322 réponses à ce sujet

[jbrand2002uk]

What I'd like to know is where did this grand delusion that DAO gave choices came from just as DA2 may not have gave you any real choices either but at least it didn't hide them under a grandeose story and a billion dialogue options like Origins did

Modifié par jbrand2002uk, 03 septembre 2011 - 09:39 .

[ScotGaymer]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

What I'd like to know is where did this grand delusion that DAO gave choices came from just as DA2 may not have gave you any real choices either but at least it didn't hide them under a grandeose story and a billion dialogue options like Origins did

The phrase was Illusion of Choice.

Keyword Illusion.

DAO may not have had lots more "choice" than DA2 - I mean when you think about it you only really had 3 different endings to the game.

The difference was the choices/endings changed depending on the circumstances of what happened during the game to give the illusion of choice so that it felt like you had accomplished something, like your Warden really was a Hero and had made a real difference in the universe.

DA2 and Hawke didnt have that. It took away all illusion of choice at the very end and shatterred a lot of peoples enjoyment of the game.

[erynnar]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

DAO only needed tweeking ? puleeeease why i would only give DA2 a 6 out of 10 at best it at least showed how stale and static the RPG genre has become in this day and age 20 yrs of the same old same old simply wont cut it anymore DAO may have been Bioware's Best selling RPG but games in other Genre's make DAO's "Amazing" sales look limp damp and pathetic the unfortunate reality is that
DAO and games like it are Fast fading into Obseletion times culture and taste have moved on and so should you all because sticking to the same tired old formula is like the 70's its so out of date and should be in a museum

Ah the "everyone bullies me because I like DA2" poster who bullies everyone who likes DAO and tells us how stupid and obslete we are and bullies as well. *rolls eyes*

@Sim I don't how much our feedback is going to do, I try and remain open. I liked Legacy a lot. I didn't love it the way I love DAO, but I liked it. So, I am dubious. And while an improvement (vast) it is still DA2.

I do think Yrkoon and Federico are right, it will come off as pandering and create a bigger backlash if they 1) don't pick vision and stick to it. And 2) pick that vision and then lie about trying to appease the people who favor the one over the other.

People already felt lied to by DA2, their marketing, and paying more money for less with the supposed sequel. They either need to figure out if they got enough new fans to replace the core they lost, kept enough of the core that liked DA2 the same or better, and got enough of those non-RPG players to become fans to exceed the numbers of core fans they had for the "old, dying, genre" of CRPGs.  *snort*

If they pay lip service and aren't honest, the backlash could be even worse than DA2 and DA may well crash and burn as a franchise.

Modifié par erynnar, 03 septembre 2011 - 09:59 .

[erynnar]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

jbrand2002uk wrote...

What I'd like to know is where did this grand delusion that DAO gave choices came from just as DA2 may not have gave you any real choices either but at least it didn't hide them under a grandeose story and a billion dialogue options like Origins did

The phrase was Illusion of Choice.

Keyword Illusion.

DAO may not have had lots more "choice" than DA2 - I mean when you think about it you only really had 3 different endings to the game.

The difference was the choices/endings changed depending on the circumstances of what happened during the game to give the illusion of choice so that it felt like you had accomplished something, like your Warden really was a Hero and had made a real difference in the universe.

DA2 and Hawke didnt have that. It took away all illusion of choice at the very end and shatterred a lot of peoples enjoyment of the game.

Very well said, and ignore him. He pulled this on a different thread as well. He loves DA2 which is great. He hates DAO which is fine. But he demands respect for his own likes and dislikes, can't debate civilly to save his life, then whines because he's being bullied while insulting everyone who doesn't agree with him.  It's pointless really.

Oh and I am glad you liked DA2, save the ending, which really was a WTF.

[AngryFrozenWater]

shantisands wrote...

When DA2 came out, I tried hard to like it.  I didn't.  I kept trying to like it because I enjoyed DA:O so much for what it was at the time and I found tons of positives.  I like a good majority of the people I have had the good fortune to converse with at Bioware as people and it is evident that they put their heart and soul into their work.   I respect that.  
That is not the issue here.  

Eventually, I took a break from trying to love DA2.  The space gave me a huge amount of perspective.  I don't love the game.  I didn't even *really* like it enough to try the DLC, Legacy.  There are certain aspects of DA2 that I do think  were hands-down improvements but thanks to DA:O, in addition to the trend to having choices *actually* mean something in terms other than in simple marketing and instead in consequence (in other games) has raised the bar for me.  

We all play our games differently and have different preferences, but for me it doesn't matter ONLY how great the story is, how wonderful the animation, but it also matters how much I am allowed to exist as a part of the story - can I direct it to some extent? Do my choices matter?  Sure flash and style is wonderful, and these days even expected.  One person likes flashy combat and another deliberate tactical gameplay.    You win some and lose some in this regard in any field.  

But, in the end, if you(Bioware) take every aspect from your own games successes and throw them in a blender with everything you think is successful from gaming in general as well as what you want to become - you run the risk of ending up with a "disney with decapitations" <thanks friend for that analogy!>  sort of game.  Decent story maybe, albeit fairly typical.  Absolutely ntertaining for what it is.  But in the end, (for me) empty and easily filled by future stories that tell a similar tale with predetermined ending ( not always happy, but always the same regardless of input).  

My point:  the issue for me is not what Bioware has done or not done, but what I have come to want and expect from a game, especially a more modern RPG.  And what that is has less to do with style than it has to do with substance and layers. 

And, to be fair, I never liked God of War either. So, I just may have moved out of their target market. 

I can understand this, although I still found enjoyment in the game. However, I agree with you on all concerns raised.

I think one of the strong points of BW games are their stories. And I think the way decisions are made in DA2 are damaging to telling those stories. Two things come to mind.

If I look at the DA2 and its main story maps then I see points of interests, puzzles and bosses. That main story is crafted in such a way that all of those need to be finished and there are little exceptions to that. The dialogue in the cinematics all push me to visit them all. Not matter what side I have chosen I still fight the same bosses, And, with a few exceptions, it does not not matter how I respond. I can refuse to do something, but I still get the quest. There is also a mechanism that follows what types of answers I select and it is supposed to change how I respond. The problem with all that is that the dialogue is full of rationalizations depending on your choices to achieve the same results. That makes the story feel artificial and constructed. It damages one of the BW's strong points: The story.

*looks innocent* I wonder who said that about "A Disney story with decapitations for the whole family". *laughs*

The idea behind that was that the story is supposed to address adults, but in the end fails into that, because language and romances are crafted in such a way that children can play the game. Except of course that at the same time there is so much much violence that it would keep them awake for a month. Those also have a negative impact on the story telling. And the blending of genres fits into that as well in an attempt to reach the widest possible audience. The same goes for the accessibility. There is too much hand holding going on. The audience is smart enough to think. They love to think. The will be bored if they are not challenged. The problem with BW's route is that it didn't work at all. It didn't lead to significantly more people buying the game.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 03 septembre 2011 - 10:18 .

[jbrand2002uk]

I would rather have it be blatently obvious that there was no choice like DA2 than be strung along to the illusion that i have a choice like DAO and for the record no i didnt hate Origins as it wasnt a total pile of crud but it wasnt far off a 3 out of 10 at best as i have played far better traditional RPG's like Dungeons and Dragons that actually gave you real choices that made a real differance not 3 variations on 1 ending like Origins did and that was over 18 yrs ago when games came on floppy disks and 3D was "futuristic" for heavens sake. anyway will it be a critical success well that's not ever possible because critics exist always have and always will be there to criticise whatever DA3 turns out to be. but in laymans terms if the money from sales exceeds the development costs then yes it'll be a success not a very big one but one nonetheless and even if it was a perfect 50/50 blend between Origins and Da2 im sure the Origins fans will find something to moan about for years on end again

[Sister Helen]

This thread confuses me. *backs out.*

[erynnar]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

shantisands wrote...

When DA2 came out, I tried hard to like it.  I didn't.  I kept trying to like it because I enjoyed DA:O so much for what it was at the time and I found tons of positives.  I like a good majority of the people I have had the good fortune to converse with at Bioware as people and it is evident that they put their heart and soul into their work.   I respect that.  
That is not the issue here.  

Eventually, I took a break from trying to love DA2.  The space gave me a huge amount of perspective.  I don't love the game.  I didn't even *really* like it enough to try the DLC, Legacy.  There are certain aspects of DA2 that I do think  were hands-down improvements but thanks to DA:O, in addition to the trend to having choices *actually* mean something in terms other than in simple marketing and instead in consequence (in other games) has raised the bar for me.  

We all play our games differently and have different preferences, but for me it doesn't matter ONLY how great the story is, how wonderful the animation, but it also matters how much I am allowed to exist as a part of the story - can I direct it to some extent? Do my choices matter?  Sure flash and style is wonderful, and these days even expected.  One person likes flashy combat and another deliberate tactical gameplay.    You win some and lose some in this regard in any field.  

But, in the end, if you(Bioware) take every aspect from your own games successes and throw them in a blender with everything you think is successful from gaming in general as well as what you want to become - you run the risk of ending up with a "disney with decapitations" <thanks friend for that analogy!>  sort of game.  Decent story maybe, albeit fairly typical.  Absolutely ntertaining for what it is.  But in the end, (for me) empty and easily filled by future stories that tell a similar tale with predetermined ending ( not always happy, but always the same regardless of input).  

My point:  the issue for me is not what Bioware has done or not done, but what I have come to want and expect from a game, especially a more modern RPG.  And what that is has less to do with style than it has to do with substance and layers. 

And, to be fair, I never liked God of War either. So, I just may have moved out of their target market. 

I can understand this, although I still found enjoyment in the game. However, I agree with you on all concerns raised.

I think one of the strong points of BW games are their stories. And I think the way decisions are made in DA2 are damaging to telling those stories. Two things come to mind.

If I look at the DA2 and its main story maps then I see points of interests, puzzles and bosses. That main story is crafted in such a way that all of those need to be finished and there are little exceptions to that. The dialogue in the cinematics all push me to visit them all. Not matter what side I have chosen I still fight the same bosses, And, with a few exceptions, it does not not matter how I respond. I can refuse to do something, but I still get the quest. There is also a mechanism that follows what types of answers I select and it is supposed to change how I respond. The problem with all that is that the dialogue is full of rationalizations depending on your choices to achieve the same results. That makes the story feel artificial and constructed. It damages one of the BW's strong points: The story.

*looks innocent* I wonder who said that about "A Disney story with decapitations for the whole family". *laughs*

The idea behind that was that the story is supposed to address adults, but in the end fails into that, because language and romances are crafted in such a way that children can play the game. Except of course that at the same time there is so much much violence that it would keep them awake for a month. Those also have a negative impact on the story telling. And the blending of genres fits into that as well in an attempt to reach the widest possible audience. The same goes for the accessibility. There is too much hand holding going on. The audience is smart enough to think. They love to think. The will be bored if they are not challenged. The problem with BW's route is that it didn't work at all. It didn't lead to significantly more people buying the game.

Okay I almost spit coffee over my keyboard! "DIsney with decapitation," fun for the whole family!  YIPES! ROFL!  The story did suffer and so did my imagination.

I was just discussing that on Ned's post where he talked about his Hawkes, a very good thread post btw. He made up wonderful back stories and such for each of his Hawkes making them unique and really cool people. My Hawkes have no back stories other than what BioWare gave them and motivatons as well. My imagination wasn't  engaged to make such backgrounds and such because I didn't care about my Hawkes. My imagination wasn't engaged, my using my imagination and my intelligence wasn't necessary. I watched a clicky interactive movie and that's about as engaged as I got. I did quests to see the next movie slice.

But for Ned and others, it did. It engaged their imaginations.

[erynnar]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

I would rather have it be blatently obvious that there was no choice like DA2 than be strung along to the illusion that i have a choice like DAO and for the record no i didnt hate Origins as it wasnt a total pile of crud but it wasnt far off a 3 out of 10 at best as i have played far better traditional RPG's like Dungeons and Dragons that actually gave you real choices that made a real differance not 3 variations on 1 ending like Origins did and that was over 18 yrs ago when games came on floppy disks and 3D was "futuristic" for heavens sake. anyway will it be a critical success well that's not ever possible because critics exist always have and always will be there to criticise whatever DA3 turns out to be. but in laymans terms if the money from sales exceeds the development costs then yes it'll be a success not a very big one but one nonetheless and even if it was a perfect 50/50 blend between Origins and Da2 im sure the Origins fans will find something to moan about for years on end again

And yet sales of DAO were and are better than DA2. And so is the BG series. And you may prefer to have no choice, which is fine ( I don't) but DA 2 gave you the illusion of choice and it nothing mattered. In DAO some choices may not have made a difference in the ending, but they did make a difference (even if temporary) in game, like the Werewolf quest.  It's fine that you and others who share your views on that don't mind. But belittling and being bossy and beligerent with those who prefer different, like me, does you no credit.

[jbrand2002uk]

well i never count sales as success since widely loved and rarely criticised RPG's like the Witcher 2 are so heavily Pirated now that sales figures have become Irrelevant more or less

[erynnar]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

well i never count sales as success since widely loved and rarely criticised RPG's like the Witcher 2 are so heavily Pirated now that sales figures have become Irrelevant more or less

Not irrelevatn,  that just has to be taken into account. But sales aren't the only factors to consider. And this is a discussion for another thread. Not derailing Sim's thread when this has been discussed on other threads that are better suited to it.

Back on topic, I did see feedback implemented in Legacy, more bonding and a reason to bond with our Hawkes, if like me you found them to be the boring ineffectual jackass that I did. But those were my Hawkes.

My main feedback to BioWare (and jbrand2002uk will go balmy over this one) is to turn that 180 and go back to DAO, fix what was broken with it (and yes it did have things that were), improve what was meh, keep what was great and worked, and take the good from DA2 and put it in. In otherwords go back to the successful formula and tweak it. If they want to make an RPG for people who don't like them, then make a new franchise and do it with that. I would probably buy it and play it too. But DA2 was supposed to be DA2 not DA6.

 Still curious about how much of the new and shiny crowd they actually got.

[hoorayforicecream]

erynnar wrote...

And yet sales of DAO were and are better than DA2. And so is the BG series. And you may prefer to have no choice, which is fine ( I don't) but DA 2 gave you the illusion of choice and it nothing mattered. In DAO some choices may not have made a difference in the ending, but they did make a difference (even if temporary) in game, like the Werewolf quest.  It's fine that you and others who share your views on that don't mind. But belittling and being bossy and beligerent with those who prefer different, like me, does you no credit.

Using sales as a litmus test of success is foolish. Angry Birds has had over 300 million downloads, but their total in gross is still significantly less than the profit on Black Ops' 25 million in sales. You might as well try to measure the square footage of a room based on only its length.

[erynnar]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

erynnar wrote...

And yet sales of DAO were and are better than DA2. And so is the BG series. And you may prefer to have no choice, which is fine ( I don't) but DA 2 gave you the illusion of choice and it nothing mattered. In DAO some choices may not have made a difference in the ending, but they did make a difference (even if temporary) in game, like the Werewolf quest.  It's fine that you and others who share your views on that don't mind. But belittling and being bossy and beligerent with those who prefer different, like me, does you no credit.

Using sales as a litmus test of success is foolish. Angry Birds has had over 300 million downloads, but their total in gross is still significantly less than the profit on Black Ops' 25 million in sales. You might as well try to measure the square footage of a room based on only its length.

Again, this arument not meant for this thread. And I don't use it as the litmus test, but it isn't something to disregard out right either. But apparently, EA or BioWare, or both are using sale of the millions of players fo those games like Black Ops and CoD to try and make RPGs for people who don't play RPGs. So, I agree, it is foolish to use them all by themselves.

[Maria Caliban]

ipgd wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

We'll see David Gaider working for Obsidian and Mike Laidlaw in jail for murdering Sylvius the mad

I think you've got that backwards. I'm pretty sure Gaider would beat Laidlaw to taking out Sylvius, unless he has his hands tied assassinating IanPolaris first.

He just needs to hire a professional to do both jobs.

David, I'm available. PM me.

[hoorayforicecream]

erynnar wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

erynnar wrote...

And yet sales of DAO were and are better than DA2. And so is the BG series. And you may prefer to have no choice, which is fine ( I don't) but DA 2 gave you the illusion of choice and it nothing mattered. In DAO some choices may not have made a difference in the ending, but they did make a difference (even if temporary) in game, like the Werewolf quest.  It's fine that you and others who share your views on that don't mind. But belittling and being bossy and beligerent with those who prefer different, like me, does you no credit.

Using sales as a litmus test of success is foolish. Angry Birds has had over 300 million downloads, but their total in gross is still significantly less than the profit on Black Ops' 25 million in sales. You might as well try to measure the square footage of a room based on only its length.

Again, this arument not meant for this thread. And I don't use it as the litmus test, but it isn't something to disregard out right either. But apparently, EA or BioWare, or both are using sale of the millions of players fo those games like Black Ops and CoD to try and make RPGs for people who don't play RPGs. So, I agree, it is foolish to use them all by themselves.

If it isn't meant for this thread, then perhaps you shouldn't have brought it up.

I personally don't think that DA2 is a 180 from DAO like you said it was. It still shares most of the core gameplay, and even the same engine. The main loop of the game is still the same. It's just a change in direction, and lack of polish time. There's a clear difference between a game with core design decisions that run contrary to another game, and features that were simply not implemented well for whatever reason. Conflating the two would be foolish, IMO.

[Maria Caliban]

I can't call Dragon Age 2 a 180 from Origins either. How many Western, story-driven, tactical, party-based RPGs have been released in the last ten years?

I'm sure that indie developers have released a few but I can't think of a single one not developed by BioWare or Obsidian (using BioWare's engines). Gameplay-wise, DA2 is something of a niche game.

[mesmerizedish]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Come on now, Dragon Age 2 borrows every bit as much from Mass Effect 2 as it does Origins, let’s not pretend. 180 sounds just about right to me.

[jbrand2002uk]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Come on now, Dragon Age 2 borrows every bit as much from Mass Effect 2 as it does Origins, let’s not pretend. 180 sounds just about right to me.

Well in laymans terms your about right 
DAO was story 1st, Combat= now what do you want to go poke each other for thats silly
DA2 was combat 1st with a passable story 

[Brockololly]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Using sales as a litmus test of success is foolish.

True, but especially with how games like to push DLC now, the sales are one litmus test for success. If BioWare is intent on pushing the whole "Games as a service" shtick, then selling the base game is only the start. Yet in order to get anything back on DLC, people need to have bought the game in the first place, thus your sales numbers being important to some extent.

There will obviously be other metrics to determine the relative "success" of a game, but I think BioWare has a big problem on their hands with DA3, given the sales trajectory of DA2 and the generally negative reaction to the game, and now, the franchise.

Maria Caliban wrote...

I can't call Dragon Age 2 a 180
from Origins either. How many Western, story-driven, tactical,
party-based RPGs have been released in the last ten years?

Yet, Laidlaw insinuates DA2 was a 180 from Origins right here:

You have to take a read of what the fans are saying, what reviews are  saying, and what the non-fans are saying. Are there people out there who are saying, "I could not play Origins, but love Dragon Age II" or "I  couldn't play Origins and this is more of the same." You have to keep  your ear to the ground. Look at forums. Take a look at what comments are coming up. What are the common concerns? What are the common  perceptions? I think the big key is to not adjust 180 degrees again, because we've done this.

My issue with DA2 being called a party based game is that I  feel as if most of the changes made to DA2 were done with the aim to marginalize the importance of actively using the party in the name of making the game more accessable. The very fact that the game on normal is balanced to not require the player to use their party members is telling to me. Add in the faster combat and its more difficult to play the game as a more traditional semi-turn based RPG like BG or DAO. Its possible, but you often have to micromanage to an excessive degree. To the extent that I feel the gameplay is just not that fun when doing so.

Modifié par Brockololly, 03 septembre 2011 - 11:46 .

[jbrand2002uk]

Brockololly
The reason i was saying sales figures are no longer an accurate way to judge success anymore is because if you take The Witcher 2 for example which sold better than DA2 and is generally liked by all
and yet a quick google search shows links to some infamous websites where pirated copies that work are readily available which made me wonder how many people are around playing pirated copies of many RPG's including DAO/2 that are not known about, while i would state categorically that media piracy is wrong and should never be done its widespread nonetheless

[hoorayforicecream]

Yet, Laidlaw insinuates DA2 was a 180 from Origins right here:

The Laidlaw quote is talking about Bioware's reaction to feedback, not DAO or DA2 as a whole.

[hoorayforicecream]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Brockololly
The reason i was saying sales figures are no longer an accurate way to judge success anymore is because if you take The Witcher 2 for example which sold better than DA2 and is generally liked by all

The Witcher 2 didn't sell better than DA2.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 04 septembre 2011 - 12:05 .

[Dark_Savant]

I have no idea where you are going with that pirated copy twaddle, but it’s absolutely true that sales figures are an important measure of any games success.

[jbrand2002uk]

I was meerly saying that obviously due to that there are no doubt large numbers of people enjoying these RPG's that didnt buy them so while sales figures are important they're much less so than they used to be