agree with the idea that it wouldn't people's opinions of the game. It would however, change people's opinions of BioWare drastically if they had a hypothetical DA:O 2 in development which promised to fall under DA:O's design and mechanics rather than having BioWare indicate that DA 2's direction is the only direction moving forward. Because then, you'd have a main series of games falling under the direction of Origins and the possibility of side games that experiment more and follows DA 2's direction.

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

Even if Bioware would have kept DA2 as DA:Exodus (which if you peek around the files seems to have been the original name) I don't think it would have meant that there was a DA:O2 in the works. 

I think the fact that Bioware was straight up about the changes they were making to the franchise is good. I appreciate honesty. 

Marketing told some serious *ahem* alterations of the in-game reality, but Bioware never hid the fact this was not DA:O2. 

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

That's certainly one part of it mrcrusty. If Bioware had released "DA 2" ten years later and made a bunch of changes to the looks, story, game lore and gameplay mechanics then the lapse of time might be easier to understand all the changes. The details for the changes for DA 2 were also leaked out very slowly and the demo was put out just before launch, allowing for very little effective feedback from fans and turnaround time for design changes. It was like the opinions of the fans didn't matter and I'm not sure why it was even released.