18 réponses à ce sujet

[BrandonMotz]

"Do you ever have the feeling that the word is getting.... simpler? Like everything from eating to fighting is a lot less complex than it used to be?"

Quote from talkative man in The Hanged Man

I was reading a post earlier in the week from someone who was miffed because DA2 was "Kiddied down" from Dragon Age 1 in its difficulty.

After going through my second playthrough I have to agree. From this quote it seems as if Bioware knows they kiddied it down. Cmon BW!! Plese make DA 3 more adult friendly! More tactical options, More blood... More gore... More sexually appealing options.

Video game target audience is what... 16 to 34?

Please Bioware, make DA3 for the mature audience (18 +)  and put an "M"rating on it. Let the stupid parents make the decision to purchase their underage children an M rated game take responsibility for their own actions, instead of forcing everyone to play a game that is suitable for 12 year old children.

If it is a matter of sales...... I promise to purchase 10 copies of the Dragon Age 3!

No idea why I am writing and whining about this.... Probably the rum I have been drinking!

Cheers Mates

Arrrrr!

Modifié par BrandonMotz, 28 septembre 2011 - 07:48 .

[Stanley Woo]

Dragon Age II has an M rating from the ESRB, meaning that in North America, the game is suggested for players aged 17 and up. Content advisories for the game include "Blood and Gore, Language, Sexual Content, Violence".

It also has a PEGI rating of 18, meaning that, in Europe, the game is suggested for players aged 18 and up. The content advisory is listed as "Extreme violence."

Dragon Age II is not a kid's game, and is not suggested or recommended for children.

[Stanley Woo]

ReveurIngenu wrote...
I think this is something Bioware needs to tell all it's employees because I don't think everyone at Bioware is aware of this.  Someone at Bioware said that Mass Effects 2's sex scenes were toned down to be in the "PG-13" area and I never understood why Bioware would make an M rated game but then want to keep things "PG-13." 

Ratings agencies like the ESRB and PEGI have their own criteria for assigning ratings. When we talk about "keeping things PG-13," we're talking in generalities, comparing content to what one might see in a PG-13 rated movie. And yes, our sex scenes are non-explicit enough to probably get them a PG-13 rating in a film. But sex scenes aren't the entirety of our game. Ratings agencies take into account the totality of the content, even content that not everyone will see, such as romances, sex scenes, etc.

Just because one aspect of a game isn't considered "rated R" doesn't mean that, as a whole, the game is appropriate for a general audience.

It's like, who is your target crowd anyway?  If you're going to make a
mature game, then by all means please, keep things mature!  Why do you
tone down things, make them more "kid and family-friendly" like toning
down sex scenes, etc?

Most people appreciate the the fact that explicit sex, nudity, language, violence and gore isn't ubiquitous in the game. Mature content and M-rated games, as i've always said when such discussions come up, does not refer to having pornography, gore and F-bombs dropping everywhere. If you're looking for a game like The Witcher 2, which features more explicit nudity and sex, then by all means, play Witcher 2. It is an M-rated game which features, according to the ESRB content advisories, "Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Nudity, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs."

This does not obligate any other developer or creator to include such things in their games. It also does not preclude ratings agencies from assigning game a Mature rating based on other criteria. And the lack of explicit content absolutely does not imply that the game is intended or recommended for children.

Why can't we get The Witcher 2 style sex scenes if these games are aimed
at adults?  I for one am quite sick of getting child-friendly games,
especially when they're rated M or 18+.

Again, Dragon Age II is not The Witcher 2. They are different games, just as William Gibson's "Pattern Recognition" and Harlequin romances are both intended for different yet mature audiences, yet each has its own tone, level of explicitness, and content. Being a fan of certain content is fine. Expecting everything to cater to your particular preferences is a little unreasonable, I think.

[Stanley Woo]

alex90c wrote...

I wouldn't say DA2 was meant for kids, just it didn't feel all that mature with the exaggerated combat.

Combat is not the only criteria used by ratings agencies to assign ratings. Rule systems and controls schemes are not considered, I don't think, when assigning ratings. Only content, such as visual imagery, text/dialogue, and player actions.

[Stanley Woo]

billy the squid wrote...

What kind of criteria do rating agancies use? As some of the decisions seem completely arbitrary.

Contact the ESRB or PEGI, depending on which agency applies to your location.

[Stanley Woo]

Many people are misunderstanding the way ratings agencies work. Ratings agencies require developers to submit documentation on each and every aspect of the game that could potentially affect the rating. That means every instance of a swear word, every scene of partial nudity, every off-colour joke, every example of racism, anything that could be construed as religion, every scene that shows blood and gore, and of course, every sex scene.

Ratings agencies are not concerned about whether you the player would allow your child to view the content, it is completely apathetic to what your childhood experiences with mature content are, and it doesn't care a whit whether we consider something "mature" or not. Ratings agencies are concerned solely with the content in the game--all of it--and they rate the game accordingly.

Whether you agree with the rating, whether you consider a "Mature" (capital M) ESRB rating as containing "mature" (lower case m) content, or whatever your own personal tolerances and preferences, doesn't matter when it comes to how ratings agencies rate games. If you have an issue with the rating, or how that rating is applied, or any other questions regarding a game's rating, please contact the ratings agency that deals with your region.

Trying to debate with us what the rating is or should be or who should experience what content at what age is a little misguided. Thank you.

[John Epler]

Pygmali0n wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Dragon Age II has an M rating from the ESRB, meaning that in North America, the game is suggested for players aged 17 and up. Content advisories for the game include "Blood and Gore, Language, Sexual Content, Violence".

It also has a PEGI rating of 18, meaning that, in Europe, the game is suggested for players aged 18 and up. The content advisory is listed as "Extreme violence."

Dragon Age II is not a kid's game, and is not suggested or recommended for children.

Dragon Age 2 is an 18 game in the style of a child's game. You wouldn't want a child to play it, but take out the sexual references and it's the only audience for which DA2 is suitable.

Yeah, this kind of thing is entirely unnecessary. If you don't like the game, that's fine! We support everyone's right to their own opinion. But suggesting that the only audience it's suitable for is children is rather insulting to the people who actually enjoy the game.

So let's cut that out, shall we?

[Stanley Woo]

LeBurns wrote...
The cartoon art style (plain colors and little or no clutter anywhere) - Kiddie

Art direction does not indicate anything without the content. It is a medium through which the visual content is delivered and stories are told. There are many "non-kiddie" genres and stories told through use of comparatively simplistic art styles. Read "Maus" some time for an example of how mature a "cartoon" can be.

The waves and enemies literally falling out of the sky for me to attack - Kiddie

This doesn't make much sense at all. Disagreeing with something doesn't make it immature, nor does enemy spawn rate or placement. this word "kiddie," I do not think it means what you think it means.

The super, over-the-top, impossible in real life, combat moves - Kiddie

Mortal Kombat, God of War, The Matrix, wuxia films, Hong kong action films, ANY ACTION MOVIE. Realism does not indicate maturity or sophistication. This relates to art direction and presentation of combat. any game that involves magic portrays characters doing things impossible in real life, but what is actually, physically involved in the casting of a magic spell? Is it over the top to require a wand and incant verbally, or is it over the top to wave your hands around in a certain way? Heck, is it over the top to do anything but exert your will or read from a spellbook?

And is capoeira considered "over the top, impossible in real life, combat moves?" is your criteria real life, in which case you're missing the point of what fiction is all about, or is your criteria "things you yourself cannot do"?

Romance of talking, kissing, falling in bed and the next scene just talking about it - Kiddie

Again, this is a matter of presentation. You don't like the fade to black, fine. but we're not dealing with a binary state here (ie. either it shows nudity or it's for children). the implication I'm seeing from the pro-nudity, pro-more mature content arguments in this thread are that if we don't show boobies, the game is meant for children. Sorry, but this is precisely the "mature content does not necessarily mean graphic nudity, sex and violence" argument the anti-more mature content side is against. This is also the argument that the pro-more mature content side is insisting it's not saying..

Yes, we could certainly show more nudity or sex in our love scenes because we are a mature game and we are creating our game for mature audiences, both in age and attitude. But we are not obligated to include such content, nor does its absence indicate a lack or reduction in the maturity of the game or its developer. As purportedly "mature" gamers, we should be able to discuss our preferences, suggestions, and critiques without such "immature" statements.

Bodies exploding into unrealistic bits of jam - Kiddie

Japanese manga, some of which is anything but childish. Again, this is  matter of style and presentation, not maturity.

Over stylized and over sized armor and weapons - Kiddie

Once again, a matter of visual presentation/art direction, not maturity.

Limited character customization - Kiddie

Another one that makes no sense. There is no character customization in games like Max Payne 2, yet no one would call that game "immature" or "kiddie." Likewise, there is much character customization in MMOs like World of Warcraft, a game which has often been criticized as being "kiddie" or"simplistic" in this community. Lack of choice, or an abundance of choice, does not indicate maturity of a game or its developer. i don't consider Morrowind to be any more or less "mature" than Dragon Age 2 based on character customization options, nor do I consider Bioshock and more or less mature because of it.

No real choices that matter - Kiddie

Now this particular complaint is one of my pet peeves, not because it's not true, but because it's so subjective and people keep bringing it up like it's a universal constant like c. Many people complain that, because they can't go around killing people and have the game react to all that change, there is no choice in videogames. Some complain that, because the end boss is the same no matter what choices you make, there is no choice in videogames. And finally, some complain that, because they can't do every little thing that they can in real life (like eat, sleep, defecate, kick someone in the shins, slap someone, steal from people, belch, maintain weapons and armour, etc.), there is no choice in videogames.

I disagree with a lot of that. I think choice can be presented in a number of different ways. And depending on which definition of "choice" you're talking about, I can agree with you or disagree with you. Quite a lot! but i'm also on the developer side, which has to take into account all these "choices" and implement their consequences in the game.

Overall, I would have to say the OP as a valid point.  If a DA3 is made (at this point I wouldn't care) I would hope that more goes into the details that would make the game more focused to the mature gamer.

Obviously, you must care at least a little bit, or you wouldn't be here. And you must care more than just a little bit, otherwise you wouldn't be posting and trying to get your point heard and perhaps sympathized with. now, whether you care more than a bit is not my concern, but if you want to try and convince me Dragon Age II is a "kiddie" game, you're going to have to do a lot more than type "kiddie" after every thing you disagree with in the game. Sorry, but I can't agree with your agument.

[Stanley Woo]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Sorry Mr. Woo, but I gotta disagree with you on this one (or so I think I'm going to disagree with you =P). The issue has nothing to do with those things you mentioned.

It has to do with Hawke's Rise to Power -- or lack thereof -- that was advertised for DAII.

Your rise to power begins now...

or something like that.

Hawke's story didn't have to be world changing, but it did have to be story changing.

As this is a no spoiler forum, I cannot go in depth like I'd want. But the reason people take issue with that has nothing to do with what you mentioned. Well, maybe with the endgame, but that's because you guys wanted another boss fight and slammed Harvestino in our faces even if we're pro-mage, when that whole entire battle could've been won for the mages (or at least most of the mages if we could actually employ some war tactics!)

Okay, minor spoiler given away... but that's just one of the things that I absolutely hated about DAII.

And that's a well articulated, justified explanation of the generic "choices don't matter" complaint, one that clearly points to things we actually did in or for the game. It is certainly an easier critique to look into, and is far more universally accepted, than a comment like "lack of real choices that matter - kiddie."

We can work with "Hawke's story didn't have to be world changing, but it did have to be story changing." (in a non-spoiler forum ). We can look into "you guys wanted another boss fight and slammed Harvestino in our faces
even if we're pro-mage, when that whole entire battle could've been won
for the mages". I can even accept something a little vague like "It has to do with Hawke's Rise to Power -- or lack thereof" because it gives me a frame of reference for your argument, your preferences/bias, or even waht you might suggest we do to improve things in future products. \\

We like getting constructive feedback. With rants, buzzwords or vague, subjective generalities, there's not a whole lot we can do except ask questions until you give us something we can work with.

[Stanley Woo]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Art Spiegelman at least didn't decide to drastically change his art style between "My Father Bleeds History" and "And Here My Troubles Began", and it fit the story he told.

I've been told by these forums time and again that it is definitely NOT the changes between Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age II that people are objecting to, since that would lend credence to the "players can't handle Dragon Age II being different" (or "innovative") quote that gets thrown around.

BUT...

IF (capital I, capital F) Art Spiegelman decided he wanted to use a different art style halfway through his story, so what? It's his story, and he can tell it in whatever way he wants. It's not the comic reader's place to tell Mr. Spiegelman he can't do it. the comic reader always has a choice to make, and that it whether to purchase or not purchase the content. IF (again, capital letters) that's the way the story was sold, how is your choice as a consumer changed?

Comic books have different creative teams draw their characters all the time, for example.

It would be helpful to decide from the start how such things work in the world you create, and how you present them to the player. Realism indeed isn’t an indicator of maturity and sophistication, but the degree of realism is pretty important for the identity of a game/movie/etc. Until DA2 I never saw Dragon Age next to Mortal Kombat and God of War in terms of style, and I wouldn’t have classified a movie adaptation of anything Dragon Age as an action movie.

When is this "fromt he start" that we have to "decide... how such things work in the world [we] create"? Right from the get-go in the concepting stage? When finalizing the game? We can't change things from one game to the next? You know the combat in the Dragon Age Legends Facebook game is very different from the combat in Dragon Age II, right? Is that allowed? And Funimation is developing a Dragon Age anime, which will likely portray combat differently again.

And what if players don't like something we've done and we want to change things in future games, which is one of the reasons combat changed between Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age II? Are we obligated to continue presenting a feature in a certain way, or are we allowed to change it? And--here's the important question--who gets to make that choice?

Of course it's BioWare's decision how to deal with things like that, but in an RPG that puts as much emphasis on relationships and romance as DA2 it is not out of place to ask for a little more balance between ott violence maturity and well done intimacy maturity.

Not out of place at all, and it's a suggestion that we get for many of our games. It's only when you begin to imply that not having such a balance makes our game more "immature" or "kiddie" that I will take issue with the suggestion, as it starts to sound more like a demand then (ie. "put in more boobs or your game is for children/teens/mogwai/whatever").

As I've said, I'm totally cool with people wanting or suggesting more nudity, more sex, more gore/violence, or what have you, but once you start putting conditions or resort to emotional blackmail, that's when I can't agree with you.

Yeah, this again isn’t a matter of maturity, but of identity. I’d prefer Dragon Age not to look and feel like anime, no matter how mature it may be.
 
I would have been a lot happier if quests I decided to turn down didn’t appear as mandatory main story quests in my quest log. Or that if I’m given the choice to hand one of my companions over to the authorities said choice wouldn’t be nullified by plot induced stupidity. Etc.
 
Anyways, I guess I don’t agree with the “kiddie” label slapped on these problems DA2 had imo, but they are problems nonetheless.

That's a perfectly fine preference and suggestion.

[Stanley Woo]

Pygmali0n wrote...

EDIT - ouch 3 rebuttals within 2 minutes - apologies Stan.

No worries, it all seems to be good discussion and critique, which is really all we're asking for.

[Stanley Woo]

LeBurns wrote...

Morroian wrote...

LeBurns wrote...

Honestly I guess my definition of Kiddie is different than yours. But I am 47 so games like God of War are very childish to me.

So........ you can't actually refute anything he said.

Should I refute that my opinion is different than his?  His opinion isn't wrong so there is nothing to refute.  His opinion is different than mine however.  I strongly believe that DA2 was brought down several levels to be more 'kiddie' appealing.  I don't think that you can refute that I believe that can you?

Some things I'm sure we'd be able to come to an agreement on, given the time and effort, but there's nothing wrong with having different opinions on the way games are made. Things would be rather dull indeed if we all agreed on everything. it's our differences in experience, play style, preference, tolerance, and attitudes that have made the modern videogaming landscape such a rich and diverse one. Some folks hate certain features, so they get all enterprise-y and develop something more to their liking. the game hits the internets and BAM! like-minded people take to it and suddenly we have another overnight success story.

Look at games like Flow, Minecraft, Angry Birds, Left 4 Dead, Portal, GTA, Fallout, BG2, etc. All very different games, but each has its own audience, and there is some crossover between them. Even BioWare games have changed significantly in some ways over the last 10 years.

I don't blame people for not liking it when we do something really new and different. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but I do wish that people would be less unreasonably ranty about it all. We're not miracle workers and we're not perfect. We're a bunch of people who like games, and many of us are at our dream jobs, making products that millions of folks around the world like (or don't like, as you prefer). We love what we do, and we love that you love what we do (or don't, as you prefer), but that doesn't mean we won't have disagreements now and again. We just need to be able to talk them out. We need to listen to what you guys like or don't like, and you're goignt o have to accept that, sometimes, you won't like something we do. As long as we're generally trending towards the positive (and that will happen and become evident over the course of several projects, not the course of one game, as some Dragon Age II detractors would have you believe), I think we'll be fine.

[Stanley Woo]

Nice breakdown, nightscrawl. Thank you.

[Stanley Woo]

Pygmali0n wrote...
Just when we think you might be getting it Stan, some servile fan validates your problem and you reset to the DA2 mindset.

Wow, elitist as well as cynical. Okay, Pymali0n, let me break it down for you:

Stan! DON'T listen to the guys who like DA2!

We're going to listen to everyone, even you. We have listened to everyone, even you. I happen to disagree with your ideas, but at no time have I barred you from having opinions or stating them. But I don't have an obligation to agree with you or to take your ideas over anyone else's. Game development is not a collaboration between a whole bunch of individual players and developers, it can't be, since the fanbase is full of contradictory ideas, preferences and biases. the best we can do is take the totality of the feedback, figure out some trends, and see how it jibes with our own ideas for future projects.

We pee'd off DA:O fans outnumber them.

Game development is not a popularity contest in the way you think it is. We're not only listening to the most, the loudest, the tallest, or the most articulate. We're listening to everyone.

Remember you have a problem with DA2!

No, you have a problem with DA2. We released a game we are proud of, though we have acknowledged it wasn't perfect, by any means, and that there are some very specific things that need improvement in future projects. We have also worked hard, based on the community's feedback, to develop DLC products for DA2 that will hopefully address some of your concerns about DA2, or, at the very least, demonstrate that we are listening and are trying to address those concerns.

There may be more DA2 fans on these forums, but that's because normal people stay away from things they don't like and don't have the patience to tell you where you went wrong.

Like you're doing? All you're doing is insulting those who happen to like the game and dismissing their arguments in the hopes of persuading me to to the same. Well, I can't, anymore than I can simply dismiss your side's arguments because I personally disagree with them. Well, actually, this post I'm responding to I can safely dismiss because there's no substance to it, nothing constructive that someone could analyze and look into addressing. It's just complaining about other people and "nyah nyah, they're wrong, I'm right, pay attention to me."

Don't try to bully me into accepting or rejecting specific ideas or arguments, Pygmali0n. I am perfectly capable of reading and thinking for myself. Thank you.

[Stanley Woo]

Aradace wrote...

You know Stanley, as valid as your argument is, I can guarantee you that pygmali0n will find SOMETHING wrong with it. People like that, you cant convince them that they're going about things the wrong way because in their mind, and in that mystical magical fantasy world they live in, no one but them is right, and the others who happen to agree with them. Best not to feed this particular troll lol

Not a troll. He seems to genuinely believe what he's saying, and while he may be annoying to some people, I can't fault passion for our games and franchises. People feel very strongly about games that can affect them emotionally. And they tend to speak the loudest where they think they'll be heard, so it's not unusual to have people on both sides of an argument getting loud. We're here, we're actively listening, so why wouldn't they do all they could to be heard?

I merely disagree with his approach and his conclusions and, well, many of the reasons he's given me to persuade me to agree with him.

If I'd had the internet when I was a kid, heck, I might have been in his shoes.

[Stanley Woo]

Yrkoon wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...
If I'd had the internet when I was a kid, heck, I might have been in his shoes.

F**king Troll.  Basically calling someone you disagree with a kid.  Last time *I* did that, I got a 24 hour ban.  Where's Epler when we need him?

You put the emphasis on the word "I," implying that I'm calling someone else a "kid" for disagreeing with me. I put the emphasis on "kid," implying that that's when I played a whole bunch of videogames and had a whole lot of ideas on what I liked and didn't like and wish I'd had a forum like this in which to talk/rant/rave/complain about them.

Honestly, Yrkoon, thought we don't often agree on issues, I expected better of you.

EDIT: Childish bickering removed. Let's please cut out the swearing and personal attackes. Thank you.

Modifié par Stanley Woo, 09 octobre 2011 - 07:19 .

[Stanley Woo]

Pygmali0n wrote...

Ah, come on, taking the moral high ground against a post made after an afternoon down the pub isn't hard. You should all be so well-behaved in that state. Besides that and despite the frustration it wasn't meant to be bad-humoured, even if, drawn from an opposing point of view and several pints, it didn't come across well, sorry. Filament's also putting strange words into my mouth and attitudes I can't see were ever expressed.

But it's right that it doesn't help that when bEVEsthda or anyone else makes a good reasonable point, it goes unacknowledged on a forum that seems to have been set up for constructive criticism (even when apparently you might agree). But then a mod backs-up a cheerleader who reframes what was said to suit the opposing point of view. It might be some kind of corporate policy, but when you have such a large disgruntled fanbase you need to throw them bones with the occasional scrap of meat left on them.

Selecting your own ground against easy targets might be a good tactic in war and make you feel good, it's just annoying when you don't engage people on equal terms against the harder targets and shoot them down when they do the same thing.as you..

Note that I try to limit anything negative to behaviour. Not going to reread my posts but things I write usually are 'what you did was daft', not 'you are daft', and should be read as such.

Sorry, but as the one against the horde, it's to my advantage (and my prerogative) to pick and choose what I respond to. I'm not as free to speak as you are, and you don't have the same perspective on the subject that I do. That puts us on very unequal footing. It also seems a tad unfair that y'all seem to want to catch me up in some kind of lie or contradiction that will fully justify all the negative feedback Dragon AGe II has gotten since release. I don't play that way.

You also won't see me bashing or dismissing my employer, my friends, my game, and the hard work of scores of talented, hard-working people around the world who helped to bring the game to you. I'm here because I believe in the work that we do, the work that I do, and generally agree with the direction of the game's creative team and project management. I'll say what I think, as openly and honestly as I propriety and policy permit, but since the ultimate response to any of "why was the game this way?" is "because that's how it turned out," I'm trying to keep us from hitting that point for as long as there's positive, constructive discussion going on and questions that I can answer.

So of course I'm goign to agree with a "cheerleader" of the game. I'm a cheerleader of the game as well! What did you expect to find here?

[Stanley Woo]

Pygmali0n wrote...
Well put, I can understand all of that. With the uneven ground on both sides it kind of does need to be expressed, people usually understand if you explain. We don't expect you to bash your employer and your friends but more ways of acknowledging disagreements with something like 'good idea, but we chose this instead' would be appreciated.

Fair enough.

Apologies for any bashing, while I generally only comment on the forums for occasional bursts of a week or two, I think the continued bashing is borne out of people feeling that they still have not been listened to, also that many feel and have expressed that they were misled into buying the game by the marketing of the game. Not to mention what they see as the loss of a type of game they loved. Change can be good or bad, and change into console elements that already existed elsewhere did not seem to gain anything against the loss.

Now that I can't do anything about. Despite all of our reassurances, despite all the interviews, despite Mike Laidlaw and David Gaider both being very responsive to various threads since release, despite our continued participation in the forums, despite releasing DLC with some of the issues being addressed, people (and I'm talking the DA community here) still don't feel like they're being listened to? I can certainly understand specific individuals feeling that way, since they may not have been around at the time or haven't bought the DLC or didn't read specific threads, but I think that our community as a whole is here partly because developers participate in discussions and listen to feedback.

[Stanley Woo]

Are we back to discussing iconic characters or viable armours? Because that's not really the subject of this thread.