295 réponses à ce sujet

[Ariella]

seraphymon wrote...

and niether is change for the sake of change There are more than those 4 basic things for an RPg, as everyone has a different idea what it should contain at the very least. Even if something isnt really needed doesnt mean it should be tossed out. There things called extra effort, and not just doing as little as possible just to get by.

Everybody has an idea of a different general ratio, but it does boil down to those four things. I can't think of an RPG that doesn't have them.

As for unneed mechanics, yes, you should toss em, because why should you waste time and resources on something that, in the end, doesn't do anything for the game? No one is saying do as little as possible, but at the same time, you don't need to litter the room with things that are going to be distractions or aren't needed.

I dont know or cant think of a way to make things more accesible that are complicated without streamlining or holding your hand. But what DA2 was make everything too easy. DAO was talked about being intimidating at the start. i never saw it, especially with a game meant for adults, and not some child who shouldnt be playing it anyways, that needs their hands held.

I can. AD&D and AD&D 2nd Ed both used several various dice for different rolls. Then came games like Shadowrun and VtM, which rather than several different dice, used a single type of die, and rather than having to worry about different dice for stats etc used those dice in pools.

Basic VtM (the original) is probably one of the simplest game systems in the universe, but there's no hand holding involved.

DAO talked about being dark and gritty, not overly complex and clunky. Huge difference.

[hoorayforicecream]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

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.

What a coincidence, so has everyone else here.

Well isn't that something?

It's rather interesting. It's Curt Schilling, formerly the winningest pitcher in the MLB, and total Everquest geek. He certainly put his money where his mouth is, though: he started a game studio to make the type of games he was interested in. That's more than I can say most fans have done.

On the topic, I find it interesting because a very similar line of thinking was brought up by JE Sawyer, project director at Obsidian and design lead for Fallout: New Vegas, in an interview at GDC Europe.

I won't quote from the article since it's linked right there, but had you told me the article was interviewing Mike Laidlaw instead of JE Sawyer, I wouldn't have batted an eyelash. They certainly may not have similar styles of implementation, but the message is still surprisingly similar.

[Persephone]

IanPolaris wrote...

A lot of change in DA2 was done for the sake of changed based on what one person thought was desirable because he knew better.  Not a good idea.

-Polaris

A theory of little validity, given Mike's own recent communication with the fanbase. 

[IanPolaris]

Persephone wrote...

I wonder if Mike or any of the true RPG fans out there would still call this an RPG:

www.youtube.com/watch (Intro of a game ya RPG nuts better be familiar with:devil:)

To me it's pure RPG gold and I want that kind of attention to detail BACK.

A classic.  It's dated of course, but for it's time it 3DO's MM7 was RPG gold.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Persephone wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

A lot of change in DA2 was done for the sake of changed based on what one person thought was desirable because he knew better.  Not a good idea.

-Polaris

A theory of little validity, given Mike's own recent communication with the fanbase. 

Why is that?  Mike didn't communicate with the fanbase until after his project tanked.  Seems more like support for my theory than anything else.

-Polaris

[seraphymon]

Ariella wrote...

seraphymon wrote...

and niether is change for the sake of change There are more than those 4 basic things for an RPg, as everyone has a different idea what it should contain at the very least. Even if something isnt really needed doesnt mean it should be tossed out. There things called extra effort, and not just doing as little as possible just to get by.

Everybody has an idea of a different general ratio, but it does boil down to those four things. I can't think of an RPG that doesn't have them.

As for unneed mechanics, yes, you should toss em, because why should you waste time and resources on something that, in the end, doesn't do anything for the game? No one is saying do as little as possible, but at the same time, you don't need to litter the room with things that are going to be distractions or aren't needed.

I dont know or cant think of a way to make things more accesible that are complicated without streamlining or holding your hand. But what DA2 was make everything too easy. DAO was talked about being intimidating at the start. i never saw it, especially with a game meant for adults, and not some child who shouldnt be playing it anyways, that needs their hands held.

I can. AD&D and AD&D 2nd Ed both used several various dice for different rolls. Then came games like Shadowrun and VtM, which rather than several different dice, used a single type of die, and rather than having to worry about different dice for stats etc used those dice in pools.

Basic VtM (the original) is probably one of the simplest game systems in the universe, but there's no hand holding involved.

DAO talked about being dark and gritty, not overly complex and clunky. Huge difference.

I disgaree about uneeded mechanics. Now DAo had some that really didnt matter, but theres other cases that  still didnt rally matter but shouldnt have been just tossed out. LIke the books lying on the floor of the circle tower. The little things that add detail and extra makes alot of difference when people expect such things out of the technology today. DAo talked about being dark and gritty, personally i saw no negative complainta about it, aside from a couple things about  always being dark or something, but what can you expect out of places like deep roads and such. However your wrong, there was talks about overly complex and clunky. Clunky for the  combat, and complex was something that the devs said how they hear reports about  being on the creation screen and quitting right there, once they took a look at the stats or something. Or only getting to Ostagar and quitting.

[hoorayforicecream]

Persephone wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

A lot of change in DA2 was done for the sake of changed based on what one person thought was desirable because he knew better.  Not a good idea.

-Polaris

A theory of little validity, given Mike's own recent communication with the fanbase. 

I agree with Persephone. If you look at practically any great game, it historically has a single person driving them with a strong, defining vision of what the game is. Design by committee, on the other hand, almost inevitably leads to mediocrity or worse. Too many cooks in the kitchen, something about soup, blah blah.

[Persephone]

IanPolaris wrote...

Persephone wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

A lot of change in DA2 was done for the sake of changed based on what one person thought was desirable because he knew better.  Not a good idea.

-Polaris

A theory of little validity, given Mike's own recent communication with the fanbase. 

Why is that?  Mike didn't communicate with the fanbase until after his project tanked.  Seems more like support for my theory than anything else.

-Polaris

It did not tank at all. Want a tanked project that killed a franchise? Try the last Might and Magic game.

[Ariella]

IanPolaris wrote...

Persephone wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

A lot of change in DA2 was done for the sake of changed based on what one person thought was desirable because he knew better.  Not a good idea.

-Polaris

A theory of little validity, given Mike's own recent communication with the fanbase. 

Why is that?  Mike didn't communicate with the fanbase until after his project tanked.  Seems more like support for my theory than anything else.

-Polaris

Probably because his mother taught him if you don't have anything nice to say, especially  to people who are calling for your head, don't say anything at all.

Think for a minute, Ian. The forum was toxic, anything he said would have been picked over of the most minute detail to prove Mike hated (fill in the blank). So yeah, it was a better call to wait til things settled than engage in something that would be completely fruitless and an exercise in frustration.

[IanPolaris]

Persephone wrote...

It did not tank at all. Want a tanked project that killed a franchise? Try the last Might and Magic game.

Actually there are some superficial similiarities between MMX and DA2 if you really want to go there.  Given that (as a conservative estimate) about a third of DA2's sales were driven by preorders and thus by DAO's reputation (confirmed by the fact that sales fell off a cliff after week two) and given that DA2 still hasn't hit the 1.5 million sales mark (DAO has hit 3.8 mil roughly and is actually outselling DA2 currently by contrast) is solid evidence that DA2 has in fact tanked.

Why else would Bioware and ML do their Mea Culpa?

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Ariella wrote...

Probably because his mother taught him if you don't have anything nice to say, especially  to people who are calling for your head, don't say anything at all.

Think for a minute, Ian. The forum was toxic, anything he said would have been picked over of the most minute detail to prove Mike hated (fill in the blank). So yeah, it was a better call to wait til things settled than engage in something that would be completely fruitless and an exercise in frustration.

Point.  Missing it.  I agree with ML's silence immediately after the release.  The forums were toxic (and IMO for good reason!)

However, did ML and his team ever really communicate with their audience when DA2 was in developement they way they are now?  My magic eight-ball says, "No"

-Polaris

[Ariella]

IanPolaris wrote...

Persephone wrote...

It did not tank at all. Want a tanked project that killed a franchise? Try the last Might and Magic game.

Actually there are some superficial similiarities between MMX and DA2 if you really want to go there.  Given that (as a conservative estimate) about a third of DA2's sales were driven by preorders and thus by DAO's reputation (confirmed by the fact that sales fell off a cliff after week two) and given that DA2 still hasn't hit the 1.5 million sales mark (DAO has hit 3.8 mil roughly and is actually outselling DA2 currently by contrast) is solid evidence that DA2 has in fact tanked.

Why else would Bioware and ML do their Mea Culpa?

-Polaris

It wasn't a mea culpa, dear. they never apologized for DA2. They said there are some things they could do better, but that's not an apology. They're still proud of what they've accomplished and plan on doing more and doing it better.

[Persephone]

IanPolaris wrote...

Persephone wrote...

It did not tank at all. Want a tanked project that killed a franchise? Try the last Might and Magic game.

Actually there are some superficial similiarities between MMX and DA2 if you really want to go there.  Given that (as a conservative estimate) about a third of DA2's sales were driven by preorders and thus by DAO's reputation (confirmed by the fact that sales fell off a cliff after week two) and given that DA2 still hasn't hit the 1.5 million sales mark (DAO has hit 3.8 mil roughly and is actually outselling DA2 currently by contrast) is solid evidence that DA2 has in fact tanked.

Why else would Bioware and ML do their Mea Culpa?

-Polaris

1.5 million? Are the official sale numbers out? No, they aren't. I'm tired of estimates done by a site mocked all over the internet for its inaccuracy.

What Mea Culpa? There is no Mea Culpa.

Ever thought that DAII might have revived interest in DAO as in people who bought & played DAII first are buying DAO now as well? I played Gabriel Knight II first and thanks to its brilliance, I ended up buying GK1 later.

[Ariella]

IanPolaris wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Probably because his mother taught him if you don't have anything nice to say, especially  to people who are calling for your head, don't say anything at all.

Think for a minute, Ian. The forum was toxic, anything he said would have been picked over of the most minute detail to prove Mike hated (fill in the blank). So yeah, it was a better call to wait til things settled than engage in something that would be completely fruitless and an exercise in frustration.

Point.  Missing it.  I agree with ML's silence immediately after the release.  The forums were toxic (and IMO for good reason!)

However, did ML and his team ever really communicate with their audience when DA2 was in developement they way they are now?  My magic eight-ball says, "No"

-Polaris

Yes, they did, and your magic eight ball can go the way of the doo doo.

You know, you remind me of the old story of why there aren't any unicorns anymore. Unicorns were bouncing around, in their own world, when Noah tried to get two on board, but they were busy and had their own thing. Then the Deluge came, and the unicorns looked around, and there was no help in sight. Thus no more unicorns.

Just a thought for you and your magic eightball.

[IanPolaris]

Ariella wrote...

It wasn't a mea culpa, dear. they never apologized for DA2. They said there are some things they could do better, but that's not an apology. They're still proud of what they've accomplished and plan on doing more and doing it better.

You know, you're right "dear".  I was giving him and Bioware too much credit.  However, it's clear the project was a failure (because it failed to meet targets) and now they want to open up communication with how to make things better?  This is the sort of feedback that should have been done a YEAR ago while DA2 was still in developement.

-Polaris

[Gunderic]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

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.

What a coincidence, so has everyone else here.

Well isn't that something?

It's rather interesting. It's Curt Schilling, formerly the winningest pitcher in the MLB, and total Everquest geek. He certainly put his money where his mouth is, though: he started a game studio to make the type of games he was interested in. That's more than I can say most fans have done.

On the topic, I find it interesting because a very similar line of thinking was brought up by JE Sawyer, project director at Obsidian and design lead for Fallout: New Vegas, in an interview at GDC Europe.

I won't quote from the article since it's linked right there, but had you told me the article was interviewing Mike Laidlaw instead of JE Sawyer, I wouldn't have batted an eyelash. They certainly may not have similar styles of implementation, but the message is still surprisingly similar.

Well, that's JE Sawyer, project director and lead designer of Fallout: New Vegas, and Mike Laidlaw is Mike Laidlaw: lead designer of Dragon Age 2 and developer of Sonic Chronicles.

[IanPolaris]

Persephone wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Persephone wrote...

It did not tank at all. Want a tanked project that killed a franchise? Try the last Might and Magic game.

Actually there are some superficial similiarities between MMX and DA2 if you really want to go there.  Given that (as a conservative estimate) about a third of DA2's sales were driven by preorders and thus by DAO's reputation (confirmed by the fact that sales fell off a cliff after week two) and given that DA2 still hasn't hit the 1.5 million sales mark (DAO has hit 3.8 mil roughly and is actually outselling DA2 currently by contrast) is solid evidence that DA2 has in fact tanked.

Why else would Bioware and ML do their Mea Culpa?

-Polaris

1.5 million? Are the official sale numbers out? No, they aren't. I'm tired of estimates done by a site mocked all over the internet for its inaccuracy.

What Mea Culpa? There is no Mea Culpa.

Ever thought that DAII might have revived interest in DAO as in people who bought & played DAII first are buying DAO now as well? I played Gabriel Knight II first and thanks to its brilliance, I ended up buying GK1 later.

VChartz is the accepted and best publically available information we have for sales of various game titles, and Bioware has never said they weren't accurate except to point out (admittedly correctly) that they don't track digital sales.  If the numbers were grossly underreported don't you think Bioware would be screaming this at the top of it's lungs?  Of course they would.

The 1.5 million is accurate enough for this discussion.  As for Mea Culpa, you're right.  I gave BW too much credit there.

-Polaris

[Persephone]

Gunderic wrote...

Well, that's JE Sawyer, project director and lead designer of Fallout: New Vegas, and Mike Laidlaw is Mike Laidlaw: lead designer of Dragon Age 2 and developer of Sonic Chronicles.

As well as fellow Lead Designer of DAO, according to the credits of my version of DAO. Your point being?

[KnightofPhoenix]

IanPolaris wrote...
You know, you're right "dear".  I was giving him and Bioware too much credit.  However, it's clear the project was a failure (because it failed to meet targets) and now they want to open up communication with how to make things better?  This is the sort of feedback that should have been done a YEAR ago while DA2 was still in developement.

-Polaris

To be fair, they did listen to feedback to Origins.

Problem is, in many ways, they went into overkill and scrap mode.  My impression at least.

[IanPolaris]

Ariella wrote...

Yes, they did, and your magic eight ball can go the way of the doo doo.

Either they did not or they did and ignored large amounts of the data (and I'm torn as to which is worse frankly).  Otherwise the reaction and poor sales of DA2 should not have come as a suprise and I think it's pretty clear by now that it did.

-Polaris

[seraphymon]

they communicated, but only saying for us to wait til lthe game comes out, wait and wait and wait. when we knew all in well how things would most likely go. Nothing in terms of what we actually were looking for or wanted to discuss since things were already planned out way ahead. But all the complaining when we first heard about each change reflected just like we thought when the game finally came out.

[Persephone]

IanPolaris wrote...

Persephone wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Persephone wrote...

It did not tank at all. Want a tanked project that killed a franchise? Try the last Might and Magic game.

Actually there are some superficial similiarities between MMX and DA2 if you really want to go there.  Given that (as a conservative estimate) about a third of DA2's sales were driven by preorders and thus by DAO's reputation (confirmed by the fact that sales fell off a cliff after week two) and given that DA2 still hasn't hit the 1.5 million sales mark (DAO has hit 3.8 mil roughly and is actually outselling DA2 currently by contrast) is solid evidence that DA2 has in fact tanked.

Why else would Bioware and ML do their Mea Culpa?

-Polaris

1.5 million? Are the official sale numbers out? No, they aren't. I'm tired of estimates done by a site mocked all over the internet for its inaccuracy.

What Mea Culpa? There is no Mea Culpa.

Ever thought that DAII might have revived interest in DAO as in people who bought & played DAII first are buying DAO now as well? I played Gabriel Knight II first and thanks to its brilliance, I ended up buying GK1 later.

VChartz is the accepted and best publically available information we have for sales of various game titles, and Bioware has never said they weren't accurate except to point out (admittedly correctly) that they don't track digital sales.  If the numbers were grossly underreported don't you think Bioware would be screaming this at the top of it's lungs?  Of course they would.

The 1.5 million is accurate enough for this discussion.  As for Mea Culpa, you're right.  I gave BW too much credit there.

-Polaris

No, it's not accepted as such at all. Never mind digital sales having increased dramatically since 2009. And I doubt Bioware cares about what sale numbers are floating around online, as long as they, EA and their investors are satisfied with the actual numbers.

So Bioware owes you an apology for DAII? Too much credit? Geez, how entitled are you?<_<

[Gunderic]

Persephone wrote...

Gunderic wrote...

Well, that's JE Sawyer, project director and lead designer of Fallout: New Vegas, and Mike Laidlaw is Mike Laidlaw: lead designer of Dragon Age 2 and developer of Sonic Chronicles.

As well as fellow Lead Designer of DAO, according to the credits of my version of DAO. Your point being?

Lead designer of the Xbox360 version of Dragon Age: Origins, I believe. Just sayin'.

[IanPolaris]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
You know, you're right "dear".  I was giving him and Bioware too much credit.  However, it's clear the project was a failure (because it failed to meet targets) and now they want to open up communication with how to make things better?  This is the sort of feedback that should have been done a YEAR ago while DA2 was still in developement.

-Polaris

To be fair, they did listen to feedback to Origins.

Problem is, in many ways, they went into overkill and scrap mode.  My impression at least.

That could well be in which case, they ignored what people LIKED about DAO apparently.  In any case it seems to be a classic failure to listen to your audience (and that can be hard) and KNOW your customer.  I still believe based on many of his statements that ML felt that he knew "better" than his customers and that (as I said before) almost never ends well.

-Polaris

[Ariella]

seraphymon wrote...

they communicated, but only saying for us to wait til lthe game comes out, wait and wait and wait. when we knew all in well how things would most likely go. Nothing in terms of what we actually were looking for or wanted to discuss since things were already planned out way ahead. But all the complaining when we first heard about each change reflected just like we thought when the game finally came out.

We all knew? What's this "we all" stuff. The dev team communicated with us as time allowed from the very beginning, but DA2 was never intended to be a creation of the forums so where you get the idea they'd up and change the slightest thing just because one or two people didn't like it, makes me wonder.

And if I may point out, yet again, they did take into account a lot of fan feedback from both Origins and Awakening. Just because this didn't float your boat doesn't mean they weren't listening.