9 réponses à ce sujet

[dmtzcain]

Seems like a paradox,
either listen to fan feedback or support their design ideas. The whole “we
are listening” might be a marketing message for the DLC to sell well.

Fans are
right | Designers are right | They can’t both be right.

Here is a
link to the article.

[Stanley Woo]

Some fans are also under the mistaken assumption that they are the ones creating the game, and assuming any kind of risk. They are not. Whether the game succeeds or fails, they won't have spent millions of dollars, won't have spent hundreds of hours of work, have no financial or professional stake in the project, and aren't responsible for any of the content. All they've done is make a bunch of suggestions based on their preferences.

For a customer, there is only gain. For a company, it's work and risk and reputation at stake. so yes, we are definitely listening to feedback, because you guys represent a good cross-section of fans, you're very vocal and you have some great ideas. But no, there is no contract or obligation to implement your suggestions. At best, we can promise only to hear the feedback and think about it along with the hundreds of other suggestions we get. It doesn't mean we don't love you.

[Stanley Woo]

element eater wrote...

well I don't think one cant exist with the other all id really say is not to develop a game based of in game data they collect that way lies trouble

Wait, so you want us to not base our development decisions on what people actually are seen to do in game?

that said these interviews always make me cringe. Not sure why it seems like such an alien concept that fans of the first game should have expected a similar experiance from its sequel. Or the fact that some people have justified reasons to dislike it beyond just that its differant.

It's not an alien concept. We understand many of the reasons some folks didn't like DA2, and we have acknowledged that. but not saying it all the time in every interview does not mean we have forgotten it. At some point, we'd also like to talk about how well we did some things in the game, you know. We happen to be proud of the work we do (and some of the community does as well) and mentioning that does not negate any of the problems we have talked about.

We have also admitted and talked about how we should have done a better job at managing players' expectation when it came to just how different DA2 was going to be from DA:O. That does not mean there weren't good things in the game.

So let's not go crazy and get huffy whenever we do an interview or talk about the game and mention the good parts of it. We do know and freely admit there were problems, but it would be a little unreasonable to stand over us at every interview with your arms crossed until we admit the problems all the time.

[John Epler]

element eater wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

element eater wrote...

well I don't think one cant exist with the other all id really say is not to develop a game based of in game data they collect that way lies trouble

Wait, so you want us to not base our development decisions on what people actually are seen to do in game?

i wouldn't say that , but i think if developers(not only applying this only to bioware) are too reliant on it as resource it can be some thing of a minefield to interpretate. I did not mean it as any kind of derogitary statement aimed at you or your company my apologies if it appears that way

Telemetry data by itself can be misleading, certainly. Any data point without context is misleading, though - that's true of polls, of fan feedback, any of that sort of information. So you can't just take any of it in isolation - you have to look at all the information at your disposal. And while that includes telemetry data - it's certainly not limited to it.

[John Epler]

harkness72 wrote...

My apologies, there isn't a quote, but when Woo states that they do everything and the fans do nothing but give feedback, how does that not have tones of arrogance and indifferance? And as for twisting things, I guess it's a little like somebody else calling someone a jerk because they don't agree with them, or trying to be sarcastic without actaully checking whether somebody's contributed to feedback  

What Stan's saying, though, isn't untrue. Before you assume I mean 'YOU UNGRATEFUL FANS I WORKED MY HANDS TO THE BONE MAKING THIS SCENE, WHY BACK IN MY DAY', all I'm saying (and all Stan is saying) is that, in the end, any ideas we take from the forums are implemented by us. There are certain realities of game development which have to be kept in mind whenever we're looking at a particular suggestion in regards to its viability, and these aren't realities which are common knowledge. Nor should they be - as a consumer, it's not something you -need- to know. Whereas, it's very much our job to keep all of this stuff in mind.

It's only arrogance and indifference if you take it as 'well why should we listen to your feedback, we do all the work' as opposed to 'the feedback given on these forums, while always appreciated and solicited, is given without a knowledge of exactly what will be involved re: implementation'. To put it more simply - as a consumer, your primary (and often, only) consideration when giving feedback is 'what would make the game fun for me'. Which is exactly as it should be! It's not your job to keep all the other stuff in mind. Some fans do, of course, and that can be helpful, but in the end, we have to look at it not only as 'is this fun', but also 'does this A) work with other design ideas we have, with the resources we have, C) with the technology we have'. That's all Stan is saying.

[John Epler]

Let's try to avoid creating 'quotes' out of whole cloth, shall we?

If you can't attribute something, don't make wild claims that it's been said. It does you a disservice and it does nothing to contribute to a constructive discussion, which is what these forums are all about.

[John Epler]

 Here, let me quote myself:

'Well, there's two parts to your post here that I want to address.

The first one - it's true. Call of Duty (and Battlefield, and now sports games what with Be A Pro) have elements that are traditionally associated with RPGs. Part of the reason why Call of Duty is so incredibly successful is that it offers a sense of progression - you get enough points, you 'level up' and gain access to new guns, new perks and new what have you (I haven't played MW2 or Black Ops so I'm not sure what else they've added). Progession is an addictive thing - beyond the social, the reason why games like World of Warcraft work is because they offer progression. People will grind for hours just to get a piece of gear that is a moderate improvement on the piece of gear they already have, so that the task of getting another piece of gear to increase their abilities is made slightly easier.

So now, you take those elements and you tell people 'hey, here's this entire genre of games out there that have progression as a core mechanic. They also have deeper stories and better characterization than the games you're currently playing, maybe you should give them a shot'. You bring them in on the strength of the commonalities, and then you introduce all the things that make your genre unique and powerful. But it's those things that both games have that you're going to try and use to bring in those new fans.

As to the second, again, you're mistaking 'these games have some things in common that we will try to use to bring in people who enjoy that other sort of game' with 'DA and CoD have experience and levelling, let's make DA like Call of Duty in every other way as well!' As to the Mass Effect team, the core combat experience of Mass Effect has a lot in common with the core combat experience of Gears of War. It would be silly of them to not at least look at Gears to see 'hey, they did X and it worked really well, what can we take from that to improve our own game'.

TLDR - I think there's a vast gulf between saying 'we have some stuff that people who play CoD might like, let's bring them in with those aspects and then show them what's unique to our games that wil hook them' and 'DA must become more like Call of Duty!'

[John Epler]

IanPolaris wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

Let's try to avoid creating 'quotes' out of whole cloth, shall we?

If you can't attribute something, don't make wild claims that it's been said. It does you a disservice and it does nothing to contribute to a constructive discussion, which is what these forums are all about.

I'm not and I resent the implication.  There is a reason why ML had to publically address not five days ago the notion that DA3 would be more CoD like and those criticisms did NOT come out of thin are as my many links have shown.

If you think I am "imagining" things, then so are thousands and thousands of others.  I'll leave it at that.

-Polaris

I respect everyone's right to engage in civil discussion on these forums, whether they enjoyed DA2 or did not. Some of the most interesting people I speak to on a regular basis were those who were not fans of the changes that were made. That's fine! These are discussion forums, they are made for discussion. However - if you're going to make claims about what has been said or not said, you do need to back them up with sources. You're taking two separate interviews - one regarding what would be, ideally, the audience for our game (10 million) and one suggesting that there are some elements traditionally associated with RPGs that could appeal to those who tend to play CoD and the like - and combining them, then adding a layer of 'Mike thinks RPGs should be more accessible'.

I have no problem with you arguing whatever point you'd like. These are discussion forums, and there are plenty of people who don't like DA2 who are nonetheless able to engage in civil and spirited debate over the game and RPGs in general. However, if you're going to attribute things to the developers, you need to be able to back up your words. That's all I'm asking.

[John Epler]

LPPrince wrote...

Be nice, both of you. /lol

I will be precisely as ornery as I choose!

In the end, all I'm asking is that discussions happen in good faith. I didn't feel it was the case here, and at the point I jumped in it had turned into arguing about arguing, rather than anything substantial.

That's all I ask. Respect and civility, all around.

[John Epler]

And I think we're done with this thread. It's turned into arguments about arguing, and one side is not arguing in good faith.

Locking.