295 réponses à ce sujet

[billy the squid]

Ariella wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Uzzy wrote...

Well, that and some people actually rather like having their games 'trapped' in table top conventions, and appreciate the slower, more methodical form of combat that we used to have. For us really weird people, this isn't an evolution..

...

Dragon Age 2's combat system felt like a natural extention of the game, not something to be endured. It was quick, had numberous options at the ready that didn't slow the pace, and it did what I wanted with a minimum of fuss. Nice and painless (and when I say painless I mean, I wasn't sitting there eithe bored or frustrated with the combat).

DA2's combat was possibly one of the most irritating aspects of the game, true the shuffling and the pathing issues were removed, yet it was replaced with a hyperactive overdone style. Rather than fixing the more sluggish combat of DAO. Not to mention the myriad of other problems associated with combat. compounded by the sheer quantity thrown at the player, it seems that they tried to pad the game by pushing in more combat to make up for the lack of content.

As to issues of change, please explain how FPS and TPS have not changed significantly in years, they are, at their core, still the same as they were years ago, why? Because they are popular. People buy it, so it remains similar to its predecessors.

It is not an issue of stagnation, it is the desire to appeal to a broader market and increase revenue thus the push to make RPGs more cinematic and straight forward to appeal to the casual market. DAO had its established market, the IP impact was succesful, DA2 did not introduce a new IP it tried to change its base assuming the original segment would still buy it or it underestimated who was its competition and would new consumers buy the product.

People toss around the word "casual" like it's a perjoritive when it isn't.

FPS and TPS have become much more story based. The original Doom had as much story as a fortune cookie, but look at the shooter genre now. Identifiable characters with personality, lore... The basic mechanic of it being a combat sim is the same, but there's more depth than there was back when Doom hit the scene.

Appealing to a broader market is GOOD, it allows for more money to come into RPG developers and in turn they put out more RPGs. That's basic economics. The fact that RPGs are mechanics heavy, and that tends to turn off certain segments of gamers, isn't good in a world where the market for luxury items has shrunk. That and I've been a fan of rule 0: if the mechanic doesn't work toss it out or to put it another way: the r in RPG stands for playing a role, not rolling the dice.

Combat in DA2 was so much better than DAO, I don't see how you can compare them, or what was so wrong with the animation. It's a 3D game, high action animation makes sense. Yes, this isn't part of what was in BG, but they couldn't DO this in BG either because of the limitations. Part of Dragon Age was to get out from under the rules heavy table top design of a D&D system. Bioware was still heavily tied to mechanics in DAO, but in DA2 finally broke from having certain mechanics for the sake of being classified as an RPG. It also broke out of the old Bioware mold as well (being an avatar of a great political/social/religious/militarfy group that has to save the world). It did a lot of things that weren't usual faire for the company, and while the game could have done with more time, what we got was still pretty good.

The term casual refers to a larger market, it is undefined as it will shift to the next big title quickly. whether it is used as a pejorative or not is largely irrelevant.

Story wise the trend has become more involved since the advent of Halo, which seemed to kick off the wide spread story driven elements, other than that the mechanics are largely the same.The 2 major shooters in 1990's were Quake and Doom, how many are their now? The need to create a story does not support any theory that FPS' have changed substantially mechanically since the early 2000's

Story and fixed protagonists are tools to keep players buying an IP, particularly with the rise of trilogies, it becomes more important to the product, so that consumers won't shift attention to newer releases. Yet the core of the game remains the same, it is impossible to miss a FPS or TPS than anything else than that. certain RPGs are blending, streamlining and making things more akin to a cinematic adventure. If I wanted this I would watch a film, not play a game.

Appealing, or trying to appeal to a wider audience is not basic economics. The product must either create a demand or supply one. DA2 did neither, appealing to a wider market doesn't help if that market doesn't bite and only succeed increasing competition without notably expanding your relavent market. As to rule 0 I would have to toss out most of DA2 following that line of logic, as I was under the impression that DAO did work and DA2 fixed few of the problems whilst creating a whole host of new ones.

And it is indeed the case that R stands for Role so why do I have to play the role of a predetermined entity, rather than creating my own role?

As to the combat, action orientation is fine up until it becomes so jarring that it looks daft. Or is a heavily armoured knight dashing across the screen and rogues jumping all over the place par for the course. Certain games will use this, as it is a quality which draws consumers their segment, not in this case. All it succeeded in doing is creating a lot of disatisfaction, what was able to do be done in BG is largely irrelevant, different IPs differnet expectations and qualities associated with the IPs. What was done in DAO is important, whilst there was an attempt to break from this it was done neither well, nor was it well recieved.

Again the same issue comes up, know your audience, examine your competion, what is your penetration in that market. DA2 is a blend of RPG, Hack slash adventure. But does neither very well, the segment that it is aimed at is unclear so its appeal remains limited. And no what we got is debatable, personally it was poor and rushed

Modifié par billy the squid, 18 août 2011 - 01:41 .

[Ianamus]

I'm really mixed about the whole thing. When I was first shown the trailer for Origins I actually rejected it and dismissed it because of the shuffly-combat animations. It was only because of somebody's "I'm buying it whether or not you want it" attitude that I ever played it at all.

The combat wasn't as bad as I expected, and I loved the customisation, story, and world, but the combat was still fairly unresponsive and slow. Even in real life, people would attack faster than that.

When they announced DA2 I thought that everything would be solved. My main problems with Origins were the slow combat and that all companions looked like they were made using the character creator. DA2 promised faster combat and unique looks. I was excited.

When it was released I got my faster combat and unique looks.

But it wasn't just a few features brought in from action games, nor were those the only changes. A streamlined and focused plot meant I had to be a human, and caused repetitive area's. Unique looks came with lack of customisation for companions. A Mass-Effect style dialogue wheel was thrown in, which despite devs assuring would not limit options left us with only three responses to nearly everything, that played so stereotypically into three personalities that trying to be anything other than those three didn't work.

Unique appearances also came with an entire visual overhaul. I loved the Qunari's new look, but I really didn't like the new dwarves or elves overall. Female Dwarves were even taken out completely!

The worst part is that i'm sure that dialogue system and art style will be back in their entireity in the next game. Were the improved combat and odd visual improvements worth it?

I honestly don't think they were.

Modifié par EJ107, 18 août 2011 - 01:44 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Ariella wrote...

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.

And if both sell badly (DA2 did not sell very well and have no idea at all at this point if KoA will follow in that trend) then the future will a) either look grim for RPG's or will forced to change direction.

Common sense please, wait until a game is out before using it as ammo for one side or the other. When it's out and see how well it is actually recieved via sales then debate this.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 18 août 2011 - 01:48 .

[IanPolaris]

I think it's only fair to note that TW2 came with a completely set of expectations than DA2 (and even then Projekt Red has made mistakes some serious as they themselves have admitted).

Specifically TW was never marketed as a wide open cRPG where you picked your role in the traditional manner. Everyone knew going in you'd be Geralt the Witcher with a set backstory (same with ME2 and ME). That makes things quite different.

Again, the rule is simple: KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE!

-Polaris

[Ariella]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

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.

I do understand, but blaming the development team for descisions made at higher management is unfair. As for facilitating. I don't understand what you mean by that. Mike would have been handed a budget, and expected by his superiors to do what he was assigned to to within that budget. Unless you wanted the dev team to quit en masse in protest to budgetary decisions by management, there was nothing he could have done but make the best of the resources that were made available to him.

You say all the signs are there, what signs? We're in the worst economy since 1929, and businesses that had been successes for years are closing left and right. EA has to put out product or its shareholders willl take their money elsewhere, and so will their customers. And with the market being this bad, and people being out of work, money is in short supply. EA has to maintain a revenue stream or there are problems. And again, we DON'T know what the thinking was in the upper echelons of management when it came down to budgeting and timing for DA2. Maybe there was less money than expected to put into a sequel, or maybe I should say the money didn't carry the same value it did when DAO was release. Maybe the dev teams ideas were bigger than what could realisticly be handled. There are so many different things that could have happened, so many different variables, and we're never going to know them.

Blaming people is just a waste of resources, personal rather than professional in this case.

[billy the squid]

IanPolaris wrote...

I think it's only fair to note that TW2 came with a completely set of expectations than DA2 (and even then Projekt Red has made mistakes some serious as they themselves have admitted).

Specifically TW was never marketed as a wide open cRPG where you picked your role in the traditional manner. Everyone knew going in you'd be Geralt the Witcher with a set backstory (same with ME2 and ME). That makes things quite different.

Again, the rule is simple: KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE!

-Polaris

I agree, every new IP will have a different set of expectations and associated perceptions as to qualities. CDPR has done a very good job in  fixing these criticisms, and doing so for free, which goes a long way in establishing IP equity with a consumer segment.

[Ariella]

[quote]billy the squid wrote...

[quote]Ariella wrote...

[quote]billy the squid wrote...

[quote]Ariella wrote...

[quote]Uzzy wrote...

Well, that and some people actually rather like having their games 'trapped' in table top conventions, and appreciate the slower, more methodical form of combat that we used to have. For us really weird people, this isn't an evolution.. [/quote]

...

Dragon Age 2's combat system felt like a natural extention of the game, not something to be endured. It was quick, had numberous options at the ready that didn't slow the pace, and it did what I wanted with a minimum of fuss. Nice and painless (and when I say painless I mean, I wasn't sitting there eithe bored or frustrated with the combat).
[/quote]

DA2's combat was possibly one of the most irritating aspects of the game, true the shuffling and the pathing issues were removed, yet it was replaced with a hyperactive overdone style. Rather than fixing the more sluggish combat of DAO. Not to mention the myriad of other problems associated with combat. compounded by the sheer quantity thrown at the player, it seems that they tried to pad the game by pushing in more combat to make up for the lack of content.

As to issues of change, please explain how FPS and TPS have not changed significantly in years, they are, at their core, still the same as they were years ago, why? Because they are popular. People buy it, so it remains similar to its predecessors.

It is not an issue of stagnation, it is the desire to appeal to a broader market and increase revenue thus the push to make RPGs more cinematic and straight forward to appeal to the casual market. DAO had its established market, the IP impact was succesful, DA2 did not introduce a new IP it tried to change its base assuming the original segment would still buy it or it underestimated who was its competition and would new consumers buy the product.[/quote]

People toss around the word "casual" like it's a perjoritive when it isn't.

FPS and TPS have become much more story based. The original Doom had as much story as a fortune cookie, but look at the shooter genre now. Identifiable characters with personality, lore... The basic mechanic of it being a combat sim is the same, but there's more depth than there was back when Doom hit the scene.

Appealing to a broader market is GOOD, it allows for more money to come into RPG developers and in turn they put out more RPGs. That's basic economics. The fact that RPGs are mechanics heavy, and that tends to turn off certain segments of gamers, isn't good in a world where the market for luxury items has shrunk. That and I've been a fan of rule 0: if the mechanic doesn't work toss it out or to put it another way: the r in RPG stands for playing a role, not rolling the dice.

Combat in DA2 was so much better than DAO, I don't see how you can compare them, or what was so wrong with the animation. It's a 3D game, high action animation makes sense. Yes, this isn't part of what was in BG, but they couldn't DO this in BG either because of the limitations. Part of Dragon Age was to get out from under the rules heavy table top design of a D&D system. Bioware was still heavily tied to mechanics in DAO, but in DA2 finally broke from having certain mechanics for the sake of being classified as an RPG. It also broke out of the old Bioware mold as well (being an avatar of a great political/social/religious/militarfy group that has to save the world). It did a lot of things that weren't usual faire for the company, and while the game could have done with more time, what we got was still pretty good.
[/quote]

The term casual refers to a larger market, it is undefined as it will shift to the next big title quickly. whether it is used as a pejorative or not is largely irrelevant.

[/quote]

It's extremely relevant, especially when used to disqualify people based on the fact they haven't played RPGs since they were little or they're not in love with mechanics. I've been around the block enough both here and on WoW boards to know how insulting the term is.

[quote]

Story wise the trend has become more involved since the advent of Halo, which seemed to kick off the wide spread story driven elements, other than that the mechanics are largely the same.The 2 major shooters in 1990's were Quake and Doom, how many are their now? The need to create a story does not support any theory that FPS' have changed substantially mechanically since the early 2000's
[/quote]

You missed the point, they have changed. Everything evolves in some way or another, it doesn't mean they're going to evolve in the same way. As for the early 2000s, I'll get back to you when we have a bigger sample size, like 2030, since we're still IN the early 2000s.

[quote]
Story and fixed protagonists are tools to keep players buying an IP, particularly with the rise of trilogies, it becomes more important to the product, so that consumers won't shift attention to newer releases. Yet the core of the game remains the same, it is impossible to miss a FPS or TPS than anything else than that. certain RPGs are blending, streamlining and making things more akin to a cinematic adventure. If I wanted this I would watch a film, not play a game.
[/quote]

It's been moving this way since the Original KotOR. Once graphics got to the point where developers could go into 3 dimensional detail, it was pretty inevitable they're start using cinematic techiniques that weren't available to them before, and those cinematic techniques are utilized, especially in RPGs, so they can engage their players on a deeper level, just like movies use them to engage the audience.

[quote]
Appealing, or trying to appeal to a wider audience is not basic economics. The product must either create a demand or supply one. DA2 did neither, appealing to a wider market doesn't help if that market doesn't bite and only succeed increasing competition without notably expanding your relavent market. As to rule 0 I would have to toss out most of DA2 following that line of logic, as I was under the impression that DAO did work and DA2 fixed few of the problems whilst creating a whole host of new ones.
[/quote]

Skills didn't work. Some of them were useful, but most were either wastes of time, or just were an excess mechanic one had to jump through to get to the next level (tactics and combat training). If skills in DAO had actually truly served the story or character development, I'd be right there asking for their return, but they didn't. Combat was broken, partially because one had to wait for the right skills to get abilities rather than just advancing as an autonomous system like DA2. DAO was good for what it was, but I'm glad they didn't just use the same mechanics over again.
[quote] 

And it is indeed the case that R stands for Role so why do I have to play the role of a predetermined entity, rather than creating my own role?
[/quote]

Hawke has a name race and a family, other than that there are no real defining characteristics. He looks however you want him to, he's a mage, rogue or thief as you choose. you also choose his tone of voice, how he reacts to situations. None of these things are canned. The player makes the choice to help a certain elf blood child, or not. Agency is there, just like it was in BG where you could be what you wished, but you still ended up the Child of Bhaal or KotOR where you still end up being Revan. You create your own role in the choices you're given, that's what defines Hawke, just like it defines any RP character or any RL person for that matter.

[quote]
As to the combat, action orientation is fine up until it becomes so jarring that it looks daft. Or is a heavily armoured knight dashing across the screen and rogues jumping all over the place par for the course. Certain games will use this, as it is a quality which draws consumers their segment, not in this case. All it succeeded in doing is creating a lot of disatisfaction, what was able to do be done in BG is largely irrelevant, different IPs differnet expectations and qualities associated with the IPs. What was done in DAO is important, whilst there was an attempt to break from this it was done neither well, nor was it well recieved.
[/quote]

Jarring? I don't see it, but this a YmMV kind of thing. And yes, it does matter, because BG is a standard people base things on. Plus this is a visual medium, slow moving "realisitc" combat, isn't going to be as interesting to the eye. Plus Origins did do these things, only they were canned "finishing moves" that slowed the fight down, and made an already clunky system that much more so. I can't count how many times Alistair would get a shot on an ogre or something which would slow the entire screen down as I'm trying to get in position to kill the hurlock.

[quote]

Again the same issue comes up, know your audience, examine your competion, what is your penetration in that market. DA2 is a blend of RPG, Hack slash adventure. But does neither very well, the segment that it is aimed at is unclear so its appeal remains limited. And no what we got is debatable, personally it was poor and rushed
[/quote]

I wouldn't call it hack and slash, as the emphasis wasn't on combat. Oblivion is more hack and slash than DA2. There's combat, yes, but as part of the story. All the different encounters connect to quests in one way or another. It's not randomly generated bad guys just for the heck of it.

[Ariella]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Ariella wrote...

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.

And if both sell badly (DA2 did not sell very well and have no idea at all at this point if KoA will follow in that trend) then the future will a) either look grim for RPG's or will forced to change direction.

Common sense please, wait until a game is out before using it as ammo for one side or the other. When it's out and see how well it is actually recieved via sales then debate this.

It's not just Rolsten's view of how KoA was made but his view of the entire RPG genre. Compare his interview with Silverman with this piece from the Guardian:

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

It talks about the nature of games as narrative and art. It's great, and he makes a LOT of sense when he lays things out. But, I'd go with an open mind, and be willing to listen, not just hear.

[dheer]

Ariella wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Atakuma wrote...
Laidlaw and Rolsten have a similar viewpoint... so what?

Just that if one were to go over to the KoA:R forums and read the posts on what Rolsten said, there's no wailing or nashing of teeth about the fact that bits are being taken from actions games. The people there are very excited about the game.

I think that says something when a rather anticipated RPG, which has some rather big names on the box, seems to follow a similar design philophy to what Mike and the DA team did with DA2

No it doesn't, because unlike DA2, Amalur isn't a sequel, so people don't have built in expectations.

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.

Really. Just because R.A. Salvatore's name is associated with the project doesn't mean it's going to be some great rpg godsend and will create expectations of a grand game. He writes basic, but well done, heroic fantasy books.

Besides, he was also involved with Demon Stone. It was a steaming pile of dren.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ariella wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

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.

I do understand, but blaming the development team for descisions made at higher management is unfair. As for facilitating. I don't understand what you mean by that. Mike would have been handed a budget, and expected by his superiors to do what he was assigned to to within that budget. Unless you wanted the dev team to quit en masse in protest to budgetary decisions by management, there was nothing he could have done but make the best of the resources that were made available to him.

You say all the signs are there, what signs? We're in the worst economy since 1929, and businesses that had been successes for years are closing left and right. EA has to put out product or its shareholders willl take their money elsewhere, and so will their customers. And with the market being this bad, and people being out of work, money is in short supply. EA has to maintain a revenue stream or there are problems. And again, we DON'T know what the thinking was in the upper echelons of management when it came down to budgeting and timing for DA2. Maybe there was less money than expected to put into a sequel, or maybe I should say the money didn't carry the same value it did when DAO was release. Maybe the dev teams ideas were bigger than what could realisticly be handled. There are so many different things that could have happened, so many different variables, and we're never going to know them.

Blaming people is just a waste of resources, personal rather than professional in this case.

Of course it is not unfair. We are talking about the same company here. Don't make the mistake like so many others here. BW and EA are for all intents and purposes the same company.

About the signs... Look at what I wrote somewhere on this forum before:

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

The impression I have from DA2 is not that the changes were made because of gameplay improvements, but the changes were mainly made because of economic reasons. Streamlining had one purpose: cost reduction. And that includes companion armor, human only PC, no playable background story, removal of dual wielding and archery from the warrior, removal of most skills, removal of comparison with other companions than are in your party in storage chests and stores, removal of a simple check box to allow all of the character's tactics to be disabled, removal of the dialogue log, usage of full screen user interface instead of a convenient tabbed window, etc., etc.

And that's what it is all about: Reducing costs and it has nothing to do with gameplay improvements.

It is not about blaming anyone. If you believe that Mr Laidlaw is on the same page like Ken Rolston and these peope can be praised as visionaries then that OK, right? If you think I am blaming Mr Laidlaw when I show you the other side of the medal then you don't like that. That doesn't make sense, because according to you only the positive sides can be attributed to these people.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 18 août 2011 - 02:44 .

[Ariella]

dheer wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Atakuma wrote...
Laidlaw and Rolsten have a similar viewpoint... so what?

Just that if one were to go over to the KoA:R forums and read the posts on what Rolsten said, there's no wailing or nashing of teeth about the fact that bits are being taken from actions games. The people there are very excited about the game.

I think that says something when a rather anticipated RPG, which has some rather big names on the box, seems to follow a similar design philophy to what Mike and the DA team did with DA2

No it doesn't, because unlike DA2, Amalur isn't a sequel, so people don't have built in expectations.

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.

Really. Just because R.A. Salvatore's name is associated with the project doesn't mean it's going to be some great rpg godsend and will create expectations of a grand game. He writes basic, but well done, heroic fantasy books.

Besides, he was also involved with Demon Stone. It was a steaming pile of dren.

Actually, you put people like RA Salvatore on the box to generate expectation, which is the point I'm making, and if you read my comments, I pointed out that BECAUSE his name was on Demon Stone, there were huge expectations for it, and it stunk.

But he has a NAME, so does Rolsten and so does McFarlan. That's going to generate buzz among their fans, and there are going to be certain expections because they are involved.

[dheer]

Ariella wrote...

dheer wrote...
Really. Just because R.A. Salvatore's name is associated with the project doesn't mean it's going to be some great rpg godsend and will create expectations of a grand game. He writes basic, but well done, heroic fantasy books.

Besides, he was also involved with Demon Stone. It was a steaming pile of dren.

Actually, you put people like RA Salvatore on the box to generate expectation, which is the point I'm making, and if you read my comments, I pointed out that BECAUSE his name was on Demon Stone, there were huge expectations for it, and it stunk.

But he has a NAME, so does Rolsten and so does McFarlan. That's going to generate buzz among their fans, and there are going to be certain expections because they are involved.

Actually, you put people like R.A. Salvatore on the box to generate interest / buzz. There can be no expectations for a Salvatore rpg because he's never made one.

[Dragoonlordz]

@Ariella

I know you like DA2 and I know you like the direction it headed in general but what I'm saying about this thread and topic is it doesn't make any difference as it stands right now it's a guess, an opinion of what someone thinks or wants to see with a product or genre direction.

The result will be in the pudding that is the sales after hits retail plus what the feedback is once people have bought and played that retail product. You should of waited until then to make a point. Because at that time the sales and feedback from retail version will either dam or back up his opinion. Until that time this thread is premature and silly (imho).

ML's idiology or vision of RPG is reflected (so far and it may change; I don't have crystal ball) but right now the sales are not good. The older style RPG based on previous idiology DAO is selling better than the new one. Now there could be other factors but when KoA is [actually] released and given same idiology is used to create that then 'if' that too has bad sales. This will increase a chance the actual idiology is flawed not specific aspects in one title.

KoA may sell masses of copies and then will seem like the failure of DA2 could well be the aspects and not idiology but we just don't know how well KoA will sell right now or feedback will be once people have played the finished (bought) game. It could go either way and until that time this whole debate is rather much like point scoring without anything to back it up such as sales figures or feedback after people have played the game.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 18 août 2011 - 03:02 .

[Ariella]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...


Of course it is not unfair. We are talking about the same company here. Don't make the mistake like so many others here. BW and EA are for all intents and purposes the same company.

About the signs... Look at what I wrote somewhere on this forum before:

In reverse order: I did look at what you wrote, and with one exception it's all based on circumstantial evidence and interperitation.

I'm not talking about different companies here, I'm talking about A) not knowing what went on behind closed doors that created DA2's budget or what all the factors are that motivated EA to release the game in March.

We know none of these things, and using words like "cash grab" imply that any parts of the game people didn't like were done to the sole purpose of making money without regard for the quality of the product. There is no evidence of that. The team may have possibly run out of time, and the money they had may have also not stretched as much as it did back in 2008. These assumptions are more reasonable, especially since they can be backed up by a lousy economy where the US dollar has taken a hit, and where the Euro is in trouble because of potential default in Greece thus a market that has less money for luxury items like video games.

It is not about blaming anyone. If you believe that Mr Laidlaw is on the same page like Ken Rolston and these peope can be praised as visionaries then that OK, right? If you think I am blaming Mr Laidlaw when I show you the other side of the medal then you don't like that. That doesn't make sense, because according to you only the positive sides can be attributed to these people.

No, I think it's interesting these two different individuals came to similar conclusions about the genre, and I also believe that you're not showing the other side of the medal as much as you seem to have concluded that Mr. Laidlaw was in some way responsible for every problem that beset DA2, including any potential monitary and time contraints, and all I'm saying is his position just doesn't have that kind of power. He has to make due with what money he's alloted from higher ups for the project.

But the fact that money and time may have been tight doesn't change the idea that the genre has room to encompass more than just people who played old school TT and CRPGs, and it's less about the gears and wheels that make the game go than it is about what people experience when they play. It's the experience that matters. If they can make the player care, and they seeem to have done so with reasonable success, if the companion discussion forum is any indication, about Hawke and/or the companions. If they manage to make even one person want to smack the screen because he or shis is pissed at an NPC. If they make a player feel anything in relation to the story they're telling, the development team has done its job because that's the whole point.

[Ariella]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

@Ariella

I know you like DA2 and I know you like the direction it headed in general but what I'm saying about this thread and topic is it doesn't make any difference as it stands right now it's a guess, an opinion of what someone thinks or wants to see with a product or genre direction.

The result will be in the pudding that is the sales after hits retail plus what the feedback is once people have bought and played that retail product. You should of waited until then to make a point. Because at that time the sales and feedback from retail version will either dam or back up his opinion. Until that time this thread is premature and silly (imho).

ML's idiology or vision of RPG is reflected (so far and it may change; I don't have crystal ball) but right now the sales are not good. The older style RPG based on previous idiology DAO is selling better than the new one. Now there could be other factors but when KoA is [actually] released and given same idiology is used to create that then 'if' that too has bad sales. This will increase a chance the actual idiology is flawed not specific aspects in one title.

KoA may sell masses of copies and then will seem like the failure of DA2 could well be the aspects and not idiology but we just don't know how well KoA will sell right now or feedback will be once people have played the finished (bought) game. It could go either way and until that time this whole debate is rather much like point scoring without anything to back it up such as sales figures or feedback after people have played the game.

I'm not just talking about KoA though. That's where you seem to keep getting stuck. You don't think he brought this concept to his other work as well? And maybe it's time to consider that in the grand scheme of things they have a point? Why should Role Play be chained to weighty mechanics, just because D&D (which evolved from a strategy game) had all these rules? 

[Shadowlit_Rogue]

I think it's unfair to compare the two, since they're on completely opposite ends of the RPG spectrum in my mind. Amalur is looking like it's going to be something closer to Fable but with more complex RPG elements. (i.e. - crafting, character creation, expansive lore, exploration, robust item catalog, etc.) That's what I'm expecting. I'm not expecting Oblivion mixed with Salvatore's Legend of Drizzt series just because Rolston is involved.

Dragon Age 2 was not similar enough to its sequel for me to enjoy it. Though, I dislike most of it for the same reasons I actually like some other games, if that makes sense. I expect DA2 to be like DA:O; not like Fable or Oblivion or Mass Effect (all games that I love, btw). The game just had an identity crisis. Amalur won't have that problem right out the gate. The first game shows you what to expect out of the series, and the rest capitalize and expand on that.

Battlefield 3's coming out soon, and I'm not expecting it to be like Call of Duty; I expect it to be like BC2 or BF2.

[Ariella]

dheer wrote...

Ariella wrote...

dheer wrote...
Really. Just because R.A. Salvatore's name is associated with the project doesn't mean it's going to be some great rpg godsend and will create expectations of a grand game. He writes basic, but well done, heroic fantasy books.

Besides, he was also involved with Demon Stone. It was a steaming pile of dren.

Actually, you put people like RA Salvatore on the box to generate expectation, which is the point I'm making, and if you read my comments, I pointed out that BECAUSE his name was on Demon Stone, there were huge expectations for it, and it stunk.

But he has a NAME, so does Rolsten and so does McFarlan. That's going to generate buzz among their fans, and there are going to be certain expections because they are involved.

Actually, you put people like R.A. Salvatore on the box to generate interest / buzz. There can be no expectations for a Salvatore rpg because he's never made one.

Yes, that's what I've been saying, and there's going to be expectation of a decent story, so yes there is a certain kind of expectation that goes with the name.

[Dragoonlordz]

Theories, points and opinions are all well and good but there comes a time when such theories need backing up with evidence. Such as sales and feedback.

We are not at that stage right now and be glad of that because with one product based on that theory or opinion it doesn't look good. Sales were not good with DA2. When the next product comes out which is also based on that idiology and opinion the results will either a) be negative in which case might be problem with entire theory and idiology. Confusing what he or they want to produce with what people want to buy or the sales will be good and back up their theory and opinion which will indicate that DA2's failures to reflect good sales was simply due to gameplay aspects rather than direction and idiology.

Until you have more evidence, it's just a theory and one that isn't looking good right now in terms of what people actually want to buy. When results are in of that other [game] title built around same idiology then we all wil have clearer understanding of if the problem is the idiology or if it's gameplay aspects within one title.

Now you can see the logic in that or maybe you cant, thats not for me to decide but I have said my peice and will head off to do something else.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 18 août 2011 - 03:27 .

[TEWR]

I have to say that the "slow-paced combat" is.... odd to say the least for me. It's far from realistic in terms of actual combat, and warfare is about action. It's quick, brutal, and far from being a leisurely stroll down the battlefield. It's also about tactics too, something the Dragon Age series has never had.

Provided the enemies can use the same attack animations and some of the abilities we use, along with attacks of their own and actual tactics, I'll be happy with combat.

[Cutlass Jack]

Did we really get this far without mentioning the Baseball player developing this?

Modifié par Cutlass Jack, 18 août 2011 - 03:32 .

[devSin]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Theories, points and opinions are all well and good but there comes a time when such theories need backing up with evidence. Such as sales and feedback.

We are not at that stage right now and be glad of that because with one product based on that theory or opinion it doesn't look good. Sales were not good with DA2. When the next product comes out which is also based on that idiology and opinion the results will either a) be negative in which case might be problem with entire theory and idiology. Confusing what he or they want produce with what people want to buy or the sales will be good and back up their theory and opinion which will indicate that DA2's failures to reflect good sales was simply due to gameplay aspects rather than direction and idiology.

The fact (yes, fact; not theories nor points nor opinions) is that Dragon Age II was commercially successful. From Ray's mouth to the printed page to your eyes to your brain.

Were sales great? I don't believe so. Were sales good? There's no real way to judge this. Were sales poor? There's no evidence to suggest this.

Was DA2 profitable? It seems to be implied, since it was "commercially successful", but it's not a certainty. Will DA2 be profitable by the end of its lifetime? I do believe it will.

Deny it all you want, but you're driving off a cliff trying to suggest that there's somehow doom and gloom on the horizon for the franchise, seemingly based on nothing but the negativity echo-chamber here and some dodgy sales figures for Origins.

[TEWR]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Did we really get this far without mentioning the Baseball player designing this?

yup.

[Atakuma]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Did we really get this far without mentioning the Baseball player developing this?

I'm pretty sure he's just the owner of the studio.

[TEWR]

Atakuma wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Did we really get this far without mentioning the Baseball player developing this?

I'm pretty sure he's just the owner of the studio.

He is. He created the company Green Monster Games in 2006, but then changed the name to 38 Studios in 2007. He's played some RPGs and MMORPGs in his life, so it's not like he's some newcomer.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 18 août 2011 - 03:39 .