Ce sujet est fermé
Sure it could. Will it? That's the sixty four thousand dollar question.In Exile wrote...
I think a better question is: could DA:O's success ever be replicated?FedericoV wrote...
do they know what to do with DA:O's success?
Modifié par dheer, 03 septembre 2011 - 07:07 .
fchopin wrote...
TW2 is the game as it's one of the best rpg's ever made and whether you consider action combat to be inferior or not does not make it so.
The game has combat but that is not the reason why it's good, the options and choices are what has made it one of the best imo.
Guest_Fandango_*
fchopin wrote...
Fandango9641 wrote...
Fandango9641 wrote...
Could someone confirm for me which elements of DA2 are being ‘streamlined’ away as part of this ‘best of both’ approach?
Anyone?
All we know is they are going the DA2 way and will probably add a few options form DAO.
You will have to wait for a developer to answer your question.
simfamSP wrote...
But with Dragon age 3, they can rebuild from scratch. They are doing a new plot, they are writing new characters, developing the game upwards. With the vital information they gained from their previous game DA2.
Guest_simfamUP_*
FedericoV wrote...
simfamSP wrote...
Action doesn't define the RPG genre. When you have Action RPG they could easily be succesful in both sides. It doesn't mean one has to be the weaker element than the other. To me BG2 was an Action RPG because you had loads of action. Action doesn't neccesarily mean mindless button mashing *cough* Oblivion *cough*
There is a lot of confusion about the term "action rpg" and it seems to me that everyone uses it in different ways. For me, the "action RPG" label means basically three things a) The gameplay focuses on combatCombat is in real time
Then, if my definition is correct, BG2 is a classic CRPG with many action elements. And very interestingly: TW2 is a pure action RPG while DA2 has still a lot of classic RPG features.
Guest_simfamUP_*
fchopin wrote...
simfamSP wrote...
But with Dragon age 3, they can rebuild from scratch. They are doing a new plot, they are writing new characters, developing the game upwards. With the vital information they gained from their previous game DA2.
That is the point, they are not starting from scratch but continuing where they left of from DA2, same design same everything, all they will be doing is adding a few more options.
Guest_simfamUP_*
FitScotGaymer wrote...
simfamSP wrote...
But is there need for dramatic changes in the DA2 formula?
All of it's faults where minor, but they stood out so much that it became stupid. DA2 in many ways is VERY similar to Origins. It is, just throw your hate away for a sec and look.
The combat is still party based
The gameplay is identical
The dialouge system is still the same, with or without the wheel
It just needs less of what made is bad and that, tbh, wasn't all that much. If your going for plot and story, well the implementation (as I've said to MorrigansLove) was horrid due to the 18month limit.
A lot of people write fan fic, and the people who write novels will know that it takes way more than 18 months to make something great.
And the 'writers here are professional' arguement is invalid because many professionals have a hard time on making their work presentable.
Did you know Aragorn was supposed to be a Hobbit with wooden feet?See how much Tolkien changed it?
I agree sort of.
DA2 has some grievous errors that should never have made it past QA; and its flaws are entirely caused by the much too short development cycle.
I liked DA2 for the most part its flaws werent massively annoying, except for the repeated maps, dungeons, and landscapes started to irritate me massively by the end of Act 2 in my first playthru. That sort of thing doesnt usually bother me till my near the end of my 2nd playthru or the beginning of my third.
What defeated my determination to love this game was the ending. For me the ending basically metaphorically slapped me in the face and in Nelson from the Simpsons voice went "Haw Haw! Your choices meant nothing! Playing this game was pointless!"
Because the ending renders EVERYTHING that Hawke did during the course of the game totally and completely moot; the whole situation would have happened without him around and the chantry wouldnt have had their scapegoat for it. It is very annoying and disheartening.
simfamSP wrote...
And that's what I mean, don't take my words to literaly. What I mean is start from scratch as a system. DA2's system wasn't flawed, as I've said 100000000000 times, it was it's implementation. And that's where they can rebuild and polish. I don't think it's hard work. DA2 wasn't a bad RPG, it was merely a dissapointment compared to Origins.
Modifié par fchopin, 03 septembre 2011 - 07:31 .
Guest_Fandango_*
Modifié par Fandango9641, 03 septembre 2011 - 07:32 .
Guest_simfamUP_*
Fandango9641 wrote...
Dragon Age 2 has been way to divisive to be claiming there isn’t an awful lot wrong with it (I know I’m not the only Bioware fan who considers that wretched game to be a slap in the face). In any case, it’s obvious Mike feels that Dragon Age 2 and not Origins represents the best base for his next game. Best of both? Pffffffffffttttttt, give over!
Guest_simfamUP_*
Marionetten wrote...
More likely it's just going to come across as halfhearted pandering with little genuine effort behind it. Yrkoon is right in that BioWare needs to start defining their vision and sticking to it. They aren't going to be able to compromise this and I think they need to realize that. After The Witcher 2 new genre standards have been set and BioWare isn't going to be able to get by on name alone. The genre will move with or without them and thinking anything else is pure arrogance.
Guest_simfamUP_*
FedericoV wrote...
fchopin wrote...
Combat does not make the game an rpg, only character interactions and character options and choices makes the game an rpg.
So, Heavy Rain and Grand Theft Auto IV are RPGs: they have branching storylines, you have options and your choices change the course of the plot. Just to say, choice and consequences are really important but they are not all to define the genre of a game. Considering that the personality of Geralt is defined pretty clearly and that the focus of the gameplay is on combat, it's really hard to consider TW2 a classic RPG. It's a pure action RPG, just like Mass Effect 2. That's not diminishing its qualities to the least, it's just to categorize it properly.
Guest_simfamUP_*
Guest_Fandango_*
simfamSP wrote...
Fandango9641 wrote...
Dragon Age 2 has been way to divisive to be claiming there isn’t an awful lot wrong with it (I know I’m not the only Bioware fan who considers that wretched game to be a slap in the face). In any case, it’s obvious Mike feels that Dragon Age 2 and not Origins represents the best base for his next game. Best of both? Pffffffffffttttttt, give over!
Please contribute to the discussion as others have. Don't spread some random bull**** of DA2 hatred in this thread. Tell me why, and tell me how is can be fixed. I understand it was a slap in the face. But I hate posts like yours because they serve no purpose than to ****** people off.
Modifié par Fandango9641, 03 septembre 2011 - 07:42 .
dheer wrote...
They have said they've heard the feedback about people wanting a game more in the style of DA1 and that they can not ignore it. A facelift of DA2 will not cut it for a large part of their audience and I think Bioware knows it.devSin wrote...
You be living in the fantasy land, then, my friend.Mike Smith wrote...
If all they do is give DA2 a facelift, expect a considerable number of fans to spend their $60 on something else. A lot of people want a near equal split in features or greater in favor of DAO. I just want to forget about DA2.
Everything they've stated so far is how to refine and polish the DA2 experience going forward. There is no "near equal split" or any such nonsense. Now maybe the polish will come in such a way that it seems to you to be closer to Origins (I honestly have no idea what that even means, because I have no idea what "features" you consider distinct between the two), but the foundation will still definitely be DA2.
There are some things DA2 did well and the dev team should build on them. It also did some things really poorly. They could go back and improve on the solid base DA1 had in these situations or try for something different from both games. Hopefully something better, in that case.
dheer wrote...
Sure it could. Will it? That's the sixty four thousand dollar question.In Exile wrote...
I think a better question is: could DA:O's success ever be replicated?FedericoV wrote...
do they know what to do with DA:O's success?
It'd take someone with the right vision and access to the financial backing to support it.
FedericoV wrote...
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I realize that the "bost of both worlds" approach is wrong. You have to make a clear decision and stick with it. You can make concession to other genres but that's all, and DA:O was allready the biggest concession to the action/cinematic/storydriven approach in the classic CRPG context. Probably, the biggest flaws of DAO were caused by those concessions. DA2 is allready a "best of both worlds" game and while I liked some of the features, the overall result was mediocre at best. I believe that if they follow the same route even DA3 will disappoint.
Another argument: the general premise of the DA's setting and DA's "experience" were conceived with a classic "party based" and d&dish game in mind. Not for a flashy and juvenile game with a cocky and actiony attitude. The whole concept of the DA franchise looks a little bit silly and out of place in the context of a more cinematic game like DA2. The point is: trying to make D&D (or its derivate) looks sexy is impossible... it's like trying to make Gabe Newell looks slim... everytime someone tries, the result looks like a silly japanese fantasy anime (yep, just like DA2).
So, my position is simple and in the last months I've come to a drastic conclusion: if you want to make an action/cinematic/arcadish fantasy CPRG, stop calling it DA, scrap everything and start anew with a clear franchise in mind and design goals that works well in that context (like, no party based combat and so on).
If you want to call it DA, you have to continue the process of returning to the roots of the golden CRPG era and its masterpiece BG2, trying to improove the DA:O's formula.
Stop to bastardize both genres improductively because it's a wasted effort. And even if I respect the dev team for all its work and its good intentions, they are destined to fail and they will never reach the sweet spot they are talking about, because that spot does not exist. Because some matches works very well (like the shooter+CRPG+blockbuster estetic+Science fiction in ME2). Other matches are not destined to work as well (like D&D+blockbuster estetic+action games).
It's not a question of fan groups, market share and so on. Experience shows that the quality of a game is the result of the clarity and of the tightness of the core design choices. And honestly, I see a lot of confusion around the DA franchise, like Bioware and EA does not know what to do with a classic CRPG game.
Modifié par jbrand2002uk, 03 septembre 2011 - 09:08 .
Yrkoon wrote...
To be honest, however, MorrigansLove is hardly a minority. He's part of a huge swath of gamers who are responsible for DA:O practically *doubling* DA2 in sales. Waving them off or basically throwing them under the bus is neither good debating, nor good business.simfamSP wrote...
TO ALL:
I very much doubt that we will ever have DA:O again. They can improve the DA2 formula with their knowledge as I've suggested. But other than that, for those who expect DA:O 2...
As I said to MorrigansLove. You will be dissapointed.
Bioware can decide to act all 'cool' and pseudo-progessive, but it'd be a pyrric victory for them, at best, as they sit there and watch their DA franchise die a slow and painful death. When it really *doesn't* have to be. DA:O was a winning formula. It worked. It became Bioware's biggest selling game. And while it needed tweaking, it DIDN'T need the overhaul it got. It's really bad corporate decision making to do what Bioware did. I'm still gobsmacked when I wonder what the hell happened.
Look at the Elder Scrolls series. Its formula has been basically the same since... what... Arena? or Daggerfall? And by constantly tweaking, instead of doing massive, complete 180s, they've managed to keep their core player base, and consistantly increase its size with every release. The result is that Now we see the elderscrolls games outselling Bioware RPGs by an almost 2:1 margin.
jbrand2002uk wrote...
In a resprectful as i can possibly say this whats with the "If they want to make an action RPG they should have not done it with our franchise"
Just because you bought, played and loved Dragon Age Origins does not make it your franchise, give you the right to decide what the creator's do with it or be the sole deciders on which way the franchise goes.
Not that i want to be Condracending but :
It's Bioware's IP not "Yours" which means they can take it in any direction they see fit with or without your approval agree or diasgree thats the way things are but every gamer in the world is equally entitled to access a particular franchise and since as Origins fans have the upcoming skyrim game as a fallback posistion should you find yourselves unhappy with the way DA3 goes
its would be helpful if some of you would remember to think of game players as a whole and not just of yourselves
simfamSP wrote...
Great post mate. Now please... what the hell is your avatar about? I thought it was from the 10th Kingdom (<3) but then I thought of Game of Thrones... but then I remembered.... I haven't watched that yet
![=]](https://lvlt.forum.bioware.com/public/style_emoticons/default/sideways.png)
give the books a try too! 
Modifié par shantisands, 03 septembre 2011 - 09:25 .
Retour en haut
