791 réponses à ce sujet

[axl99]

Hypocrite.

[What? He asked for it.]

Modifié par axl99, 08 septembre 2011 - 05:44 .

[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.

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

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

(Headdesk)

[AloraKast]

Stanley Woo wrote...

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.

*GASP*

How DARE you, SIR!

You take that back!



PS.

Distinctive characters (and I'm using the word "distinctive" because "iconic" seems to turn people into Crazy McCrazertons from Crazytown)

Mmm, distinctive. I can work with "distinctive" because you ARE correct about "iconic". See?  Now we're getting somewhere!

Modifié par AloraKast, 08 septembre 2011 - 06:04 .

[RagingCyclone]

@Stanley Woo- I think the blowback from the word "iconic" stems from the marketing from DA2 before release and the word "awesome" was used extensively. Just a hunch but the term "iconic" I think for many brings back a bad taste from the marketing of DA2 and the backlash it has received since. Yes it's semantics, but as you know certain words tend to have certain reactions albeit positive or negative. *shrugs shoulders*

[Addai]

Monica21 wrote...

BS why? You're not in a party camp. When you arrange your party you're essentially doing the RPG equivalent of going over to your friend's house and asking if they can come out to play. You don't then toss them clothes and say, "Well, you'd better wear this instead." 

You're mixing up player agency with PC agency.  It's the player organizing the party, not the PC.  I paid 60 bucks for the game, so I get a say- Hawke doesn't.

[Pasquale1234]

Much to catch up with since I left this thread yesterday.

First off - thanks to the devs who have helped us to understand the thinking behind some of what is happening with the franchise.

While I do see some value in using non-standard body models for companions, I'm still not convinced that losing the ability to put any armor or clothing item on them is a worthwhile tradeoff (and it is a tradeoff).  As much as I enjoyed Isabela in DA2, I actually would have preferred that the standard human female body model be used for her.  It would have presented a wonderful opportunity to break with the stereotype that says big-breasted woman == sexpot; and, on that basis alone, could have made her a much more unique character and would have been, imho, a refreshing change.

I also understand and appreciate those players who would like to see more variety in the forms and figures of NPCs.  I remember my Warden walking into a kitchen (Eamon's estate in Denerim, I think) and seeing a chubby, large-bosomed cook hard at work.  Some variety in NPCs such as this is certainly nice to see, and if it is restricted to non-companion NPCs, would not present any reason to restrict player's armor choices.  Unique body models can also be used to develop iconic antagonists and other major characters.

I really liked it that Hawke would change into loungewear upon entering the estate, and back into the armor set when leaving.  I think that would be a nice addition for all of the companions and give them each a unique, self-selected appearance when they are on their own time while still allowing player customization of the armor they wear while out questing.

In the end, I would guess it would be less resource-intensive to simply stick with standard body models for all of the companions than it is to use unique models but provide multiple outfits for each of them, which I think is what has been proposed.  The loss here would be that companions all used standard body models, but imho, the gain of unrestricted player customization is well worth it.

Just my 2 coppers' worth.  Thanks for listening.

[tmp7704]

Stanley Woo wrote...

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!

You know, i can't help but think this description was taken from the same book that gave us

the Bestiary of Mythological Creatures.

[Sad Dragon]

Stanley Woo wrote...
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.

Let me address this part, though in a slightly jumbled order. To one extent I would have to say that the first part invalidates the second part -- now bare with me.

I would consider myself a modern gamer (please feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that) and a omnivore of the gaming world -- or well, with a few exceptions. Now, while I did not actually know what THAC0 was until just now I would still have to say that I actually care about that, and if a Choking Cloud has a negative effect i would really really like to know about it -- or any other area of effect spell for that matter. The more information I have the better I can plan my fights and strategize how to best tackle any given battle. Perhaps the penalty for standing in Strange runic circle #31 would mean a big problem for 3 characters in my party, but for one of them, there might be a tactical advantage to stand in it.

Now I do get what you are going for and to some extend I do actually agree but at the same time, making a system easier to understand is to "dumb it down". Is this necessarily a bad thing? No, not really. There are times where some part has gotten so convoluted that a simplification or a complete rework is needed. At the same time, for those who actually understood the mechanic they will be correct that you are "dumbing the system down". You might do it for a good cause -- to make more people be able to use that mechanic as they now also understand it -- but it is still dumbing an aspect of the rules down.

I also feel that a lot of problems have to do with presentation, something that might not be complex might be conceived to be impossible to understand due to how it was presented. I myself did this mistake when beta testing a RPG system. Another problem that most RPG's face is front loading and well there are ways around that as well, though I sadly have not seen any attempts at tackling this problem without also simplifying the system.

Though this is getting rather long so I will sum things up and end by saying: I think the anger towards the word "streamlining" is that every time it has been used it is also followed by simplifications of game play mechanics rather then keeping the complexity but making them easier to understand and use. I do firmly believe that you can have streamlining that keeps the complexity of a mechanic but affects the presentation and thus -- even though it is still dumbing down something -- it makes the game more fun without removing or even changing the mechanic.


Hope that made at least some sense.

-The Sad Dragon

[Kothoses Rothenkisal]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Kothoses Rothenkisal wrote...

So if we are going down the Iconic look path, can we have iconic looks that change over time, I dont just mean blood splatters but subtle changes that reflect a characters growth with me through out the game, can we have iconic looks that shift a bit atleast based on what they are wearing and can we please have some level of customisation beyond unlocks.

I hope people going down the "But they never change clothes in ten years!!!" route do realize that its an entirely separate discussion than iconic appearances. The lack of change in looks is the fault of development time, not a purposeful design decision. I'm sure they'd would have loved to have their appearances change timejumps and other reasons if they had time for it.

It was one of the major ways that doing a 'framed narrative timeskipping' story was a bad idea when working under a limited development schedule. But has nothing really to do with Iconic. Hopefully they'll handle it smarter next time around.

I hate it when people take a small fraction of a quote and turn it on its head and then attack that point, its called Straw man debating please avoid doing it (see what I did there?).  The point isnt so much just that they dont change clothes, its that they dont change AT ALL.  What about when you go into the deeproads giving them a water canteen, or perhaps some extra pouches or some other changes to their gear to reflect their progression through game and by proxy through their lives.  No matter what happens they dont adapt or change and to be honest I think it would be a way to get around some of the issues some people have with the iconic or as we are saying now "distinctive" view points.

It was not a "they dont change clothes in ten years" it was "they dont adapt their style attire or equipment based on what happens to them, there is no growth no change just a stagnant mannequein.

Modifié par Kothoses Rothenkisal, 08 septembre 2011 - 06:39 .

[Atakuma]

Stanley Woo wrote...

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!

Let the ****storm commence!

[Kothoses Rothenkisal]

Stanley Woo wrote...

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.

With all due respect Stanley I would say you are wrong, your modern RPG Gamer can and does care about these things, sure fans of action adventures and shooters might not be that into the min maxing of their characters, but you sold millions of copies of NWN And DA  based on those very principles and those are two games that were well recieved critically and commercially, and in both cases redefined excellence in the genre.

To dismiss it now as not being important to gamers is simply to ignore the very large and vocal section of gamers who do enjoy numerical and statistical progression of their characters.  It might not be important to the new demographic you are chasing but that doesnt devalue its importance to the rpg lovers amongst us.

Modifié par Kothoses Rothenkisal, 08 septembre 2011 - 06:45 .

[Mr.House]

Addai67 wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

BS why? You're not in a party camp. When you arrange your party you're essentially doing the RPG equivalent of going over to your friend's house and asking if they can come out to play. You don't then toss them clothes and say, "Well, you'd better wear this instead." 

You're mixing up player agency with PC agency.  It's the player organizing the party, not the PC.  I paid 60 bucks for the game, so I get a say- Hawke doesn't.

You pay $60 so you can dress up people?

[Wulfram]

Stanley Woo wrote...

The modern gamer doesn't want to know what THAC0 is

Is that why DA2 has an attack system which seems designed to make THAC0 seem intuitive and easy to understand?

(I guess I'm a medieval gamer. Or maybe post-classical)

[Bullets McDeath]

23 pages arguing about videogame outfits. You should all be ashamed. Very, very ashamed.

I think it was John Epler who said once on the topic that they wanted to avoid situations like Morrigan in Chantry robes and that party members of the same class just end up wearing your hand-me-down armor sets when you find something better. Of all the things that ground my gears about DA2, not being able to play paper doll dress up with my companions was not one of them.

A bit of variation within their "iconic" look would be nice (and seems to be the direction they are heading) and there were still plenty of ways to customize their stats and buffs. Honestly, companion equipment was tedious and is one old-fashioned RPG trope I won't miss in this series.

[Wulfram]

The Morrigan in chantry robes argument is funny because the game puts Morrigan in chantry robes at one point.

Otherwise, it'll only happen because someone thinks it would be fun, which doesn't seem like a problem.

[Sylvius the Mad]

PanosSmirnakos wrote...

You can still customize your hero and that's what it really matters for a RPG.

I find managing characters who are not my characters is tedious.  If I can choose tactics, or skills, or weapons for Isabela, how do I make those decisions?  If it's just combat effectiveness, that's not very interesting.  I don't like combat.

I would much rather tactics, skills, and weapons (along with armour) be roleplaying decisions, but I can't make roleplaying decisions if great swaths of the character are restricted from my modification.

[RagingCyclone]

Wulfram wrote...

The Morrigan in chantry robes argument is funny because the game puts Morrigan in chantry robes at one point.

Otherwise, it'll only happen because someone thinks it would be fun, which doesn't seem like a problem.

Heeeeey, I was going to say this.

[hoorayforicecream]

Wulfram wrote...

The Morrigan in chantry robes argument is funny because the game puts Morrigan in chantry robes at one point.

Otherwise, it'll only happen because someone thinks it would be fun, which doesn't seem like a problem.

Well, it's cool for plot reasons like a disguise. But it would certainly be antithetical to her established character, as well as take away from the ridiculousness of the disguise if Morrigan wore chantry robes day-to-day anyway.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Collider wrote...

I also prefer generally that the designers/writers decide what look suits (besides obvious out of character fanservice like Miranda) the companion rather than relying on the player.

How can you actually prefer a lack of choice?  If you like the iconic appearances, keep them.  But why shouldn't we be allowed to change them if we'd like?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 08 septembre 2011 - 07:34 .

[Bullets McDeath]

Wulfram wrote...

The Morrigan in chantry robes argument is funny because the game puts Morrigan in chantry robes at one point.

Otherwise, it'll only happen because someone thinks it would be fun, which doesn't seem like a problem.

The Fort Drakon rescue, I believe. And that was supposed to be funny. You can only imagine how much she abhorred putting those on.

So, sure, being able to put characters in ridiculously inappropriate attire can be amusing, much like playing through Dead Rising with a Legoman head can be. But it's not a strong argument (in my mind) for why they should devote resources to fully customizable companion outfits as opposed to actually making them look cool and have recognizable, consistent features. "But I want panda costumes for everyone LOL!"... y'know, just, no. It was a side effect of the system in DA:O and I don't think it makes a very compelling case for why they should overhaul the system going forward because it's fun to make characters look retarded sometimes.

[Kimberly Shaw]

It's pretty immersion breaking that your party wears one outfit for 10 years in all situations in and out of combat and the bedroom. At least Hawke can change!

To me RPGs should try there best not to break immersion, whether it's from each dungeon looking exactly the same, the city never changing in 10 years, ninjas guards dropping from the sky, giant spiders on webs to clear sky, or party members that never change their clothes or age in 10 years.

[Wulfram]

I'm not saying that Morrigan in Chantry robes is a strong argument in favour of having fully customizable outfits. I'm just saying it's not a good argument against it.

Modifié par Wulfram, 08 septembre 2011 - 07:29 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Stanley Woo wrote...

"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 numbers are part of the play, Stan.  You're drawing an arbitrary line and declaring part of the game play and part of the game not-play (or something).  There's no justification for that.

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.

How could anyone playing a game not care about the rules of that game?  Whether Choking Cloud gives a -2 or -3 to Acrobatics is a relevant characteristic.

Anyone who would employ Choking Cloud without even considering its consequences is subnormal.