628 réponses à ce sujet

[David Gaider]

Zoikster wrote...
Exactly what was busted? I'd love some clarification. What exactly was so "imposing" about DA:O? I introducted several people to it who weren't familiar with the RPG genre who absolutely loved it; and hated DA 2. A lot of casual types adored the game. Laidlaw has made some serious miscalculations here.I just can't wrap my mind around his throught process except to think that EA says to dumb the game down to try and draw a larger audience. Which obviously would/has backfired. Can we at least stop blaming DA 2 problems on Origins?

While I can't speak for Mike specifically, a quick comment:

Origins was not a perfect game. It's perfectly acceptable to like a game despite its flaws (as every game has them), but from a design perspective it would be inexcusable to say that just because a game was good that means everything about it was good.

It would also be incorrect to suggest that just because some things didn't work that none of them did. Mike neither said nor implied that all of DAO was "busted"-- he said some things were, and those things he wanted to change.

While it might be difficult for a fan to understand (not because they're unintelligent, but because from your end it's indistinguishable), not everything that is changed from one game to the next is a deliberate design choice-- like the area re-use, for instance. So it would be a mistake to look at every change made between DAO and DA2 and assume they were all just that. The original thread where Mike made these comments is an excellent place to look for his thoughts on this front.

So nobody's "blaming" DAO for anything-- but neither do we put it on a pedestal. We worked on DAO's issues just as we'll work on DA2's issues, changing the things we believe didn't work and the things we want to change, based on what we can afford with the resources at hand. As to what will change about DA2, as Mike has said we'll talk more about this in time... and I believe his comments offer excellent insight, provided you're willing to take them at face value.

[In Exile]

Zoikster wrote...

I guess it'll be argued it didn't matter I put Bhelen in power because I still had to fight the arch demon.

Did it matter in game? How does having Bhelen instead of Harrowmont change anything in DA:O that isn't an epilogue slide? 

[Sutekh]

Zoikster wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Zoikster wrote...

No they weren't. Romancing them gave me no tough decisions.

Andersmancers want a word with you.

SPOILERS
Not an Anders fan. I've romanced Fen and Isabelle. I loved being able to kill Anders at the end. Joy 

Good for you (although character bashing <_<), but then you can't state that romancing didn't give tough decision as a universal fact. As an Andersmancer, I can tell you that tough decisions there are (Although "Andersmancer" sounds like someone who, by some mean I don't want to dwell upon, reads the future in Anders).

Modifié par Sutekh, 14 août 2011 - 09:59 .

[TEWR]

Zoikster wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

PresidentCowboy wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

But really, the issue isn't that DAII had no choices. It's that DAII made those choices mean nothing. You make a choice, and the same thing happens, despite the choice you made being one that shouldn't lead to that conclusion.

Or, in some instances, DAII gave you no choice at all.

Same goes for Origins.

in some cases yes. You're forced to be a Grey Warden (edit: though they do give you a good reason for that). You're forced to be a Grey Warden that loves Ferelden.

But... you're also able to put Bhelen or Harrowmont on the throne. And certain people in Orzammar can shed some light on who the better king is. A merchant tells you that Bhelen would bring in more gold for Orzammar, while Zevran can tell you that Harrowmont is a weak king (at least that's what I'm thinking. I remember reading a post that said the Bhelen-Harrowmont thing could be avoided if you brought Zevran to meet with Dulin Forender).

Origins' main problem with choices is relying more on telling than showing.

That too, that was a lot of fun. I put Bhelen in power.

One of the things I hated though was a Dwarf Noble not being able to take the throne (and upon his disappearance Gorim becomes king). That would've made the game better for me because it's the Origin story affecting the potential outcome of a quest and not just giving the player flavor changes to dialogue.

Oh sure, I can get my son back into House Aeducan and I can be named a Paragon, but I don't actually get to take the throne, get my son and his mother into House Aeducan, and get named a Paragon at the same time.

[Zoikster]

David Gaider wrote...

Zoikster wrote...
Exactly what was busted? I'd love some clarification. What exactly was so "imposing" about DA:O? I introducted several people to it who weren't familiar with the RPG genre who absolutely loved it; and hated DA 2. A lot of casual types adored the game. Laidlaw has made some serious miscalculations here.I just can't wrap my mind around his throught process except to think that EA says to dumb the game down to try and draw a larger audience. Which obviously would/has backfired. Can we at least stop blaming DA 2 problems on Origins?

While I can't speak for Mike specifically, a quick comment:

Origins was not a perfect game. It's perfectly acceptable to like a game despite its flaws (as every game has them), but from a design perspective it would be inexcusable to say that just because a game was good that means everything about it was good.

It would also be incorrect to suggest that just because some things didn't work that none of them did. Mike neither said nor implied that all of DAO was "busted"-- he said some things were, and those things he wanted to change.

While it might be difficult for a fan to understand (not because they're unintelligent, but because from your end it's indistinguishable), not everything that is changed from one game to the next is a deliberate design choice-- like the area re-use, for instance. So it would be a mistake to look at every change made between DAO and DA2 and assume they were all just that. The original thread where Mike made these comments is an excellent place to look for his thoughts on this front.

So nobody's "blaming" DAO for anything-- but neither do we put it on a pedestal. We worked on DAO's issues just as we'll work on DA2's issues, changing the things we believe didn't work and the things we want to change, based on what we can afford with the resources at hand. As to what will change about DA2, as Mike has said we'll talk more about this in time... and I believe his comments offer excellent insight, provided you're willing to take them at face value.

I'm certainly willing to take them at face value, I just think you guys see more flaws in the original than are actually there. You should be putting that awesome, record breaking game on a pedstal. What's the old saying, if it aint broke don't fix it. I still eagerly await Dragon Age 3, I can say I have faith they have listened to their fans. Those comments still rubbed me the wrong way though. 

Modifié par Zoikster, 14 août 2011 - 10:08 .

[TEWR]

In Exile wrote...

Zoikster wrote...

I guess it'll be argued it didn't matter I put Bhelen in power because I still had to fight the arch demon.

Did it matter in game? How does having Bhelen instead of Harrowmont change anything in DA:O that isn't an epilogue slide? 

not much. All you really know is that he's apparently going to use the Casteless to fight the Blight (as two Orzammar dwarves say they overheard).

But in game nothing is shown.

[Rogue Unit]

Zoikster wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Zoikster wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Zoikster wrote...

No they weren't. Romancing them gave me no tough decisions.

Andersmancers want a word with you.

SPOILERS
Not an Anders fan. I've romanced Fen and Isabelle. I loved being able to kill Anders at the end. Joy 

So... because you didn't see part of the game, you dismiss it from being relevant to the discussion?

I didn't say that all, you just felt the need to be snarky. I was being nice. 

That was hardly snarky. You must not visit BSN often, huh?

Modifié par Rogue Unit, 14 août 2011 - 10:03 .

[Zoikster]

Rogue Unit wrote...

Zoikster wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Zoikster wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Zoikster wrote...

No they weren't. Romancing them gave me no tough decisions.

Andersmancers want a word with you.

SPOILERS
Not an Anders fan. I've romanced Fen and Isabelle. I loved being able to kill Anders at the end. Joy 

So... because you didn't see part of the game, you dismiss it from being relevant to the discussion?

I didn't say that all, you just felt the need to be snarky. I was being nice. 

That was hardy snarky. You must not visit BSN often, huh?

It certainly was. She was implying something I never said or implied. If not snarky; odd.

[Monica21]

In Exile wrote...
Laidlaw didn't say "All objective standards suggest that it is non-functional, and the only hope is to reconstruct it from the ground up." He said "we felt were busted."

Well, did he think the Deep Roads and the Fade were busted or did he think dialogue skill trees and crafting were busted, since those were removed altogether? 

This was the same design as BGII, with raising $$. I'm sure that Bioware thought fans would love the opportunity to invent motives for why Hawke is doing these quests, to just explore the world without being tied down by a main quest, and a return to a design from the days of BG1-BG2. 

This was, once again, Bioware responding to the criticism that DA:O forced you too strongly into one mission as a Grey Warden, and to some extent that hampered the ability to RP. This is also why the 3-year gaps said nothing about what Hawke did: so those who think RP is "filling in the blanks" can do so.

And it flopped. 

It's kind of good to have hints about what's coming, meeting the Tal'Vashoth on the Wounded Coast or playing Petrice's errand girl. At the same time it's just "ugh, I HATE the docks AGAIN" kind of thing and checking my journal to see if I've really done it. 

I agree that Origins forced you into a role, but that role is printed on the back of the box. It's not like no one knew they would be playing as a Warden when they bought the game. And if they did, well, that's just stupidity. 

[In Exile]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
not much. All you really know is that he's apparently going to use the Casteless to fight the Blight (as two Orzammar dwarves say they overheard).

But in game nothing is shown.

I never finished a dwarf playthrough. Does making Bhelen King still let you become a paragon? Aeducan or not?

[TEWR]

In Exile wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
not much. All you really know is that he's apparently going to use the Casteless to fight the Blight (as two Orzammar dwarves say they overheard).

But in game nothing is shown.

I never finished a dwarf playthrough. Does making Bhelen King still let you become a paragon? Aeducan or not?

Yea if you request aid for the Dwarves I believe. I'm not sure if you can be named Paragon without it.

[Firky]

In the original thread, in which these comments were made, a discussion was taking place about communication between designers and community members. (In my opinion) the spirit in which these comments (and many others) were given was in response to community members clearly saying that they were interested in the future of Dragon Age and that it was a frank back-and-forth discussion. It was different from if a designer was conducting a media interview (and, necessarily) being being careful with what they said, under the assumption that it would be paraphased and cut back.

(In my opinion) that article collected quotes and reported them without commentary to adequately explain the thread. (Although, unless you were reading it from the beginning, this might be a difficult task.) (Probably ironically) this kind of article, and people getting worried by it, might be another reason why designers wouldn't want to engage with communities. (That's a guess, but it does relate back to the original thread.)

OP, you could always search out the quotes in the original thread, and post there about it. You might get an answer, or you might not. Lots of people did? I dunno.

Modifié par Firky, 14 août 2011 - 10:35 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

In Exile wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
not much. All you really know is that he's apparently going to use the Casteless to fight the Blight (as two Orzammar dwarves say they overheard).

But in game nothing is shown.

I never finished a dwarf playthrough. Does making Bhelen King still let you become a paragon? Aeducan or not?

Yes, and he re-instores your place in House Aeducan if noble, despite it never being part of the arrangement. Aww.

But no the choice has no consequence in the game itself. What should have happened is that picking Bhelen would have given you greater numbers (because unlike Harrowmont, he recruits casteless).

[hoorayforicecream]

Monica21 wrote...

In Exile wrote...
Laidlaw didn't say "All objective standards suggest that it is non-functional, and the only hope is to reconstruct it from the ground up." He said "we felt were busted."

Well, did he think the Deep Roads and the Fade were busted or did he think dialogue skill trees and crafting were busted, since those were removed altogether?

Regarding the actual skills, Coercion was pretty much a necessity, and the rest of them I don't remember ever using. I occasionally remember a quest or two requiring herbalism, but that's all.

[In Exile]

Monica21 wrote...
Well, did he think the Deep Roads and the Fade were busted or did he think dialogue skill trees and crafting were busted, since those were removed altogether?  

It could be both. The comment doesn't sound like it automatically requires removal instead of redesign.

Bioware's dialogue skill trees were garbage, though. It was exactly like in DA2, except you had to choose to be bad at persuade options. It would be one thing if it was an Obsidian like system... but it wasn't. 

It's kind of good to have hints about what's coming, meeting the Tal'Vashoth on the Wounded Coast or playing Petrice's errand girl. At the same time it's just "ugh, I HATE the docks AGAIN" kind of thing and checking my journal to see if I've really done it.

Yeah, but that's just area re-use. And bad re-use too! I just replayed ME1, and man I hated the side-quests in that game because they felt like the areas were recycled, but it turns out only the buildings (as pre-fab) were; each UNC world was actually hand-crafted, and the textures & mountains always varied. 

ME1, which fans tore to pieces for reclycing, had *less* reclycling than DA:O. It boggles the mind, honestly.  

I agree that Origins forced you into a role, but that role is printed on the back of the box. It's not like no one knew they would be playing as a Warden when they bought the game. And if they did, well, that's just stupidity. 

DA:O starts you off as anything but a Warden. Once you have your non-Warden identity, DA:O does nothing to sell you on it. Duncan either kidnaps you or forces you to pick because the alternative is death. Then you see Duncan gut someone, and you get to be a Grey Warden for all of 5 minutes. 

There's never a reason to say "I identify with the identity of a Grey Warden," if you don't start with that mindset. The origins are totally at odds with that. 

The role that you're forced into on the back of the box is directly at odds with the role the game throws you into. 

Modifié par In Exile, 14 août 2011 - 10:12 .

[FieryDove]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
1. Gift system. "One more word and I'll run you through." "... a ham bone? For me? Oh you shouldn't have... all is forgiven."

2. Front-loaded combat difficulty. The first 25% of each fight was vastly more important than the last 75%, because you kill all your high-importance targets first, then the rest is cleanup. This makes combat uneven.

3. Extended and drawn-out dungeon crawl sequences with nothing to break it up (Deep Roads, Fade) or help pacing.

4. class unbalance. 2H warriors are worthless, mages have it easy soloing the entire game. Archers were extremely weak compared to DW.

5. Companions not named Alistair, Morrigan, or Loghain were completely separated from the main storyline. None of the other characters had any real effect on the story, and existed only within their own private bubble of storytelling. As a corollary to this, there was less gating on their conversations, and you could talk to them about everything early, and then they would mostly be silent the rest of the game. Combine this with #1, and it gets grating.

Ok are you saying these things are broken in DAO? Or what the Dev's think are broken or what?

I could pick apart each one saying how they are still *broken* if that is the case.

I am confused...need java

[TEWR]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

In Exile wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
not much. All you really know is that he's apparently going to use the Casteless to fight the Blight (as two Orzammar dwarves say they overheard).

But in game nothing is shown.

I never finished a dwarf playthrough. Does making Bhelen King still let you become a paragon? Aeducan or not?

Yes, and he re-instores your place in House Aeducan if noble, despite it never being part of the arrangement. Aww.

But no the choice has no consequence in the game itself. What should have happened is that picking Bhelen would have given you greater numbers (because unlike Harrowmont, he recruits casteless).

Not only that, I would've had Bhelen request that you assist some Dwarves fighting Darkspawn in another thaig near Orzammar. Then when you go there, you can see that some of them are casteless.

[Faust1979]

 Nothing wrong with trying to get more people to play your games. 

[Zanallen]

Zoikster wrote...

It doesn't matter, they were choices I enjoyed being able to make.

Ah, so it doesn't matter as long as you enjoy it. And people think you feel your opinion to be more important than that of others. Where could they have possibly gotten such a notion?

[Zoikster]

Zanallen wrote...

Zoikster wrote...

It doesn't matter, they were choices I enjoyed being able to make.

Ah, so it doesn't matter as long as you enjoy it. And people think you feel your opinion to be more important than that of others. Where could they have possibly gotten such a notion?

Haha, you're the one saying my choices in Origin weren't meaningful or impactful just because in the end you fight the arch demon. I think it's a ridiculous notion myself. And yes it is a RPG, it doesn't matter as long as you're enjoying them. 


Edit: I want my choices, I want my alternate beginnings, and I want my alternate endings. (The landsmeet was suitable as an alternate ending in my opinion.)

Modifié par Zoikster, 14 août 2011 - 10:17 .

[Monica21]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

In Exile wrote...
Laidlaw didn't say "All objective standards suggest that it is non-functional, and the only hope is to reconstruct it from the ground up." He said "we felt were busted."

Well, did he think the Deep Roads and the Fade were busted or did he think dialogue skill trees and crafting were busted, since those were removed altogether?

Regarding the actual skills, Coercion was pretty much a necessity, and the rest of them I don't remember ever using. I occasionally remember a quest or two requiring herbalism, but that's all.

Not having Coercion isn't a game-breaker though. Usually there was an option to Intimidate if you wanted to play big dumb warrior. There are a few quests for herbalism which aren't game breakers either and have more to do with how you've built your party if you even decide to complete them. I saw crafting as really just a means to save money by making potions instead of buying them. But, I also see it as choice and consequence for how you've built your party. It's a pretty minor consequence, but one that forces you to think about your party makeup.

[Mr.House]

Zoikster wrote...

I think I'm more aggrivated that he seems to be implying Origins was broken. Drives me up the wall.

People that say DAO was not broken drive me up the wall.

[Zoikster]

Mr.House wrote...

Zoikster wrote...

I think I'm more aggrivated that he seems to be implying Origins was broken. Drives me up the wall.

People that say DAO was not broken drive me up the wall.

I'm here to tell you while it wasn't perfect, it wasn't broken. Calling it broken is a bit hyperbolic.

Modifié par Zoikster, 14 août 2011 - 10:18 .

[Vormaerin]

Monica21 wrote...

I agree that Origins forced you into a role, but that role is printed on the back of the box. It's not like no one knew they would be playing as a Warden when they bought the game. And if they did, well, that's just stupidity. 

There's a difference between knowing you are going to play a role as Gray Warden and knowing that the role is going to completely smother every other aspect of your character.

With one or two exceptions, I get the exact same dialogue, social interaction, and plot development from Ostagar on whether I play a ghetto raised elf rogue only in the Wardens to beat a murder rap or I'm playing the scion of a high noble family who had been keen on Joining the Wardens from the get go.

And that's a meaningful choice?

[Gotholhorakh]

Zoikster wrote...

 Laidlaw: “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. “Not diminished, but made less imposing and less terrifying to new players. In part because I want more people to play Dragon Age, and in part because there have been a lot of improvements in gameplay and UI design in the past 15 years, and we can learn from them.”

And this bit.

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

Exactly what was busted? I'd love some clarification. What exactly was so "imposing" about DA:O? I introducted several people to it who weren't familiar with the RPG genre who absolutely loved it; and hated DA 2. A lot of casual types adored the game. Laidlaw has made some serious miscalculations here.I just can't wrap my mind around his throught process except to think that EA says to dumb the game down to try and draw a larger audience. Which obviously would/has backfired. Can we at least stop blaming DA 2 problems on Origins?

Here is the link

Sorry, just had to vent. 

Hm. OK, I have to tell you that I think you'll find the end result of this kind of feedback - which has been done at great length by many, many people - is going to be pretty damned unsatisfactory.

I have some respect for the way that BioWare has tried to handle the infinitesimally small slice of the backlash that has touched these forums, but in the end the message seems to be that while some small tweaks will happen, the vast majority of the stuff that people loathed about DA2 isn't going anywhere. That is the direction the games are going in, and anyone who doesn't like it can just get the hell off Cliff's bus.

This isn't because of the tiny minority of people who are out to troll feedback and silence criticism on these forums, they can be ignored. It's about the decisions and direction that the developers have committed to - and I guess none of us ultimately knows whether that's through the insistence of this publisher, the blind truculence of that team leader or whatever else we could wildly speculate about.

I think you'll probably come away from this process with an air of resignation - but at least you won't be blindly rushing to buy games from them again and wasting money, y'know?

For my part I got past the idea that "BioWare just doesn't care about Dragon Age fans" a while ago, because you know, apart from the 60 bucks I wasted, that's cool. I will wander off and play other games. I didn't pre-order their latest offering and I'll only really show interest again if anything looks good enough for me to play.

I mean it seems likely to me that "growth" away from the lovely, intelligent and attention-span gifted people I've known to play RPGs over the years, to court (in the largest numbers possible) the flighty, thick and often quite nasty and prejudiced people that make up the bulk of human society will probably reshape the games in the image of the intended recipients - if subtlety and role-play won't appeal to Joe Public, they can be dropped from the games until they are the usual sort of orgiastic, nihilistic wave-of-destruction type games that she does like, If bisexual people and "****s" drive away Joe Public, then they will eventually have to go, too, because companies can't package stuff their customers hate - however much they might like to (naively) think or say otherwise now.

It doesn't matter, the message might be, if you don't like where DA2 is going you're SOL, but there's a very easy solution to that. Chalk down the money you spent on DA2 as wasted, and keep the rest of it in your pocket.