27 réponses à ce sujet

[RussianSpy27]

PLEASE DON'T START A WAR HERE. I am honestly just trying to understand the corporate strategy here and I can't seem to do it.

So BioWare is ready for a compromise where they may let us add items but not SHOW them. They are adamant about it and I still have not figured out the reason.

1)  Marketting - Could it be that having party members in non-changing attire is somehow good for marketting? I don't see how. If they need posters and TV commercials with Isabella looking the way she does, what's to stop them from doing it if  a player has a choice to change up attire around and SEE it during mid game?

2) Programming Hassle - I am sure programmers spend countless hours writing difficult code for the game. I'm no expert but if it was done in Origins, how much heavy duty unbearable weight on system specs would it be to do so again and let players see different armor/attire sets? 

3) Helping non RPG players get used to RPG -  I understand the move of DA2 and desire to try and streamline the whole process like in ME2. Fair attempt. But once you say that customization will be back, how is it a strain on a non RPG player to view with her own eyes what the armor looks on a party member? 

In KOTR and in Origins, iconic looks were there. I had those Jedi robes. I had Morrigan's clothing. But I also found it very enjoyable to see Morrigan in another attire. I mean, she can put some other magical robe on and let me view it, right? 

If they chose to just purely stick with DA2 version, I may not be a fan of that, but I would at least understand it. But once there is talk of letting us customize, why the fear of party members show what they look like in other attire? I do not get it, friends.

Modifié par RussianSpy27, 07 septembre 2011 - 03:47 .

[Stanley Woo]

How often do you see Superman wearing a green costume? How about orange or yellow? when have you seen him dye his hair brown or blonde? Or grow his hair out? How often is he portrayed as a lean, wiry fellow rather than a muscular build?

Or something even more specific: Green Lantern. His costume is usually a certain shade of green, but very bold. it's not teal, not turquoise, not even olive. And even when possessed by Parallax, his mask remains the same.

Even Spider-Man, who has gone through several different costume changes, has a particular build and way of moving that defines the character. His colours are always bold (blue and red, black and white, red and gold, blue and white, etc.), so you don't see him in grey or pastels or depicted as having a bulky, muscular build.

That's what iconic means--to have a certain look that defines the character. Lara Croft wears a tight t-shirt, khaki shorts, carries two guns and has her hair in a single braid--instantly recognizable. Ronald McDonald--instantly recognizable. Dragon Age II Flemeth--instantly recognizable. Dragon Age II Isabela--also instantly recognizable. The blood smear across the nose of Hawke--instantly recognizable. Darth Vader, Master Chief, Optimus Prime, Predator, Tali, Daleks, RoboCop, Death's Hand--all instantly recognizable for who they are and what they represent for their respective brands.

That's what we're going for when we talk about iconic party members.

Your #2 point doesn't really have anything to do with iconic characters. It is trying to dictate to us where we spend our resources. The point you make is not impossible, nor is it necessarily difficult to include in a game, but given finite resources and time, where do we put people and what do we have them do? Your point #2 is not a bad idea, certainly, but in Dragon Age II, we decided to put those resources elsewhere.

[Stanley Woo]

[quote]RagingCyclone wrote...

@Stanley Woo...but there is one problem with some of those you mention (Superman, Spiderman, Green Lantern) in that they also have alter egos with differing looks. They are not static in always being the hero. Darth Vader is iconic because his suit is required for him to live.[/quote]
That's story, not iconic imagery. Iconic imagery is story-agnostic. You know who Darth Vader is and what he represents even if you don't know the movie (indeed, a friend of mine has never seen a Star Wars movie but can easily identify Darth Vader).

Even Optimus Prime has several looks including one being a gorilla.[/quote]
Optimus Primal. A slightly different character using a variation on the name, like Spider-Woman, Batgirl, Spider-Man 2099.

[quote]Part of the iconic look you are talking about implementing also makes that character static and not vibrant. I am all for an iconic look like Morrigan had. But for all intent and purposes in the game there are times even she would not wear those clothes. Say for instance high in the mountains going for the Urn of Sacred Ashes. [/quote]
Again, you're talking about story and trying to add realism where fiction and handwavium can rationalize characters wearing unrealistic attire. Look at Red Sonja and how unrealistic her chainmail bikini is, yet I don't think she ever dressed "appropriately"  for weather or combat. Spider-Man wears essentially a thin bodysuit and would get super sick after an early spring or late fall New York rain. But story-wise, clothes are always clean, don't get damaged, and is always appropriate attire, all except when story demands otherwise (Garrus in ME2, many Spider-Man stories, all the different Iron Man and Batman costume/armour variants, etc.).

[Stanley Woo]

DamnThoseDisplayNames wrote...
And third - Minsc, Edwin and Jan-turnip-Janses had portraits, some VO and generic dolls. How are they less iconic than those bare footed elves, huh?

How often did those portraits change based on how you equipped those characters? When were their faces obscured by armour, a hood or a mask? If any of those characters were posed differently, would their silhouettes be enogh for you to identify the character?

I would guess that you wouldn't recognize them if they wore something different or had their hair a different way. those characters were iconic because their appearance didn't change and you saw the same image of them all the time.

[Stanley Woo]

Dubya75 wrote...
So...in which sentence does Woo state that the success of the IP is dependant on their choice to depict characters in their own iconic style? Just wondering as I've read through his post a number of times without coming across that.
What I did read however is that they CHOOSE to do it this way because they believe it will make the characters stand out more, which it obviously will.
Sure, not everyone is going to like it but there is no way to please everyone.
Instead they are doing what they think is right. Nothing wrong with that.

Precisely. Please don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to state that what we're doing is "right" or even "the only way" to do things. I'm only talking about what having iconic characters mean and how we currently define them and use them. What we do in the future remains to be seen, but I personally see a lot of value in having iconic character appearances, and have used other highly-recognizable characters from well-known properties to illustrate my points.

You are free to disagree with me, just as you are free to like or dislike anything you choose in a game. My opinion is not necessarily yours, and what matters to me in a game is not necessarily what matters to you. It should go without saying that I am not excluding, dismissing, or belittling anyone's opinion or argument when I participate in a discussion, I merely try to offer a different point of view based on my experience in the industry and with the game we are discussing (Dragon Age II).

[Stanley Woo]

RagingCyclone wrote...
But when you are talking about locking that iconic look in the game that is based on the story...it impacts the story. If the story is the driving force for playing the game, the iconic look is good to start, but refer to my post about Han Solo, he has an iconic look, but for story purposes changes. So I guess it comes to which is more important? The story you are trying to tell, or the look you want to market? I have no clue who Red Sonja is, so apparently that look ovderrode the story. All the others you mention I do know, but they have good stories to interest me in them.

Again, go back to one of my earlier posts. We could have done any number of things, including having NPC and PC clothing change based on whatever: which Act you're in, what area you're in, whether you're in their home base, what you equip them with. the same way you could have had tuna for lunch instead of pizza, or could have studied architecture instead of political science, or could have purchased Nike brand shoes instead of Reebok, or could have made that paper 14 pages instead of 12, or could have coloured something blue instead of red. Instead, for whatever reason, you chose to do something else.

For us, decisions are usually resource based--how do we get the most from our time and effort? All of those different NPC appearances take time and effort to implement, time and effort that has to come from somewhere. Zots were very limited in Dragon Age II, not just time-wise but for what we wanted to do with the game. We could have made the NPC body builds way more generic and allowed any armour to fit them. That certainly solves the problem of way more work but also makes the NPCs more generic. We could have spent the time and effort in making all of our armour appearances compatible with every NPC body, but some other level or animation or plot may have gotten far less attention. We could have added fewer followers, but come on! Our characters are pretty awesome, and people generally want to see more of them, not fewer!

Somewhere along the line, we decided to go with iconic/static NPC appearances and divert our zots elsewhere. Right, wrong, agree, disagree--it doesn't change what happened for Dragon Age II. Will it be different for future products? Only time (and what we decide to do withour zots) will tell.

[Stanley Woo]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Great points, Mr. Woo, but ....

Is the tradeoff of limiting player choice for *all* of the companions really worth it?

That's not really for us to say, is it? We do what we do out of necessity based on zots, overall vision, and what we would like to see in the game. Game vision isn't stated in terms of "NPC appearance doesn't change," but in more vaguer concepts like "iconic characters" and "engaging combat," stuff like that. as long as we work towards those goals, their actual implementation can change (though too much change during development and you end up using WAY more zots). Only you the audience can determine for yourselves whether you like the feature or don't. You don't have our limitations and you don't have to make those hard decisions or schedule those people. You can just enjoy the game (or not).

[David Gaider]

bEVEsthda wrote...
Yes, but why do you want it? The question remains unanswered. I, at least, already understood what iconic look is. I do not see it as desirable for these party crpgs though. And while you did answer what you want to achieve, you still didn't answer why.

But we have said why. We want our major characters to have their own distinctive look. I can certainly see why there might be people who see little value in that, but I believe it would be a mistake to suggest that nobody sees value in it... or that in order for a CRPG to qualify as such party appearances must be customizeable (Planescape: Torment would like to have a word with those who say that).

I find it more likely that a lack of customizability in other areas added to this could make one feel restricted, perhaps, and I believe Mike has already spoken of plans to find some middle ground when it comes to companions and equipment-- but going back to generic bodies for all NPC's isn't in the cards. Doing that would lose something that we consider valuable (subjective as that may be), and I believe there are other avenues where we'd like to focus on efforts with regards to choice and customizeability in the game as a whole. Perhaps Mike will speak more on that in time.

[David Gaider]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But we have said why. We want our major characters to have their own distinctive look.

You want them to have a completely customizeable look. While I get that, that's not compatible with what we want. We cannot implement it both ways. As Mike said elsewhere, having the ability to gain the stats of equipment without a visual change is one option-- and there are others. A toggle is not an option.

Based on what we know so far, the team has made a terrible collective decision on companion appearance.

Well, for one, you don't know the entirety of what we're going to do with companion appearances just yet. I'll assume that whatever we do, however, that you won't like it as it's pretty clear that you stand on the far end of the spectrum of people who value customizeability over everything. Which is great, and games that do that are great. But games can be great (and great RPG"s) without doing that, and that's what we're doing. I think that's pretty clear.

[Stanley Woo]

Ukki wrote...

I have to say I still don´t get it. As bEVEsthda wrote (below) the reason for the change is not clear. Since the character customization was already in Origins it should have been relative easy to implement to the DA2.

Putting ham into one sammich doesn't make ham automatically available in a future sammich. you still have to physically put the ham into the sammich... unless you've made some kinda magic ham-sammich-making machine. Games aren't Lego, you can't just take out Part A and slot in Part B to make a new game. Yes, having a feature in a previous game certainly makes it easier to build for the next game, but each game is its own project with its own set of slots and parts. Sure, we could just slot in a new game after ripping out parts of the old one, but then folks would complain about it being too derivative. And since some of Dragon Age II was based on feedback from DAO, it just makes sense to do some new things! And we are always trying to do things better, so things would kinda have to change, wouldn't you say?

I admit I am not sofware designer (I´m a business major) but I do feel that such a change from a already popular game model was in my books a jump in the dark. Iconic look itself is a bit vague since none of the characters in the game have such history as, for example, spiderman has. These are so far one game only characters. To make this clear I´m not trying to ****** up wind here, I´m just honestly curious since we have a member of dev team here in the discussion.

You've got two. David Gaider joined the discussion.

You're right, these are only one game characters, just as Superman is just a guy in tights and a police box is obviously out of date and Master Chief is just one of 33 survivors of the "Spartan-II" program and a yellow Volkswagen Beetle is just a yellow Volkswagen Beetle. The more you associate a given thing--a hairstyle, an accessory, a colour, a symbol, a shape, a word, a voice--with a character or setting, the more iconic it is.

Black Ray-Bans and the suits for the MIB, the salt shaker shape and plunger arm of the Daleks, Peter Cullen's voice for Optimus Prime, David Caruso's "Shades of Justice", the sound of the TARDIS. Iconic doesn't necessarily equate to importance or priority. Iconic is recognizable, associative, representative.

[David Gaider]

Nerevar-as wrote...
Is it possible to give an unique look to each armor class for each character?

That is indeed on the table as a possibility, among other things. There are numerous permutations to a system that still gives us the look we're going for but offers more flexibility-- without simply going back to generic armor across the board.

[David Gaider]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And at least you're consistent.  Insisting that every player experience Isabela in the same way so as to preserve her character design is exactly the same sort of rejection of "Death of Author" theory as you espouse in your defense of the voiced protagonist when you insist that there was always a pre-determined tone for each line even when the characters weren't voiced.

I cannot account for the game you're playing in your own head, Sylvius. I can, however, account for the experience of the game as we intend it to be. If what you want is something different, that's great, but making a game for the sole purpose of allowing you to play an unintended version in your head is not our goal.

Unfortunately, your internally consistent position is, I think, wrong.

Super. Evidently we're not making a game for you, then.

[David Gaider]

Harid wrote...
Seems like I was right when I stated that Bioware was stating "We like it our way, deal with it."

Are you guys even reaching out outside of these forums to see if people like this idea, given it's contentious, even here? Do you even care?

Why do you care if I want to give Fenris a sword and a shield. or Aveline a great sword? How does it remotely affect you? One of the things you stated you disliked about Origins was everyone looking the same come endgame, and now you are creating a system where that is going to occur in everyone's game across the board.

I'm not sure I can address this without descending into some kind of "no you didn't!/yes you did!" argument.

The only time we get to the "we like it our way" answer is when what someone wants is something diametrically opposed to what we intend to do. If that's the case, okay-- there's no other answer that we can give then, is there? We're looking for feedback, and that includes people with a wide variety of interests and agendas. If we answer these at all to say what we intend or do not intend, that inevitably leads to saying "no" to some things... and thus an accusation from some corners that we're not listening (because if we were listening, clearly we would be obeying). That can't really be helped.

Hopefully as we move forward you'll see what we intend more clearly, and judge for yourself whether we've listened enough or made something that appeals to you. I doubt it'll appeal to everyone equally, but that should really be a given. For our part, we'll just focus on making the best game we can. A good game will be good regardless of the specific features in it.

Modifié par David Gaider, 07 septembre 2011 - 08:58 .

[Stanley Woo]

bEVEsthda wrote...

So the vision you have for DA now is still the same (or maybe even more evolved) what we glimpsed in DA2? A comic book style fanastic-world with fantastic-characters, inspired by transformers, Superman, Green Lantern and FF-scapes? That would explain your curious obsession with iconic looks.
I find that quite depressing.   And if my notions on why DA2 was so disliked is on the button,..
I want something completely different, a pretension of realism and the lower key medieval fantasy world of BG and DA:O.
Oh well, you make your own bed...

...And someone always says that they prefer a bunk bed in the shape of a race car.

[Stanley Woo]

DamnThoseDisplayNames wrote...
You can make all armor recognizable, associative, and representative. It's just a question of good design.

Hey guys, CHITIN ARMOR!

Who thought Morrowind?

Nope, Dark Sun's armour made from the hide of giant insects.

Yo guys, FULL DAEDRIC SET!
Who thought "Yeah, Divayth Fyr was a badass"?
See?

Nope, speaking gibberish.

[David Gaider]

Addai67 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

I just wish Bioware would shift their focus back to empowering players with choice instead of trying to enforce their own. 

Yep.  And focusing on deeper characterization in dialogue rather than by "enforcing" static visuals.

And I believe we've already stated that we're doing that-- on our terms, of course, but when would it be otherwise? What I'm hearing is that unless you have this choice, you don't have anything. Which is where, I think, my participation in this particular discussion ends, as it's clearly just going to go in circles. I suggest those interested check out Mike Laidlaw's thread on armor customization possibilities and offer feedback based on that-- and if the answer is "nope, don't like it one bit" then fair enough. Valid answer. But so is ours.

[Stanley Woo]

Gemini1179 wrote...
I'm more concerend at the thought that DA companion characters should be held in the same sentence as Superman, Spiderman, Batman, etc. It's not an insult, but if you show any random person an image of Isabela, Morrigan, Fenris and Superman, odds are a VAST majority of people will only recognize Superman.

Of course, directly comparing this past year's game character with 40 year old icons of popular culture would be silly. But using them as well-known examples of iconography would be pretty apt, I think.

Until AT LEAST a DA or ME movie comes out, BW can't go thinking that their 'Iconic' characters can really be said in the same sentence as those examples above. Right now the devs are comparing their characters to the extremes of Iconic characters.

Really? That's the takeaway from all this rigamarole? "Oh em jee, BioWare thinks their characters are as awesome as Superman"?

Modifié par Stanley Woo, 07 septembre 2011 - 09:35 .

[Stanley Woo]

Wow, how did this discussion turn so ugly so quickly? Let's back up the pain train, people, and remember to be excellent to each other.

[Stanley Woo]

Filament wrote...

There's nothing wrong with the devs setting an arbitrary level of control you have over your companions. What's wrong is when people try to argue that wanting more control means you have no respect for BioWare's vision, or when they argue that defending less control means you're copping out instead of just accepting the amount of control BW wants to allow, or when they argue that unless you have total control or no control at all, it's egregious in its inconsistency. It's not, it's just how BioWare chose to design their game... take it or leave it.

This is ultimately the crux of it.

[Stanley Woo]

bEVEsthda wrote...
We've had several whole threads. I've not seen a single reason for iconic looks.
Just "Superman is recognizable" . You've not given any either. So beware of throwing words as "lunacy" about.

How about this: why do you capitalize the EVE in your screen name? And why have an avatar? Obviously this means something to you or you identify with some part of it. Here on BSN, now that I've been reading the thread, I recognize instantly where you are posting. "Hey, that EVE and that avatar appears. That must be bEVEsthda, whose name I get confused with Bethesda all the time." Bam, you've become, in some way, instantly recognizable and contextual to a certain place, character or viewpoint.

So why, on our forums, did you choose to represent yourself with something with such bad capitalization? I would prefer it if you capitalized your screen name correctly, just as I would prefer for hoorayforicecream to space out her name correctly. You spell out and correctly capitalize your name for official forms and at school and work, don't you? How difficult would it be to correctly capitalize and space your screen name for the BSN?

I mean, you could argue that it's your account and you should be able to do what you want with it. You could also give me various reasons why your screen name is the way it is. But I, Volus that I am, can not think of a single reason why you wouldn't capitalize and spell your screen name correctly here. Can you justify why I shouldn't be able to have your screen name appear exactly as I would like it on the forum? Because I take my English language very seriously.

If you would care to, I'd like to know just how you "marketing" or "presenting" yourself on this forum is, at its core, different from us wanting to "market" or "present" our characters a certain way. I would also be interested in hearing whether you would allow me to dictate your BSN avatar and sig block, because after all, it should be the audience's choice what to accept, right?

[Stanley Woo]

bEVEsthda wrote...
It's tempting to kinda assume the question is rethorical, and meant to make a point rather than meant to be answered. Still: The foundation of the name is that I wanted you to think of Bethesda. I chose that as a sort of childishly spiteful declaration that Bioware (since DA2) is no longer my favourite developer, Bethesda now is (of course, since I'm never on Bethesda's forums, but quite frequently here, that may not be the whole subconscious truth). The EVE capitalization is something I've often regretted, it stands out too much. But I didn't want to be completely confused with Bethesda. I wanted a visible difference. It was made in the moment and now I'm stuck with my name. But sure, if I now must change to Bevesthda? I'd be very cool with that. But wouldn't it be even more likely to be mistaken for Bethesda then?

I'm actually impressed you answered the question, though I was beginning to wonder if you would. I bear you no personal ill will and any perceived malice or disrespect you find in my post, I will blame on the difficulty of displaying tone in a text-only medium.

Your explanation is fine, but it doesn't come through in the name, so any implied insult or meaning is lost because people have to think about it. If you wanted everyone to know the meaning, and spelled your screen name in such a way that everyone gets it right off the bat, you will have succeeded in the kind of communication and presentation that companies aim for in their products.

I think we're fine on that point, as long as the reason for distinctive looks becoming iconic looks, that is enforced on me in my gameplay, is only due to resource management. Market and present your characters with your distinctive looks all you want.

We are, and your "distinctive look" is the same as our "iconic look." Somewhere along the way, people started ascribing much more importance to the word and blew the argument way out of proportion. I was never talking about our characters as pop culture icons known to everyone in the world instantly. I was always refering to them being distinctive within our franchise.

But this thing does change somewhat, the day there is no other reason, but you still don't allow me to fit armour #4, just because you think Isabela absolutely shall **** around in a short dress in my party, no matter what. In that case, the flavor of the game has changed considerably from BG and DA:O. Is the question - "What is it to you, how Isabela appears in my game?" - really so unreasonable to you?  Do you hang over my shoulder?

No, but we also can't provide adequate explanations to every single person regarding what we have time for and what we don't, what we cut from games or what our original vision is, or how the game evolved between concepting and finaling. Our go-to response for why things are not as you want them will always be something like "inadequate zots," because a lack of time or resources is something everyone recognizes and can identify with.

If we, for whatever reason, decide that you can't change the outfit of your follower, and you feel that strongly about it, then no response we give you will be adequate, and no feedback from your side will suddenly change it. You are talking about one feature in a game composed of dozens if not hundreds of related or associated features, systems, code, visions, and the work of scores of developers all mashed in together in a frequently fragile Jenga tower of videogame. You can say the "flavour of the game has changed considerably from BG and DAO" and I will respond with "Of coursse it has. Baldur's Gate was released in 1998, which means development up to two years prior. Developing games differently between 1996 and 2011? Very yes."

"What's it to you, how Isabela appears in my game?" Absolutely nothing. Over a dozen people put in a lot of work to make Isabela a certain way, we present her in a certain way, and you are more than free to change the way she looks or acts or what she says. Once the game leaves our office, we have very little control over how you play it. If you can manage it, we would have nothing to say should you change her outfit, name, personality, voice, or what have you. On the other hand, if we chose not to allow NPC customization, we're not going to help you change her. You'll have to do it on your own, as that is not an officially supported feature, kind of like BG multiplayer or NWN persistent worlds. You can do it, and we're not going to whinge about it, but we're not going to help you do it. 

Let's start with: Why do you allow us to customize our avatar? And why do you allow us to customize our player char?

Customizing your PC is a staple of the RPG genre and it's one of the more universally desired features of an RPG. Players enjoy customizing their PC since it's "their" character, the one that represents them in the game (to varying degrees, depending on their play style). Different RPGs provide different levels of customization, and it doesn't seem to matter how much customization there is, as long as the PC can be customized, players seem to be satisfied. That is, sales and enjoyment of a given RPG is not solely dependent on the level of PC customization.

And is your question a hint that this practice will cease in the future? Maybe next time we'll be forced to play default Hawke? Would that have greater marketing opportunities? 

No. As much as the internet would like to take the easy out and assume that anything I don't talk about is necessarily gone from future games, this is not the case. I will talk about the topic at hand. Just because I don't talk about inventory, doesn't mean that inventory is affected or not affected in future products. Just because I refer to Hawke as he does not necessarily mean that we will only allow male PCs in future products.

If--and this is a hypothetical if--we decide to remove the PC choices entirely and force players to play the default PC, then that is a decision we will have made after many discussions and meetings, weighing the pros and cons, and there would be a damn good reason (or a host of damn good reasons) for it. Because the internet would flip if we ever announced that! I can't predict the future and neither can you, but as I'm closer to the process and the development team, I would hazard a guess that your hypothetical situation is, at best, highly unlikely for the foreseeable future.

Surely a recognizable Hawke is even more important than party members?

This question has been asked a lot, but not when talking about NPCs. Many people have asked this in relation to the prevalence of manShep and manHawke in our marketing and why can't we ever see femShep or ladyHawke on the game box or in advertisements or promo videos. This is changing, however, with the recent contest to vote on iconic femShep.

[Stanley Woo]

Ukki wrote...

Thank you for getting back to me Stanley. I think I understand the process of game making but I assume you guys did not make DA2 from the first code line on but took parts of Origins in it and modified them?

That is correct. The extent of modification varies, but we had a tight timeline and couldn't do things the same way we did them on DAO.

In regards of customer feedback was the iconic look feedback so overhelmingly larger that you decided to go for it, or was it just the "vision"?

Not everything in DA II is the result of feedback from DAO. Remember that, as many players as are out there providing feedback and telling us what they liked and didn't like, we have a whole team of developers who have our own ideas. There are always things we want to try and things we want to change. Distinctive characters (and I'm using the word "distinctive" because "iconic" seems to turn people into Crazy McCrazertons from Crazytown) have always been something gamers enjoy in BioWare games. the sheer number of love threads, hate threads, and romance threads in our forums tells us we're doing something right.

I get the feeling that "Iconic look" and "streamlining" are just other words for cutting down expenses, cutting the corners if you will. It doesn´t require much to see how there is a tendency to move the game into ME universe which I see a mistake being made. DA series usually have been responding to a unique need for customers who require certain aspects from a game which ME does not do. There sure are people who don´t mind but for me it seems that there are also a lot of people who do mind. Does the profit margin of DA allow that, remains to be seen. As a life long fan of Bioware (yes, I got BG´s and other games too) I feel that this genre does not allow too much "vision" atleast if you intend to keep the core fan base happy.

All games require vision. All large projects require vision. Your local transit system requires a vision. The company you work for requires a vision. The city in which you live requires a vision.  People throw words around and ascribe meaning to them when they don't have a firm grasp of what we mean when we use them.

"Iconic look" just means "distinctive and immediately recognizable within our game world." Blue bandanna? Isabela. Giant mother-bleeping crossbow names Biance? Varric! Lady Man-Hands? Hey, it's Aveline! (I actually really like Aveline's character.)

"Streamlining" is just making RPGs less number-crunching and more jump-into-the-action. Look at complex RPG rule systems like Palladium, AD&D, Rolemaster, the HERO system, etc. Traditionally, CRPGs had similar complex systems because they were the digital version of sitting around with your buddies playing open-and-paper RPGs. And for a long time, RPGs were all about stats and numbers and rules. These days, with technology as advanced as it is, we can afford to put a lot of those rules in the background and let the player do what he wants to do most, which is dive right into the game and the setting and play. The modern gamer doesn't want to know what THAC0 is, couldn't care less whether Choking Cloud gives you a -2 or -3 to Acrobatics, and who chooses Fire Arrow over Fireball not because it does more damage, but because it looks friggin' BOSS when it explodes on the Mayonnaise Elemental's face! "Streamlining" does not mean accepting a lower quality standard, nor does it mean "dumbing down" a product.

"Vision" is the end goal of a product. Without vision, ensuring that everyone is working towards the same goal becomes very difficult. Scores of people in a dozen departments over a couple of years will not and cannot stay on course without an overarching "vision". When you went through school, the "vision" for each year is the curriculum developed by your province or state. The vision statement comes in the form of "by the end of Grade X, the student will have learned A, B, C, D, etc. and can do E, F, G, H, etc."

*snip*

I appreciate the seeming similarity in situations, Ukki, but you're also arguing from a position where you have already seen the results. Companies cannot predict the future, and if that "vision" from your company's management had succeeded, you would be singing a different tune right now. "Vision" does not guarantee success or failure, just as there is no guaranteed formula for a game's success. we do the best we can, make the game one that we ourselves are proud of, and the rest is up to you, the customer. Agree or disagree, you gamers are the ones who help determine whether the product sells or not. If you don't like something, sure, you can criticize all you like, but any mistakes or successes are the payoff for decisions made months or years ago.

I'm glad we have this community and this forum to talk about our games with the people to buy and play them (or don't). It is a great source of feedback, but contrary to what some around here think, it is not our only source of feedback.

ps. english is not my mother tongue so please forgive me if there seems to be blunt or inconsistent issues in my post. Fast typing you see.

Don't worry, your English is exemplary.

[Stanley Woo]

TeenZombie wrote...

Why do people still play Go, if they could just play checkers instead?

Would you like to compare the popularity and knowledge of each game, or compare the rules of each game? Even Reversi has simpler rules than Go, which is one reason it's well known and accessible.

You are basically saying that the modern gamer doesn't want to think when they play games. If that's the philosophy Bioware wants to apply to their future games, by all means, go ahead, but you are going to lose not only old fans, but potential new ones, to other game developers who don't think we're too slow and unsophisticated to understand basic role playing mechanics.

Which is the simpler, easier to understand to-hit mechanic: a) THAC0, or attack score vs. defence score? With THAC0, you have a simple table where your attack roll (higher is better) is compared to your target's AC (lower is better). With the other, higher is always better regardless of whether you're talking attack or defence.

In ShadowRun 2nd Edition, weapon damage codes looked like (3M4). The first number indicated the number of dice rolled, the lette indicated the level of damage, and the second number was the "staging number" (ie. the number of to-hit successes required to increase the damage code (Moderate damgae increases to Serious, Serious damage to Deadly, etc.)). different weapons had different staging numbers, usually ranging from 2-4. In 3rd Edition Shadowrun, all staging numbers became 2. That way, you didn't have to figure out different staging numbers for different weapons.

In 4th Edition ShadowRun, this is "streamlined" even more, such that even Target Numbers become irrelevant. A roll of 5 or 6 on a die is considered a success, and it is the number of successes which determines whether you succeed or fail at a skill roll or attack, etc.

Why change at all? Games like the Palldium Books rule set hasn't changed significantly in 25 years and they are still releasing new products, after all. "Streamlining" makes things easier on old players, and provides a good jumping-on point for new players. A "streamlined" rule set means players can jump into a game faster by learning the basic rules quickly, and taking as much time as they need for the nuanced, more complex rules.

Why can't Bioware make a game that has a forgiving learning curve, but *does* offer more depth and strategic gameplay, if the consumer chooses to learn and get better?

Why can't BioWare hit upon a perfect balance between depth and simplicity? The age-old "easy to learn but hard to master" rule system? Well, there's a reason not every game has is. that line is a fine one to walk and difficult to pull off, no matter what kind of game you're trying to make. How many rules is too many rules? how are those rules presented? How many players will "get it"? How many players will give up, and where? Heck, you might as well ask why some games sell and other games don't, because there's no simple answer.

I really don't see the upside to your above post.  You say that people don't want to strategize -- which is exactly what choosing the correct spell for the correct situation is -- and then you say that streamlining is not dumbing down.  If my only choice is the big shiny fireball, and I never am allowed the more conservative yet effective Fire Arrow, yes, my gameplay has been dumbed down.  And I'm not interested in that game anymore.

If you're the type of player that agonizes of which spell to choose, comparing the numerical advantages and disadvantages, and tweaking your character and planning out his progression from the beginning, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. What I am saying is that if that't the only way you play, then not every game is going to appeal to you. heck, not even every BioWare game is going to appeal to you. In our opinion, that's fine! You can like what you like and don't like what you don't like. In the opinion of some of our more vocal opponents, it sounds like we should be forced to appeal to everyone all the time, just because we appealed to them in the past. And that's something we can never promise to everyone.

We are willing to lose some fans if they feel we no longer provide the kind of game they are looking for. Some people are not willing to accept us making games they don't like.

[Stanley Woo]

simfamSP wrote...
I've always been the one to 'defend' Bioware in a lot of cases... but Stanley do you know who your adressing? I totally understand what your saying. But you could have said it better I think. Just seeing the word BOSS in a RPG like Dragon age makes me sigh with desperation. 

And guys, this formula has been done since DA:O. It's not something new, it's just the phrasing of Stanley that makes it... questionable.

Look, I'm trying to stay hip and relevant to the current lingo, okay? "Boss" is a rad term, isn't it? I'm still hep and with it?

[Stanley Woo]

Lord Gremlin wrote...
To be honest, for cinematic experience I go to cinema and watch something in IMAX 3D. Or buying a nice blu-ray movie.
In "RPG" this cinematic stuff drives me mad, since I love being in control of everything in that type of game. Even DAO was far from perfect in that sense.
As for Mass Effect 2, it pissed me off so much that I literally stopped playing around 3 hours in and never tried to continue playing. But that stuff is popular, Mass Effect I mean. DA2, on the other hand, failed.

Ah, a lot of people like screwing around in games. Your fixed companion looks... Really belong to action games. So, maybe you want to make action games? Just bear in mind, as far as action games go recent Bioware projects are, no offense, on garbage level: we have action games like Bayonetta, GoW3 etc... It's hard to compete in this sector.

And maybe pigeonholing all of these labels doesn't mean as much as you think they do. Because we're still making games the way we do, we're still making some darn fine stories, we're still creating characters that will polarize the community. It seems that only when we try to answer your questions that you jump down our throats and make sweeping generalizations based on your own biases. We're telling you what we think. You're spinning it into your own conclusions and logical leaps. Which is fine, but some of you are also accompanying them with thinly veiled insults and condescension.

If you already think you know better than we do what we're doing or why we're doing it, or if you think we're lying to you, why even ask us for answers? That's the part I don't understand.