628 réponses à ce sujet

[Bryy_Miller]

The thing that bugs me most about it when people bring up Brent Knowles is that nobody actually cares about Brent Knowles; they just want a martyr. If people actually *read* Knowles' blog, they'd find that he goes on to say the EA had nothing to do with him leaving, that he liked the DA2 demo, and that DA2 was not the sole reason for him quitting,

[Ariella]

In Exile wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Let's not make this a 'Brent Knowles Said' thread. There have been enough of those. 

To be fair, though, when a designer quits over philosophical differences, that's a pretty big sign that there was a change in philosophy.

Also to be fair, it's hard to tell design philosophy of a series from just one game. And we honestly don't know if that's the fact or if it's a polite fiction said to save face because there were major personal conflicts. I'm not saying there were, as I have no knowledge one way or the other, but it's a possibility that should be considered.

[TEWR]

Ariella wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Let's not make this a 'Brent Knowles Said' thread. There have been enough of those. 

To be fair, though, when a designer quits over philosophical differences, that's a pretty big sign that there was a change in philosophy.

Also to be fair, it's hard to tell design philosophy of a series from just one game.

but.... but.... the sales numbers!

[tfive24]

People who are mad over DA2 will have to get over it. Don't get me wrong, I was so mad at the game that I never finished it and sold it back after a few days. My anger about DA2 has gone away (sort of), but now it's time to move on to something different. I realized that Bioware doesn't want to make games like DA:O anymore and wants to make cinematic games now. That's fine and dandy, but i will be moving onto other games that fit in what i like about rpgs and not with making it accessible.

[Ariella]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Ariella wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Let's not make this a 'Brent Knowles Said' thread. There have been enough of those. 

To be fair, though, when a designer quits over philosophical differences, that's a pretty big sign that there was a change in philosophy.

Also to be fair, it's hard to tell design philosophy of a series from just one game.

but.... but.... the sales numbers!

LOL! Was it Gaider or Epler who pointed out that since a lot more time and money were put into development of DAO (building the tools and engine/gaining proficiency on them/ having to bring Edge of Eternity in for console development etc) the profit margin for DAO is actually less than DA2 or something to that effect. Stan, Dave, John, Mike, if you want to correct me, feel free.

[Zoikster]

Ariella wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Ariella wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Let's not make this a 'Brent Knowles Said' thread. There have been enough of those. 

To be fair, though, when a designer quits over philosophical differences, that's a pretty big sign that there was a change in philosophy.

Also to be fair, it's hard to tell design philosophy of a series from just one game.

but.... but.... the sales numbers!

LOL! Was it Gaider or Epler who pointed out that since a lot more time and money were put into development of DAO (building the tools and engine/gaining proficiency on them/ having to bring Edge of Eternity in for console development etc) the profit margin for DAO is actually less than DA2 or something to that effect. Stan, Dave, John, Mike, if you want to correct me, feel free.

If you're saying their philosophy is to build up a big franchise with hard work, then milk off its success; I think that's obvious. Other industries do it, including movies. It's a good short-term move. Long term, not so much. Blizzard, for example, built up their franchise by rejecting that model.

Modifié par Zoikster, 15 août 2011 - 05:39 .

[nitefyre410]

Ariella wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Ariella wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Let's not make this a 'Brent Knowles Said' thread. There have been enough of those. 

To be fair, though, when a designer quits over philosophical differences, that's a pretty big sign that there was a change in philosophy.

Also to be fair, it's hard to tell design philosophy of a series from just one game.

but.... but.... the sales numbers!

LOL! Was it Gaider or Epler who pointed out that since a lot more time and money were put into development of DAO (building the tools and engine/gaining proficiency on them/ having to bring Edge of Eternity in for console development etc) the profit margin for DAO is actually less than DA2 or something to that effect. Stan, Dave, John, Mike, if you want to correct me, feel free.

 

Oh that would a most delicious of ironies.

[In Exile]

Satyricon331 wrote...
Not really.  Not that it matters much, but since this point continues on: I said the segregation was small (the comparison to DA2's general segregation was simply to establish a point of reference),

Which is irrelevant. 

and more importantly, I said your claim it made no sense or was incoherent was an overstatement.

Yes, I know, but do you really want to get into a debate over preference? I'm honestly exhausted of these RPG design arguments. I disagree with most people, I've made my peace with that.

I don't know what you mean by the bolded, or why you think it was a point I made?  Nor do I see what your DAO example has to do with the feasibility or appropriateness of tutorials.  If you think they can make these mechanics accessible via in-game designs, I don't see why you think a tutorial couldn't accomplish the same goal.  A tutorial could simply be gameplay segment, after all.

You said that you don't think how things like "level-up" could be taught through a tutorial. That's a more theoretical element (because you usually have to plan your levels in advance and have to have an understanding of a statisticla gameplay) of an RPG. 

As for my DA:O example - it points to a simple concept that players may have difficultly with, whose exploration could help players learn about RPGs. Aggro isn't really complex at all... once you get the hang of it, and the mindset.

The real issue is, and the DA2 exagerration kind of gets at this, in an RPG your character can't do much more than auto-attack at level 1. But that changes. And what your character can do at level 20 depends on how you build. So We need something more enganged than just a tutorial segment - something that's active for casual players to walk them through, but also something any veteran (or interested gamer) can turn off on a whim. Like plot indicators. 

[King Minos]

Laidlaw sold out his original fans for more money, someone get this man a job as a politician.

[In Exile]

Ariella wrote...
Also to be fair, it's hard to tell design philosophy of a series from just one game. And we honestly don't know if that's the fact or if it's a polite fiction said to save face because there were major personal conflicts. I'm not saying there were, as I have no knowledge one way or the other, but it's a possibility that should be considered.

That's certainly true. The official story is that Mr. Knowles disagreed with the cinematic direction and limitations caused by VO, and when he spoke on the DA2's demo, he only said positive things and expounded on certain design choices, then spoke about what he found restrictive. 

f people actually *read* Knowles' blog, they'd find that he goes on to say the EA had nothing to do with him leaving, that he liked the DA2 demo, and that DA2 was not the sole reason for him quitting.

What creeps me out is the passion and love thing. It's a just a game. 

Modifié par In Exile, 15 août 2011 - 05:28 .

[Satyricon331]

In Exile wrote...
Yes, I know, but do you really want to get into a debate over preference? I'm honestly exhausted of these RPG design arguments. I disagree with most people, I've made my peace with that.

No, I don't, which is why I didn't take issue with your preference; I took issue with your coherence assertion.

You said that you don't think how things like "level-up" could be taught through a tutorial. That's a more theoretical element (because you usually have to plan your levels in advance and have to have an understanding of a statisticla gameplay) of an RPG. 

As for my DA:O example - it points to a simple concept that players may have difficultly with, whose exploration could help players learn about RPGs. Aggro isn't really complex at all... once you get the hang of it, and the mindset.

The real issue is, and the DA2 exagerration kind of gets at this, in an RPG your character can't do much more than auto-attack at level 1. But that changes. And what your character can do at level 20 depends on how you build. So We need something more enganged than just a tutorial segment - something that's active for casual players to walk them through, but also something any veteran (or interested gamer) can turn off on a whim. Like plot indicators. 

My point is very much that a tutorial *could* encompass things like leveling up.  The only thing I see here that might rebut the idea a tutorial couldn't work is your statement that you need something "more engaged," but a tutorial that plays like ordinary gameplay except its mechanics to ease players in could easily be "active" and "engaged" for new players, and yet be something that other gamers could turn off... unlike the in-game exaggerated portion in DA2.

[In Exile]

Satyricon331 wrote...
No, I don't, which is why I didn't take issue with your preference; I took issue with your coherence assertion.

I'm saying that's also a preference. 

My point is very much that a tutorial *could* encompass things like leveling up.

How? If the game starts you at lv. 1, you still wouldn't have access to the skills & talents. And if we have a really deep RPG (one with conversation mechanics driven by stats, with crafting driven by stats, a rich inventory, etc.) then we start dealing with a lot of complexity that has to get conveyed to the player.

I don't want watered down elements: I want complexity. But there needs to be a way to have that while keeping the game accesible. 

A 10-20 minute introduction doesn't really get all of that across. 

The only thing I see here that might rebut the idea a tutorial couldn't work is your statement that you need something "more engaged," but a tutorial that plays like ordinary gameplay except its mechanics to ease players in could easily be "active" and "engaged" for new players, and yet be something that other gamers could turn off... unlike the in-game exaggerated portion in DA2.

The issue is length. Just going up one level and talking about what each stat does doesn't get at what it's like to build an RPG character, what playstyles you might get at, how aggro works...

You'd need to find a way for a character to play through multiple high level builds to get a feel for the concepts. 

[Satyricon331]

In Exile wrote...
I'm saying that's also a preference.

I think that use of the term "coherence" is uncommunicative, at best, given its definitions.

How? If the game starts you at lv. 1, you still wouldn't have access to the skills & talents. And if we have a really deep RPG (one with conversation mechanics driven by stats, with crafting driven by stats, a rich inventory, etc.) then we start dealing with a lot of complexity that has to get conveyed to the player.

Why would a tutorial need to start at level 1?  And if it did, why not have the player execute (a) basic task(s) that leveled them up rapidly, or several levels at once?  It wouldn't need to play differently than DA2's start did.  I recall the Civ (IV?) tutorial which guided you through founding a city, and then switched you to having several cities; all it would need would be a narrator or plot.

The issue is length. Just going up one level and talking about what each stat does doesn't get at what it's like to build an RPG character, what playstyles you might get at, how aggro works...

You'd need to find a way for a character to play through multiple high level builds to get a feel for the concepts. 

Yet no in-game easing-in will have a character play through multiple high-level builds, whereas a tutorial could do so.

[Elhanan]

Personally, I enjoyed the integrated Skills. I would like to see more of them, and possibly more cross-class usage. Example: If a Warrior wants 20 Cunning, let him open those locks and spot lesser traps.

[In Exile]

Satyricon331 wrote...
I think that use of the term "coherence" is uncommunicative, at best, given its definitions.

It's very fitting, since I mean "The quality of being logical and consistent". I think item descriptions violate the fundamental logic of both the UI and the general perspective the player has vis a vis the PC in-game.

Why would a tutorial need to start at level 1?

The power curve. 

And if it did, why not have the player execute (a) basic task(s) that leveled them up rapidly, or several levels at once?

Again, you'd break the power curve. And the logic of the setting. Why one task level up 5 times, but no other task does that? And if all tasks do that, how many levels are there?

It wouldn't need to play differently than DA2's start did.  I recall the Civ (IV?) tutorial which guided you through founding a city, and then switched you to having several cities; all it would need would be a narrator or plot.

You're talking about a module totally separate from the game? 

Yet no in-game easing-in will have a character play through multiple high-level builds, whereas a tutorial could do so.

I don't think we're using tutorial to refer to the same thing.

I was using tutorial as the in-game pop up tutorial screens, like DA2's prologue, DA:O, TW2, etc. 

Modifié par In Exile, 15 août 2011 - 06:11 .

[rak72]

Ariella wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Ariella wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Let's not make this a 'Brent Knowles Said' thread. There have been enough of those. 

To be fair, though, when a designer quits over philosophical differences, that's a pretty big sign that there was a change in philosophy.

Also to be fair, it's hard to tell design philosophy of a series from just one game.

but.... but.... the sales numbers!

LOL! Was it Gaider or Epler who pointed out that since a lot more time and money were put into development of DAO (building the tools and engine/gaining proficiency on them/ having to bring Edge of Eternity in for console development etc) the profit margin for DAO is actually less than DA2 or something to that effect. Stan, Dave, John, Mike, if you want to correct me, feel free.

They had to build DAO from scratch, so obviously they had to spend a lot more to get it off the ground.  For DA2 they had all the pieces in place, they just had to go and make a good game.  Even if they did DAO2,  it would have been a lot less epensive to do than DAO.  I bought DA2 based off my experience from DA2.  The cutting corners was blatantly obvious.  They probably would have had a better proffit margin if they DID do DAO2, because it would have had better legs.

I don't see much hope for me likeing DA3 based on the things I am hearing.  I think the only thing that will bring me back is getting Bent Knowls back & giving him full controll.  So they made a quick buck off of me, but the buck stops here.

[Satyricon331]

In Exile wrote...
It's very fitting, since I mean "The quality of being logical and consistent". I think item descriptions violate the fundamental logic of both the UI and the general perspective the player has vis a vis the PC in-game.

I don't see the term "preference" in that definition, nor do I see how it's illogical (even taking "logic" in its less common, loose sense), given players (even those from other genres) expect some gameplay-story segregation.

You're talking about a module totally separate from the game? ... 
I don't think we're using tutorial to refer to the same thing.

I was using tutorial as the in-game pop up tutorial screens, like DA2's prologue, DA:O, TW2, etc. 

Yeah, nearly all game tutorials that I've played are separate modules.  BG2's was, for that matter, although it was far, far too brief.  Those in-game pop-ups you're referring to are definitely blocks of text, as you said.

[Haexpane]

Zoikster wrote...
 
 “I’ve said it before, and I will say it again: we stripped some stuff out of DA becuase it was busted”

 

That doesn't "****** me off" it just makes me less likely to buy another BW game.  They've said it time and time again, instead of fixing systems, they remove them.  That's not a model I enjoy.

They "invite core gamers to come along for the ride" and the ride being dumbed down herp derp games.  I'll pass.  I gave DA2 a fair chance, and it wasn't for me.  I guess I'm not a "new player" which is more "exciting".

[In Exile]

Satyricon331 wrote...
I don't see the term "preference" in that definition, nor do I see how it's illogical (even taking "logic" in its less common, loose sense), given players (even those from other genres) expect some gameplay-story segregation.

I'm using logic in the formal sense. 

I obviously think I'm right, I just don't want any more debates over it. I've had ten too many on these forums. Can we just drop it? 

Yeah, nearly all game tutorials that I've played are separate modules.  BG2's was, for that matter, although it was far, far too brief.  Those in-game pop-ups you're referring to are definitely blocks of text, as you said.

Right, that makes sense. I think a tutorial is absolutely the way to go. 

[Haexpane]

In Exile wrote...
 
Right, that makes sense. I think a tutorial is absolutely the way to go. 

Depends, play FF tutorial for 20 hours will make you hate tuts

[Aradace]

Why is it that almost everything Laidlaw says, puts a smile on my face? lol

[Satyricon331]

In Exile wrote...
I'm using logic in the formal sense. 

I obviously think I'm right, I just don't want any more debates over it. I've had ten too many on these forums. Can we just drop it?

Well, fine, I'm willing to drop it but to say I disagree, particularly about formal logic.

Right, that makes sense. I think a tutorial is absolutely the way to go. 

I'm glad we agree.

[Addai]

Elhanan wrote...

Personally, I enjoyed the integrated Skills. I would like to see more of them, and possibly more cross-class usage. Example: If a Warrior wants 20 Cunning, let him open those locks and spot lesser traps.

That would water down the distinctiveness of the classes.  New players would be confused, there would be chaos in the streets.  Do you really want to be responsible for that?!

[Aradace]

Addai67 wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

Personally, I enjoyed the integrated Skills. I would like to see more of them, and possibly more cross-class usage. Example: If a Warrior wants 20 Cunning, let him open those locks and spot lesser traps.

That would water down the distinctiveness of the classes.  New players would be confused, there would be chaos in the streets.  Do you really want to be responsible for that?!

It's perhaps already been said but I'll say it again anyway.  I personally think that Mages should have a "passive" spell that alows them to open locks (at the very least) like Rogues.  Mages in D&D get "open lock" spells (yes I know this isnt D&D but it still fits in the universe and isnt lore breaking really) so why not in DA?  Just use either Mag or Will as the same way Cun does for the Rogue's skill.  Maybe not allow them to "disarm" traps so as to still allow Rogues some distinctfulness.  But atleast allow Mages to open locks on doors and chests.

[Ariella]

Zoikster wrote...

Ariella wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Ariella wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Let's not make this a 'Brent Knowles Said' thread. There have been enough of those. 

To be fair, though, when a designer quits over philosophical differences, that's a pretty big sign that there was a change in philosophy.

Also to be fair, it's hard to tell design philosophy of a series from just one game.

but.... but.... the sales numbers!

LOL! Was it Gaider or Epler who pointed out that since a lot more time and money were put into development of DAO (building the tools and engine/gaining proficiency on them/ having to bring Edge of Eternity in for console development etc) the profit margin for DAO is actually less than DA2 or something to that effect. Stan, Dave, John, Mike, if you want to correct me, feel free.

If you're saying their philosophy is to build up a big franchise with hard work, then milk off its success; I think that's obvious. Other industries do it, including movies. It's a good short-term move. Long term, not so much. Blizzard, for example, built up their franchise by rejecting that model.

Way to warp what I was saying. No, try the fact that they were developing a new franchise with a completely new engine, had to develope tools, lore, and everything that comes with a new franchise so included in the budget of DAO were the startup costs for the entire franchise, not just making one game. Thus because such start up costs aren't a part of the budget for DA2 (infrastructure basics already exist), the game can sell less, yet have a higher amount of the revenue be profit.

And you seem to have a problem with the fact that Bioware is making money doing this. That's what companies exist to do, make money. And bringing Blizzard into this... Blizzard's most successful franchise to date is WoW, which not only is subscription based, but three expansions, AND a World of Warcraft store where you can buy mounts and pets for $20 bucks a pop. Don't even try and use Blizzard as an example of not making the most out of their profits.