295 réponses à ce sujet

[Morroian]

willholt wrote...

Sounds like another potentially good game reduced to...

combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, combat, cutscene, cutscene, cutscene... then player gets to actually do something different for 10 seconds... rinse and repeat for 60 game hours.

Damn... that's ANOTHER game of my Amazon wishlist!

Well there is going to be crafting, not sure to what extent though.

[Atakuma]

Ariella wrote...

REally? I'd think when one throws names like RA Salvatore around there are going to be expections. I remember the D&D cRPG Demon Stone that he wrote. The game had huge expectations, and dropped like a stone. The names attached ARE going to build an expectation. Just like attaching the name Bioware to anything builds a certain expectation. Never underestimate the power of name recognition.

You've missed my point entirely. When I say expectations, I mean that Origins had set a precedent which colored people's expectations of what the sequel should be. KoA does not have that.

[Morroian]

Uzzy wrote...

As for why anyone would want a pause in the flow of combat, it's so you have time to think and consider the state of play, consider options and then launch your attacks. This appeals to me.

You can pause in DA2.

[seraphymon]

Uzzy wrote...

And just because you like it, it doesn't make it an evolution. DA2's combat system for me was one of the most soul destroying experiences I've ever had to endure, and about half way through chapter 1 I turned the difficulty down to casual just so I could get through it as quickly as possible and try and enjoy the storyline.

As for why anyone would want a pause in the flow of combat, it's so you have time to think and consider the state of play, consider options and then launch your attacks. This appeals to me.

Your point about market conditions would have a bigger impact if DA:O hadn't sold so well, proving there's a market for the older style of RPG still out there.

Now, onto your wider point. Firstly, I'd like to say that I love action games. I've played endless Devil May Cry style games, and found Bayonetta to be as close to perfection as is feasible in a game. I also enjoy Action RPG's a great deal, the latest being Dungeon Siege 3, which I quite enjoyed and didn't regret spending money on. But I don't want every RPG to be an Action RPG. You end up with a saturated market with little variation and interest, just look at the FPS market thanks to the success of CoD. DA:O offered something different, and I really appreciated that. Seeing DA2 going further down the Action RPG route due to 'the need to adapt to changing markets' saddened me. You might see it as evolution, but I consider it going down a route that's already filled by countless other games, often ones that do it better (like a certain Mr Witcher).

Couldnt have said it better. As thats the main gripe of mine as well. There are plenty of action rpg games i enjoy to play, but DAO gave me something different.  It was succesful even. Change for the sake of change is not evolution or the need to reach an audience that prefers to play what they play regardless. Other companies are gonna do it better anyways.

[Ariella]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

This is my take on it and most likely the OP does not agree - which is fine by me. The problem with Mr Laidlaw's approach is that there isn't much room for CRPGs to merge with action games and/or streamline RPG features to reach a new market. Those games are already there: You either move into the H&S territory with a great story or the Adventures which should have a great story anyway. All that we have seen in DA2 is not innovation at all. It's all about creating the game as fast as possible for the lowest development cost. All the innovations there are an indirect result of that approach. Those rationalizations are just sold by the marketing department as innovations. If Mr Laidlaw is supposed to be a visionary than he might be one for the marketing department. In the end his streamlining and innovations just boil down to redefinitions for "dumbing down" and "cost reduction".

No offense, Angry, but everything I've seen and heard Mike say was echo'd in the Ken Rolsten interview. Watch it to the end, and you'll see what I mean.

Rolsten boils down RPG mechanics to the most basic requirements (which I happen to agree with) in an RPG needs Narrative, Exploration, Combat and Advancement. Everything else after that is gravy.

As for DA2 being innovative. Look at the story, nothing like Bioware has done before, it completely turns from the usual forumal of save the world as an agent for "fill in the blank". The game is more reactive than any sequel (including Me2) that I've see, with some quests based on what the player did in Origins. Did they get it perfect, no, but it's still the most reactive sequel to date, when it could have been less money to do what almost everybody else does: assume a canon ending and go from there.

As I've already commented on combat, I don't need to go into it again. And the art... Finally gives Dragon Age a personality of its own rather than having people screaming "generic!"

I found nothing dumbed down, but rather superfluous mechanics removed. Crafting's reengineering was brilliant, and left me grateful for the extra inventory space.

And Legacy does an even better job displaying these ideas.

[Morroian]

Tommy6860 wrote...

I say I totally disagree with KoA thinking and ML's too. We don't have to make every RPG out there now like DA2, as you may as well call them by another genre. Taking away player agency, so other can have more action is fine, but don't make it a blanket case for every RPG that comes along.

Its an open world game so I'd say player agency will be similar to the Elder Scrolls games more than DA2, there's also the fact that Ken Rolston is the lead designer. The combat being more intensive than usual in such games really says nothing about player agency.

[Ariella]

Atakuma wrote...

Ariella wrote...

REally? I'd think when one throws names like RA Salvatore around there are going to be expections. I remember the D&D cRPG Demon Stone that he wrote. The game had huge expectations, and dropped like a stone. The names attached ARE going to build an expectation. Just like attaching the name Bioware to anything builds a certain expectation. Never underestimate the power of name recognition.

You've missed my point entirely. When I say expectations, I mean that Origins had set a precedent which colored people's expectations of what the sequel should be. KoA does not have that.

KoA has its own issues and expectations, especially since Rolsten was lead on Oblivion. You don't think that doesn't play into a lot of people's thinking? KoA might not have the expectations of a direct sequel, but it does have the shadow of a lot of names fueling expectation.

[Ariella]

Morroian wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

I say I totally disagree with KoA thinking and ML's too. We don't have to make every RPG out there now like DA2, as you may as well call them by another genre. Taking away player agency, so other can have more action is fine, but don't make it a blanket case for every RPG that comes along.

Its an open world game so I'd say player agency will be similar to the Elder Scrolls games more than DA2, there's also the fact that Ken Rolston is the lead designer. The combat being more intensive than usual in such games really says nothing about player agency.

Actually, in the interview, which you should look at, Morroian, he says it is "guided" open world, and he's not Lead Designer. His official title is literally "Visionary".

As for crafting, it looks skill based, with crafting stations. There's a vid on the site that demos it.

[jds1bio]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

This is my take on it and most likely the OP does not agree - which is fine by me. The problem with Mr Laidlaw's approach is that there isn't much room for CRPGs to merge with action games and/or streamline RPG features to reach a new market. Those games are already there: You either move into the H&S territory with a great story or the Adventures which should have a great story anyway. All that we have seen in DA2 is not innovation at all. It's all about creating the game as fast as possible for the lowest development cost. All the innovations there are an indirect result of that approach. Those rationalizations are just sold by the marketing department as innovations. If Mr Laidlaw is supposed to be a visionary than he might be one for the marketing department. In the end his streamlining and innovations just boil down to redefinitions for "dumbing down" and "cost reduction".

If you think he has such power and influence as you describe, do you really think that he would use such power and influence to rush the development of his own game?  That doesn't make sense.  No one with such power and influence in a game development company would choose to cut short the development time of their own game, or do a "speed run" of the development cycle.  I say again, that doesn't make sense.

[Atakuma]

Ariella wrote...

KoA has its own issues and expectations, especially since Rolsten was lead on Oblivion. You don't think that doesn't play into a lot of people's thinking? KoA might not have the expectations of a direct sequel, but it does have the shadow of a lot of names fueling expectation.

That is exactly why the reactions to both games is completely different. People don't normally get upset if a new IP is totally different from the developers past work, however they do when a sequal is.

[Ylhaym]

I think the devs (ML and Rolsten) are on to something here. Just because DA2 didn't hit the mark dead on doesn't mean the direction they're going is entirely wrong.

[IanPolaris]

Atakuma wrote...

Ariella wrote...

KoA has its own issues and expectations, especially since Rolsten was lead on Oblivion. You don't think that doesn't play into a lot of people's thinking? KoA might not have the expectations of a direct sequel, but it does have the shadow of a lot of names fueling expectation.

That is exactly why the reactions to both games is completely different. People don't normally get upset if a new IP is totally different from the developers past work, however they do when a sequal is.

Indeed.  I think the reaction and reception of DA2 would have  been very, very different had it been called "Tales of Kirkwall" or even "DA: Tales of Kirkwall" rather than being called Dragon Age TWO and being marketed as a sequel.  People expect strong similarities between a work and it's sequel especially a numbered sequel.

-Polaris

[AngryFrozenWater]

jds1bio wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

This is my take on it and most likely the OP does not agree - which is fine by me. The problem with Mr Laidlaw's approach is that there isn't much room for CRPGs to merge with action games and/or streamline RPG features to reach a new market. Those games are already there: You either move into the H&S territory with a great story or the Adventures which should have a great story anyway. All that we have seen in DA2 is not innovation at all. It's all about creating the game as fast as possible for the lowest development cost. All the innovations there are an indirect result of that approach. Those rationalizations are just sold by the marketing department as innovations. If Mr Laidlaw is supposed to be a visionary than he might be one for the marketing department. In the end his streamlining and innovations just boil down to redefinitions for "dumbing down" and "cost reduction".

If you think he has such power and influence as you describe, do you really think that he would use such power and influence to rush the development of his own game?  That doesn't make sense.  No one with such power and influence in a game development company would choose to cut short the development time of their own game, or do a "speed run" of the development cycle.  I say again, that doesn't make sense.

Of course it does not make sense from the DA:O player's perspective. It does makes sense if the company wants to cash in on DA:O's success for the lowest cost as fast as possible. Mr Laidlaw as the lead designer sure has a say in this.

Edit: Mr Laidlaw probably didn't decide on the cashing in, but he sure facilitated it. All the signs are there.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 18 août 2011 - 01:23 .

[IanPolaris]

Ylhaym wrote...

I think the devs (ML and Rolsten) are on to something here. Just because DA2 didn't hit the mark dead on doesn't mean the direction they're going is entirely wrong.

Know your audience.  Again, it bears repeating:  KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE

Just because the 'new direction' might not be entirely wrong in isolation doesn't mean it was a huge mistake for something like DAO with large expectations (esp for a sequel) and a large and somewhat rabid fanbase that isn't likely to react to big changes well (and that could be inferred long before DA2 was ever published by how gamers in general react to such changes when done by other companies and other products).

-Polaris

[Ariella]

IanPolaris wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Ariella wrote...

KoA has its own issues and expectations, especially since Rolsten was lead on Oblivion. You don't think that doesn't play into a lot of people's thinking? KoA might not have the expectations of a direct sequel, but it does have the shadow of a lot of names fueling expectation.

That is exactly why the reactions to both games is completely different. People don't normally get upset if a new IP is totally different from the developers past work, however they do when a sequal is.

Indeed.  I think the reaction and reception of DA2 would have  been very, very different had it been called "Tales of Kirkwall" or even "DA: Tales of Kirkwall" rather than being called Dragon Age TWO and being marketed as a sequel.  People expect strong similarities between a work and it's sequel especially a numbered sequel.

-Polaris

If you think that a title change would have saved DA2, you're not on the same channel as the rest of us, Ian. People would have seen it as a sequel no matter what it was called, and the same amount of complaining would have insued because so many people, rather than completely listening to what Bioware was saying heard what they wanted to hear and built a completely different game in their heads from what they got.

[Tommy6860]

Ariella wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

I say I totally disagree with KoA thinking and ML's too. We don't have to make every RPG out there now like DA2, as you may as well call them by another genre. Taking away player agency, so other can have more action is fine, but don't make it a blanket case for every RPG that comes along.

Its an open world game so I'd say player agency will be similar to the Elder Scrolls games more than DA2, there's also the fact that Ken Rolston is the lead designer. The combat being more intensive than usual in such games really says nothing about player agency.

Actually, in the interview, which you should look at, Morroian, he says it is "guided" open world, and he's not Lead Designer. His official title is literally "Visionary".

As for crafting, it looks skill based, with crafting stations. There's a vid on the site that demos it.

I saw it already, but it looks to be an action game with an RPG feel, though I won't know until friends tell me about it. Laidlaw has pretty much made up his mind where RPGs are going and it is away from what may be Bioware's last great RPG, Origins; DA2 proved that.. Rolston's experience is Morrowwind, which was awesome and Oblvion, which was hardly an RPG (though I really enjoyed it), if only one could customize, build stats and powers, that was really all one could do in Oblivion. If that is what is coming to Reckoning, I won't bother. I want my choices to matter in the story, I want companions I can truly interact with, not scripted by when devs want them to interact with me. Player agency is a big necessity in RPGs, IMO.

[IanPolaris]

Ariella wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Ariella wrote...

KoA has its own issues and expectations, especially since Rolsten was lead on Oblivion. You don't think that doesn't play into a lot of people's thinking? KoA might not have the expectations of a direct sequel, but it does have the shadow of a lot of names fueling expectation.

That is exactly why the reactions to both games is completely different. People don't normally get upset if a new IP is totally different from the developers past work, however they do when a sequal is.

Indeed.  I think the reaction and reception of DA2 would have  been very, very different had it been called "Tales of Kirkwall" or even "DA: Tales of Kirkwall" rather than being called Dragon Age TWO and being marketed as a sequel.  People expect strong similarities between a work and it's sequel especially a numbered sequel.

-Polaris

If you think that a title change would have saved DA2, you're not on the same channel as the rest of us, Ian. People would have seen it as a sequel no matter what it was called, and the same amount of complaining would have insued because so many people, rather than completely listening to what Bioware was saying heard what they wanted to hear and built a completely different game in their heads from what they got.

Strawman.  I NEVER said that a change of name would have "SAVED" DA2.  Those are your words and your conclusion and I want no part of them.  I said that the reception would have been very very different, and I think it would have been.

-Polaris

[Ariella]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Of course it does not make sense from the DA:O player's pespective. It does makes sense if the company wants to cash in on DA:O's success for the lowest cost as fast as possible. Mr Laidlaw as the lead designer sure has a say in this.

It's the publisher, not the developer that has the final say when games come out or if they come out at all. If anyone on the team had a say, it would have been Mark Darrah, as Exe Producer and product director, not Mike. He leads the design and development aspects, and doesn't have a say in the publishing half of the business, just like an author has little say when they're given a deadline for their next manuscript. I also doubt Mike has anything to do with setting the budget. Bugdet would have probably been in the hands of the finance managers at Bioware, along with Sr. Director, Finance: Kevin Gunderman. The only thing that would have been up to Mike regarding money would most likely be allocation of resources once they had a budget. So no, there are other people much higher than Mike Laidlaw who could and would have had a say in when the game would come out and how much budget the project would get.

[Ariella]

IanPolaris wrote...

Ariella wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Ariella wrote...

KoA has its own issues and expectations, especially since Rolsten was lead on Oblivion. You don't think that doesn't play into a lot of people's thinking? KoA might not have the expectations of a direct sequel, but it does have the shadow of a lot of names fueling expectation.

That is exactly why the reactions to both games is completely different. People don't normally get upset if a new IP is totally different from the developers past work, however they do when a sequal is.

Indeed.  I think the reaction and reception of DA2 would have  been very, very different had it been called "Tales of Kirkwall" or even "DA: Tales of Kirkwall" rather than being called Dragon Age TWO and being marketed as a sequel.  People expect strong similarities between a work and it's sequel especially a numbered sequel.

-Polaris

If you think that a title change would have saved DA2, you're not on the same channel as the rest of us, Ian. People would have seen it as a sequel no matter what it was called, and the same amount of complaining would have insued because so many people, rather than completely listening to what Bioware was saying heard what they wanted to hear and built a completely different game in their heads from what they got.

Strawman.  I NEVER said that a change of name would have "SAVED" DA2.  Those are your words and your conclusion and I want no part of them.  I said that the reception would have been very very different, and I think it would have been.

-Polaris

You say reactions would have been very very different if they'd used a different name. Considering the reaction to DA2, the different reaction is implied to be that much better. I never said that you said anything. It's just what you implied: that DA 2 would have done better under a different name.

[devSin]

IanPolaris wrote...

Indeed.  I think the reaction and reception of DA2 would have  been very, very different had it been called "Tales of Kirkwall" or even "DA: Tales of Kirkwall" rather than being called Dragon Age TWO and being marketed as a sequel.  People expect strong similarities between a work and it's sequel especially a numbered sequel.

The problem I see with this is that there's likely no chance of ever seeing something that "People [who] expect strong similarities between a work and it's sequel especially a numbered sequel" will consider worth the number.

This wasn't some side-project. This wasn't a fun little game to throw out while they were working on the real sequel. (And if they had released it as your "Tales of Kirkwall" or whatever, the only thing people here would be doing is talking about when we're going to see a sequel to Origins.)

People are pissed off. It wasn't the greatest game in the world. It wasn't the greatest BioWare game, not by any definition of either "greatest" or "BioWare". But it is exactly what you're going to get going forward. It's what you got from 2. And it's what you're going to get from 3.

It is the sequel. Maybe you're correct that it would have been received better had it been given a different title, but I think it would have simply delayed the hellfire until they confirmed that, no, there will never be an "Origins" sequel of the kind you people who hate "Tales of Kirkwall" are expecting to see.

Modifié par devSin, 18 août 2011 - 01:33 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Incase it has escaped your attention, KoA hasn't sold a single copy yet because it's not even out.

To jump up and down saying thats the future of RPG's and ML was right is both immature and the wrong thing to do for one simple reason... Wait till you see it's sales before you go hoping up and down for joy claiming the hills are alive with the sound of music. DA2 sales were poor, until KoA is actually out we don't actuall know if the sales will also be bad or good yet so I suggest you hold you ammo until atleast the game is out.

It doesn't matter what is said on their forums, for all we know their fourms are made up of pretty much everyone from here who liked DA2... It also may turn nasty once they play the full retail game. You just don't know and to praise it as the 'right way/thing' before it's released is plain wrong borderline stupidity. Wait till see the sales and read forums after release then you will have your ammo (or not).

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 18 août 2011 - 01:31 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ariella wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Of course it does not make sense from the DA:O player's pespective. It does makes sense if the company wants to cash in on DA:O's success for the lowest cost as fast as possible. Mr Laidlaw as the lead designer sure has a say in this.

It's the publisher, not the developer that has the final say when games come out or if they come out at all. If anyone on the team had a say, it would have been Mark Darrah, as Exe Producer and product director, not Mike. He leads the design and development aspects, and doesn't have a say in the publishing half of the business, just like an author has little say when they're given a deadline for their next manuscript. I also doubt Mike has anything to do with setting the budget. Bugdet would have probably been in the hands of the finance managers at Bioware, along with Sr. Director, Finance: Kevin Gunderman. The only thing that would have been up to Mike regarding money would most likely be allocation of resources once they had a budget. So no, there are other people much higher than Mike Laidlaw who could and would have had a say in when the game would come out and how much budget the project would get.

You fail to understand that BW is just a division of EA. As I said in my edit of that post: Mr Laidlaw probably didn't decide on the cashing in, but he sure facilitated it. All the signs are there.

[IanPolaris]

devSin wrote...

People are pissed off. It wasn't the greatest game in the world. It wasn't the greatest BioWare game, not by any definition of either "greatest" or "BioWare". But it is exactly what you're going to get going forward. It's what you got from 2. And it's what you're going to get from 3.

Indeed.  I think you're right about this.  If so the DA franchise is dead to me.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

[oops. double post]

Modifié par IanPolaris, 18 août 2011 - 01:32 .

[Ariella]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Incase it has escaped your attention, KoA hasn't sold a single copy yet because it's not even out.

To jump up and down saying thats the future of RPG's and ML was right is both immature and the wrong thing to do for one simple reason... Wait till you see it's sales before you go hoping up and down for joy claiming the hills are alive with the sound of music. DA2 sales were poor, until KoA is actually out we don't actuall know if the sales will also be bad or good yet so I suggest you hold you ammo until atleast the game is out.

It doesn't matter what is said on their forums, for all we know their fourms are made up of pretty much everyone from here who liked DA2... It also may turn nasty once they play the game. You just don't know and to praise it as the right way before it's released is plain wrong borderline stupidity. Wait till see the sales and read forums after release then you will have your ammo (or not).

Yet many people were going on about how TW2 was going to be so much better than DA2 before it came out.

You miss the point, however, which is that Mike's not alone in these ideas, nor does it seem to turn people off who like RPGs but aren't deeply invested in keeping legacy bits from TT and old school RPGs.

I doubt that their forum is made up of all the people  who loved DA2 any more than TW2's forum is made up of people who all hate DA2.

It's not immature to compare visions for the genre, coming from 2 different people with 2 very different backgrounds in the business and coming to basically the same conclusion. There's nothing immature about that. It is however interesting, and we'll see in the next few months how KoA:R does.