144 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

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

[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!'

[IanPolaris]

And you waited five months to "carefully" make that distinction?

Not buying it and the rest shouldn't either.

Mind you, I have no issue if BW genuinely changed their mind, but if so man up and admit it.


-Polaris

[Ariella]

IanPolaris wrote...

Ariella wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Firky wrote...

Polaris, I'm trying to follow but what's your point? How is that ^ a "money quote" and I can't see "CoD" or "10 million" in those links.

Actually ML directly compares DA2 to CD-4 in one of the interviews I linked to on page three.  Not the one that I expanded on.  Also if you read the commentary on BOTH interviews, the interpretation was pretty nearly universal that ML was trying to appeal to the CD crowd.

-Polaris

Edit: http://www.guardian....aw-dragon-age-2

Here's another link with imbedded video.  Pay particular attention to the last couple of questions.

Again, embedded video he said NOTHING about CoD, and the one time he mentioned CoD in the interview his message is consistant about it not make DA2 into CoD but bringing in people who enjoy elements of RPGs like progression which exists in CoD (he also uses WoW in the same example) would also enjoy RPGs like Dragon Age. The idea is to get these people over the stereotypes of who RPGs are made for.

You still refuse to smell the napalm:

Here is this: http://news.softpedi...-2-186647.shtml

It's pretty much an open invitation for CoD players and the like to play DA2 because it's more CoD like.

Don't urinate on my leg and tell me it's raining.

-Polaris

Ian, you do realize that this is a secondary source that uses the Gamesutra interview as its primary. They paraphrase what he said in Gamesutra. This is your idea of a good source?

The same thing for the gamebanshee "article". It's several different quotes taken out of the context of the whole article. And you STILL have yet to prove that Mike said he wants to make DA2 like CoD. Give it up, it's not out there because it doesn't exist.

[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.

[IanPolaris]

I did. The fact that the very same developer (ML) not five days ago had to say, "we didn't mean that", i.e. DA2 was to draw in the CoD crowd says volumes. I strongly doubt he did that just for my benefit. Furthermore if you go back and read these same forums circa Feb-April, that was pretty much how everyone (even pro-DA2 posters) read MLs comments at the time of which I've linked a few...so it's not like I haven't backed up what I've said and it's not like I haven't given links to the old interviews (because I have).

If BW has changed it's mind, then great. Just admit that you've done so.

-Polaris

[LPPrince]

Be nice, both of you. /lol

[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.

[LPPrince]

Hence my respect and civility in saying how FAAAAAIL I think DA2 was compared to DAO, but that's for another thread, another discussion, and another time.

Same ol Prince though.

[mesmerizedish]

What BioWare have said and what people have chosen to believe are entirely different things and always have been.

What Mr. Laidlaw said "not five days ago" is the same thing he said three months ago. He's telling you now, like he did then, that you're wrong.

To build on what Mr. Epler has said, you're mixing two separate statements, adding some inference, and then drawing an entirely unreasonable conclusion from it.

[Ariella]

IanPolaris wrote...

I did. The fact that the very same developer (ML) not five days ago had to say, "we didn't mean that", i.e. DA2 was to draw in the CoD crowd says volumes. I strongly doubt he did that just for my benefit. Furthermore if you go back and read these same forums circa Feb-April, that was pretty much how everyone (even pro-DA2 posters) read MLs comments at the time of which I've linked a few...so it's not like I haven't backed up what I've said and it's not like I haven't given links to the old interviews (because I have).

If BW has changed it's mind, then great. Just admit that you've done so.

-Polaris

Now you're putting words in MY mouth as I'm a pro DA2 poster. Mike didn't even post much of anything in that time period, and all I remember was people taking things out of context when he did outside interviews and running around chicken little yelling that the sky was falling. The forum was extremely nasty and negative toward almost all the developers, so rather than engage, they just listened to the feedback, figured out if and how they could implement it and gave us Legacy when things cooled down.

Edit: to be fair I should say "some people taking things out of context..."

Modifié par Ariella, 11 août 2011 - 04:17 .

[IanPolaris]

Here is the March Game Informer Article where ML essentailly tells his core RPG audience to "drop dead":

http://www.gameinfor...gon-age-ii.aspx

He specifically says he's fishing for a larger audience (DA2--1.4 million in actual sales, DAO 3.8...how'd that work out for you?)

Here is a quote from that article:

Speaking to GameSpot, Laidlaw says the adjustments in Dragon Age II were for the good of the franchise, and BioWare will not be reversing back to the Dragon Age: Origins style because of fan complaints:

"I think the big key is to not adjust 180 degrees again, because we've done this. I think, as a team, we're quite happy with what we've done with Dragon Age II, and this is establishing a solid foundation that keeps a lot, in fact almost everything I want to keep about Origins, but still has tons of room to grow and, frankly, a more viable future for the franchise. It's one that's more sustainable because we brought the world to a place that's inherently more interesting than 'Yay, we beat the Blight. Good for us!'"

Laidlaw goes on to say that the strong reactions, whether negative or positive, point toward the fact that people care about Dragon Age, which is what BioWare wants. He says that the changes to combat are "a refinement that takes into account the sensibility of it being 2011 and a number of the fundamental gameplay changes we've seen across all genres."

According to Laidlaw, this shift has opened the Dragon Age franchise up to a much wider audience while still allowing the developer to maintain some of the core RPG attributes that they love. For those who have played Dragon Age II, do you agree with Laidlaw? Feelings about this sequel aside, does the future look brighter than it was before for BioWare's troubled world of Thedas?

The italicized words in the above quote are ML's own words.

-Polaris

[Cutlass Jack]

I thought it might be helpful to put Mr. Laidlaw's actual quote on this thread:

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Let's be frank. To my understanding the "Bioware wants to appeal to the Call of Duty crowd" myth devloped like this:

• Greg Zeschuk comments in an interview that Bioware aspires to sell to a larger audience, and that numbers like Call of Duty's 10 million are the long-term goal.
  
• DAII's combat is, in fact, faster, and more "actiony." Some RPG elements are removed (skills), and others are changed (iconic follower armor, rather than complete customization).
  
• Magical Alchemy happens and "Apparently Dragon Age only wants Call of Duty players to play their game." is the result.

In truth, what we would like is for there to be 10 million RPG fans out there, not to toss aside RPG fans. If anything, I suspect that we didn't put enough focus on stats, cross-class combos, and so on in our message, which would have helped.

And to be really honest, if we were dead-set on cutting RPG systems, we could have cut much, much deeper.

[Zanallen]

IanPolaris wrote...

I did. The fact that the very same developer (ML) not five days ago had to say, "we didn't mean that", i.e. DA2 was to draw in the CoD crowd says volumes. I strongly doubt he did that just for my benefit. Furthermore if you go back and read these same forums circa Feb-April, that was pretty much how everyone (even pro-DA2 posters) read MLs comments at the time of which I've linked a few...so it's not like I haven't backed up what I've said and it's not like I haven't given links to the old interviews (because I have).

If BW has changed it's mind, then great. Just admit that you've done so.

-Polaris

But you haven't. None of those interviews and articles actually say what you are ascribing.

[Ariella]

IanPolaris wrote...

Here is the March Game Informer Article where ML essentailly tells his core RPG audience to "drop dead":

http://www.gameinfor...gon-age-ii.aspx

He specifically says he's fishing for a larger audience (DA2--1.4 million in actual sales, DAO 3.8...how'd that work out for you?)

Here is a quote from that article:

Speaking to GameSpot, Laidlaw says the adjustments in Dragon Age II were for the good of the franchise, and BioWare will not be reversing back to the Dragon Age: Origins style because of fan complaints:

"I think the big key is to not adjust 180 degrees again, because we've done this. I think, as a team, we're quite happy with what we've done with Dragon Age II, and this is establishing a solid foundation that keeps a lot, in fact almost everything I want to keep about Origins, but still has tons of room to grow and, frankly, a more viable future for the franchise. It's one that's more sustainable because we brought the world to a place that's inherently more interesting than 'Yay, we beat the Blight. Good for us!'"

Laidlaw goes on to say that the strong reactions, whether negative or positive, point toward the fact that people care about Dragon Age, which is what BioWare wants. He says that the changes to combat are "a refinement that takes into account the sensibility of it being 2011 and a number of the fundamental gameplay changes we've seen across all genres."

According to Laidlaw, this shift has opened the Dragon Age franchise up to a much wider audience while still allowing the developer to maintain some of the core RPG attributes that they love. For those who have played Dragon Age II, do you agree with Laidlaw? Feelings about this sequel aside, does the future look brighter than it was before for BioWare's troubled world of Thedas?

The italicized words in the above quote are ML's own words.

-Polaris

Nowhere does he say "drop dead" and your single quote from Gameinformer comes from a larger interview in Gamestop.com. which is even linked in the article, yet you sieze on this one quote like it's G-d's comandment and try and use it like a baseball bat.

The ENTIRE quote is as follows:

http://www.gamespot....dex.html?page=5


GS: Regarding the process by which you guys gather feedback and
assess whether it's viable for the next game, is it the same process you
used when Origins shipped, or have you learned more about the validity
of fan feedback this time around?

ML: It's always valid. You have to take a read of what the fans
are saying, what reviews are saying, and what the non-fans are saying.
Are there people out there who are saying, "I could not play Origins,
but love Dragon Age II" or "I couldn't play Origins and this is more of
the same." You have to keep your ear to the ground. Look at forums. Take
a look at what comments are coming up. What are the common concerns?
What are the common perceptions? I think the big key is to not adjust
180 degrees again, because we've done this. I think, as a team, we're
quite happy with what we've done with Dragon Age II, and this is
establishing a solid foundation that keeps a lot, in fact almost
everything I want to keep about Origins, but still has tons of room to
grow and, frankly, a more viable future for the franchise. It's one
that's more sustainable because we brought the world to a place that's
inherently more interesting than "Yay, we beat the Blight. Good for us!"



It's a completely different quote.

[IanPolaris]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

I thought it might be helpful to put Mr. Laidlaw's actual quote on this thread:

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Let's be frank. To my understanding the "Bioware wants to appeal to the Call of Duty crowd" myth devloped like this:

• Greg Zeschuk comments in an interview that Bioware aspires to sell to a larger audience, and that numbers like Call of Duty's 10 million are the long-term goal.
  
  
• DAII's combat is, in fact, faster, and more "actiony." Some RPG elements are removed (skills), and others are changed (iconic follower armor, rather than complete customization).
  
  
• Magical Alchemy happens and "Apparently Dragon Age only wants Call of Duty players to play their game." is the result.

In truth, what we would like is for there to be 10 million RPG fans out there, not to toss aside RPG fans. If anything, I suspect that we didn't put enough focus on stats, cross-class combos, and so on in our message, which would have helped.

And to be really honest, if we were dead-set on cutting RPG systems, we could have cut much, much deeper.

That was his statement from five days ago yes.  Of course if I were the only one that was "confused" (being very charatible here) then this statement would not have had to be made at all, correct?  Given that, either Bioware has let us think something that hasn't been true for five months now OR they've changed their mind and won't admit it.  I think the later is by far the more simple explaination.   As for the last sentence, that makes me even more dead set against BW than I already was.  It reads, "Stop complaining about the RPG elements and consider yourselves lucky we kept any at all you ungrateful swine."  Tell me that ISN'T how that last sentence reads.  -Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Ariella,

If you READ my post, I never claimed that ML told his RPG core audience to "drop dead" as an exact quote. I phrased that very carefully. I said the article essentially tells them to drop dead and it does because ML flat out states that he won't listen to any fan feedback regarding a return to DAO mechanics in ANY capacity which many of us want.

-Polaris

[heman14]

Stanley Woo wrote...

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.

I totally admit that I may be entirely off base with this, but...

Your statement is offbase.  Customers also experience loss with a purchase.  They risk their money on your project being quality entertainment.  If you don't think that the consumer paying for your product isn't a risk for that consumer...then you have no respect for your customers.  If it sucks (and I'm not saying DAII sucked or that you have no respect for your customer base), the consumer is out the purchase price and has gained useless crap.  Meanwhile you profit and ruin your rep in the process.  Why would a consumer then choose to pay full price for your product, or at all, in the future? 

And companies wonder why buying used games took off like it has.

[Ariella]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

[*][/quote]
That was his statement from five days ago yes.  Of course if I were the only one that was "confused" (being very charatible here) then this statement would not have had to be made at all, correct?  Given that, either Bioware has let us think something that hasn't been true for five months now OR they've changed their mind and won't admit it.  I think the later is by far the more simple explaination.   As for the last sentence, that makes me even more dead set against BW than I already was.  It reads, "Stop complaining about the RPG elements and consider yourselves lucky we kept any at all you ungrateful swine."  Tell me that ISN'T how that last sentence reads.  -Polaris[/quote]
[*]Only if you read it in the most cynical light possible, otherwise it's a very reasonable comment to defend against the charge that Bioware wants to make the DA2 series CoD fantasy. And don't tell us you read it neutrally, you didn't. You've had your back up since you started posting again, Ian, and your sole objective seems to be trying to get Bioware to admit to something they never said. It's not going to happen.
[*]If you're considering yourself an ex fan, why waste your time complaining about something that factually doesn't exist. It's obvious you're not going to change your mind either, so why come here and make libelous statements to tick people off?

[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.