429 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

bEVEsthda wrote...

The point was that the change to DA's style was said to be done to make it more unique. It accomplishes the exact opposite. Coming from Final Fantasy and being breast fed on spikes, feather adournements, horns and antlers, fluffy hairdos, you might be somewhat blind to this, but check out recent and upcoming Fantasy RPGs. They all look like DA2. DA2's style is ultra-cliché.


And it's so very obvious speculation. A soulless mash of borrowed elements in a strained attempt to be "kewl".

Middle-of-the-road, mass appeal RPGs are like middle-of-the-road, mass appeal politics: both leave dissatisfied parties, lead to months of fruitless debates and don't even come remotely close to accomplishing what they originally set out to do.

Instead of trying to appeal to people who didn't like your product to begin with (or, in the spirit of the original topic, an age group it is not intended for), gaming companies should make it their number one concern to appeal to those who already LOVE their product. Change for new fans/customers, or even change for change's sake, isn't bad. But  realize what made people love your product in the first place and make that front and center, instead of thinking about what you can do to cater to those who don't like your product (RPGs) in the first place.

[Firky]

Stanley Woo wrote...
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.

As concisely as possible,

Qualifiers.

- I loved DAII
- I thoroughly respect Stanley Woo on the strength of his posting on this forum
- I've conscientiously followed interviews, dev comments about DAII
- Nothing devs have posted or put in interviews post-DAII has offended me
- I didn't think DAII was much of an RPG, ultimately
- I've been around the forum, fairly consistently, since Baldur's Gate
- I'm PC exclusive
- I played Legacy

My point...

I still don't feel listened to.

Should anyone listen to me? Likely not? I loved DAII. If I didn't, I could take my money elsewhere. I could stick to RPGs, like Witcher/Diablo/etc (which are cool) or Indies like Bastion (which was cool). I'm probably less contemporarily relevant. I'm just one person.

Why don't I feel listened to? That's a really tricky one. Firstly, good listening, for me, has always been one on one, like between two people. Sure, patch 1.03 fixed exploding enemies, but I liked them. No-one asked me if I like them. Is it realistic for every person to get a tailored gaming experience? No, but I want it, nonetheless. I can recognise that, even if it's wrong.

Also, there's active listening. Like, if I tell my partner I hate brussel sprouts, I expect him to explicitly ask, "What the hell is wrong with brussel sprouts?" I don't expect someone who loves me to not ask and then knowlingly or unknowlingly serve me something I think tastes like Grannie's socks. (Yes, I'm making love and dinner synonymous with hundreds of hours spent playing BioWare games, often to the detriment of my real life relationships and dinner making commitments, sadly.)

Then there's the idea that good listening involves a level of mutual understanding. Despite the fact that the fanbase might not be able to agree whether gameplay or cosplay is more important, surely there are some more fundamental and basic, common reasons we all play games, and specifically RPGs. I used to find commonality on the Bio-boards, like how beating Kangaxx was cool, but beating him without cheese was cooler. While I agree that games should be accessible to a wide audience, my specialness (for beating Kangaxx without cheese) has, somehow, evaporated.

Not feeling listened to is a real problem for me, rightly or wrongly. I can recognise that my expectations are unrealistic and partly caused by internet, the modern nature of fandom and a vast sea of opinion, in which many of us who feel we should be relevant, rightly or wrongly, are drowning. Yet, the feeling remains. (in my opinion)

*watches careful opinion get swept away into nothingness*

What is it that I actually want to be heard and conveyed? Who cares?

Modifié par Firky, 09 octobre 2011 - 11:27 .

[bEVEsthda]

Firky wrote...

I still don't feel listened to.

<Quite an essay, stricken for brevity, read above>

*watches careful opinion get swept away into nothingness*

What is it that I actually want to be heard and conveyed? Who cares?

That's just being woman, I think, maybe.

Me, I didn't feel listened to, in the beginning.
Then I started to feel ignored, which is much the same thing, really.
Only, there's this strong suspicion, so strong that it amounts to a conviction, that I am being listened to. But only that there's also this great resolve to do the opposite to anything I have to say, as *politely* as possible => ignore in silence.

Well, I can joke about it, because I can see the day when: "What did I tell you!"
And I suppose that means that at heart, I've given up on DA.

[Morroian]

bEVEsthda wrote...

In my estimate, Bioware had something really huge by the tail, with DA:Origins. Had DA2 been a reasonable sequel to Origins, the franchise would have grown substantially. 

I disagree, IMHO its likely that the console market would have dropped off just for example. 

[Firky]

bEVEsthda wrote...
That's just being woman, I think, maybe.

Quite possibly. A feeling of not being listened to/taken seriously, rightly or wrongly, can come with the territory, from time to time.

bEVEsthda wrote...

Only, there's this strong suspicion, so strong that it amounts to a conviction, that I am being listened to. But only that there's also this great resolve to do the opposite to anything I have to say, as *politely* as possible => ignore in silence.

I have to admit to getting that feeling too, but I honestly can't see why it would be the case. And I can't think of any concrete examples. (In my case, anyway) I think it's paranoia. Like, they're not doing day/night cycle. Much as it feels like a personal insult, largely because BG2 had it, it's likely not. (And there is some merit to the DAII day/night toggle. Even in Witcher 2, you could just, improbably, wake someone up if you needed them. They didn't even yell, "oh my goodness, I'm in my pyjamas.")

Although I know I'm an overemotional gamer, at least I try to challenge it. (Edit: Which is not saying you don't. You sound insightful.)

Modifié par Firky, 09 octobre 2011 - 12:24 .

[mousestalker]

I don't see any of the Bioware games as being made for kids. Neither of the main game consoles as well as nor any PC's are especially suited for hoofed creatures. Not even adult goats can play these games.

[Il Divo]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Zanallen wrote...
Just because you don't understand or refuse to acknowledge the benefits of unique companion looks doesn't mean there aren't any.

If I hadn't stopped foaming in the mouth by now, my response would have started with something different. But now I'm nice again.
There has never been stated any tangible benefits. Stanley Woo have previously tried to "explain" this to me but all he has to say in the end only amounts to: "the kind of communication and presentation that companies aim for in their products."
Which is exactly the same I've always said and always known: Just marketing religion!
Religion in the sense that it's not based on realities, but just superstitious mind figments and priesthood dogma. Beliefs.

It brings nothing to the game. Nothing to gameplay. It only removes. And iconic looks is somewhat on topic here because the actual iconic looks they will be trying to sell, and are trying to sell, Isabela, Fenris, Flemeth,.. are also targeted at pre-teens and early teens.

I found this rather interesting. It's good to know that George Lucas had pre-teens in mind when he created Han Solo and Darth Vader.

Modifié par Il Divo, 09 octobre 2011 - 03:13 .

[Pygmali0n]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Point being... if this didn't reassure you that Laidlaw is taking notes of what was and is being said, then maybe you may want to assess exactly what you'd like to hear. Because unless it is something specific or directed to you personally, I think this is far and away the best you are going to get, not just from Bioware, but from any company, ever.

That's misrepresenting what I mean. You can say that I've misinterpreted something, but it's not my ego at play here. Doesn't make sense, why set myself up on a board which I've already acknowledged is more populated by the rump of DA fans who like no.2. I didn't make my points seriously in that post, nonetheless I see them as true and they should be taken seriously.
 
I don't expect a response to me personally. But if you're going to use a large customer satisfaction/marketing/pr tool like these forums, the flip side is that you ought to deal with questions you don't like when they come from a large area of consensus and you see them repeated over and over again.

Mr Laidlaw went for the easy targets. The obvious things which led to sloppiness:

'Issues like level re-use, the implementation of wave combat, concerns about the narrative and significance of choice'

And that's all we got, an indirect admission that the game was rushed. Worryingly we also got this:

'I think that DA II moved us into a space that has more potential'

And that leads us back to:

bEVEsthda wrote...

In my estimate, Bioware had something really huge by the tail, with DA:Origins. Had DA2 been a reasonable sequel to Origins, the franchise would have grown substantially.

You stay your coarse, when you're on to something good. That's how you make it big.

Why did Dragon Age suddenly need to be re-aimed for children? (pre-teen and early teens are children)
Did Origins fail in the market? No. On the contrary.
Would the changes result in a bigger potential market? That seem to have been the clueless expectation.

And I've said it here before on this thread and am glad to hear it echoed:

bEVEsthda wrote...

But really, if you look at this from a thinking perspective, it's easy to see that the knowledge is that teens usually like what grown-ups like. But the opposite is definitely not true.

Modifié par Pygmali0n, 09 octobre 2011 - 04:06 .

[TEWR]

The point was that the change to DA's style was said to be done to make it more unique. It accomplishes the exact opposite. Coming from Final Fantasy and being breast fed on spikes, feather adournements, horns and antlers, fluffy hairdos, you might be somewhat blind to this, but check out recent and upcoming Fantasy RPGs. They all look like DA2. DA2's style is ultra-cliché.

To be fair, DAO already had creatures with horns on their heads and it was the developers' original intent for Kossith to have horns. That shouldn't be an issue.

Feathers also shouldn't be an issue considering DAO also had them.

Can't comment on fluffy hair.

This is something that angers me about the forums. What people claim to be bad about DAII was something that in most cases was already present in DAO.

[Blastback]

Stanley Woo wrote...

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?

Pompoms gosh darnit.  And would it hurt you guys to do a pyramid every once in a while?

[Fast Jimmy]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

This is something that angers me about the forums. What people claim to be bad about DAII was something that in most cases was already present in DAO.

I think the issue people have with DA2's art style is the same with exploding bodies gore... sure, you'd see it in DAO, but the sheer quantity and extremeness of it in DA2 was overwhelming.

[alex90c]

To be fair, DAO already had creatures with horns on their heads and it
was the developers' original intent for Kossith to have horns. That
shouldn't be an issue.

Feathers also shouldn't be an issue considering DAO also had them.

Can't comment on fluffy hair.

This
is something that angers me about the forums. What people claim to be
bad about DAII was something that in most cases was already present in
DAO.

I thought the general art style in DA:O just seemed to be a bit more "grounded". Sure, when I first got the game I was pretty new to the genre so I didn't think much of it, but now ten months later where I've seen (not necessarily bought, might have just looked at screenshots) plenty of other RPGs, DA:O's art style just seems to be the odd one out (in a good sense, I mean that it is more original) among all the other RPGs I've seen with spikes galore, chainmail bikinis and all the rest of the typical fantasy stuff.

Then DA2 comes along and rather than sticking to this, it decides to gravitate more towards the typical fantasy stuff which I've already seen a million times now.

Modifié par alex90c, 09 octobre 2011 - 04:16 .

[Pygmali0n]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The point was that the change to DA's style was said to be done to make it more unique. It accomplishes the exact opposite. Coming from Final Fantasy and being breast fed on spikes, feather adournements, horns and antlers, fluffy hairdos, you might be somewhat blind to this, but check out recent and upcoming Fantasy RPGs. They all look like DA2. DA2's style is ultra-cliché.

To be fair, DAO already had creatures with horns on their heads and it was the developers' original intent for Kossith to have horns. That shouldn't be an issue.

Feathers also shouldn't be an issue considering DAO also had them.

Can't comment on fluffy hair.

This is something that angers me about the forums. What people claim to be bad about DAII was something that in most cases was already present in DAO.

I agree that it's not the strongest ground to fight on. Bevesthda may have a kernel of truth but in this area attack them on their weakest point - FF Fenris. Unique looks are a good idea in principle, more realism in the execution would be appreciated. Even fantasy worlds ought to have rules.

[TEWR]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

This is something that angers me about the forums. What people claim to be bad about DAII was something that in most cases was already present in DAO.

I think the issue people have with DA2's art style is the same with exploding bodies gore... sure, you'd see it in DAO, but the sheer quantity and extremeness of it in DA2 was overwhelming.

That's what I think too, but it still bothers me because -- at least this is how I see it -- you can't be bothered by what's in one game without also being bothered by it being present in the first game. And for many people they are only bothered by it being in DAII and act like DAII was the first in the series to do this.

But how many feathered suits did the player see in both DAII and DAO? I'm willing to bet it's the same number. Hell Anders made his first appearance in a feathered mage robe. Most mage robes in DAII weren't feathered.

I'm not sure though how the redesigned look of the Kossith to look more like the devs original design is an issue for people.

And while exploding bodies have been mentioned, that should only ever happen for a few scenarios:

1) Crushing Prison (I'm assuming it makes the Ogre explode. Haven't yet seen it in action)
2) Enemy is frozen solid and then Stonefist is used
3) Walking Bomb (especially considering Morrigan in Sacred Ashes made a Hurlock explode by using Walking Bomb)

and so on and so forth. But I'd like to see my idea for class Specific Executions be used. Because having a mage have 5 different execution styles dependant on the element of the staff would be glorious.

[Fast Jimmy]

Pygmali0n wrote...

That's misrepresenting what I mean. You can say that I've misinterpreted something, but it's not my ego at play here. Doesn't make sense, why set myself up on a board which I've already acknowledged is more populated by the rump of DA fans who like no.2. I didn't make my points seriously in that post, nonetheless I see them as true and they should be taken seriously.
 
I don't expect a response to me personally. But if you're going to use a large customer satisfaction/marketing/pr tool like these forums, the flip side is that you ought to deal with questions you don't like when they come from a large area of consensus and you see them repeated over and over again.

Mr Laidlaw went for the easy targets. The obvious things which led to sloppiness:

'Issues like level re-use, the implementation of wave combat, concerns about the narrative and significance of choice'

And that's all we got, an indirect admission that the game was rushed. Worryingly we also got this:

'I think that DA II moved us into a space that has more potential'

I apologize. I didn't mean to imply it was in fact your ego at play, although looking back at my original post, I can easily see how it sounded that way. I was intending to suggest that getting Laidlaw on the forums for a particular thread (which has been known to happen occassionaly) may be what you are looking for. However, even if that is the case, I don't expect to have much more of an admit of fault of sorts than what you linked to.

Laidlaw did grab some low hanging fruit in the DA2 issues department with level re-use and waves, but he also addressed narrative and choice, two things which were the crux of my problem with DA2. I can ignore poor gameplay mechanics if the story sucks me in. Heck, dungeon crawlers of the 80's and 90's had VERY garbage mechanics at times, but it still sucked you in to see how the story developed (i.e., the Ultima series, which was cutting edge in dealing with approaching moral dilemmas). Besides, Laidlaw targeted wave combat and level design because they were being actively addressed in the (at the time) upcoming DLC. So yes, he may have been selling, but if you can find someone in a high position of a company who doesn't try to sell their own product, then they won't be in that position long.

I have no doubt that Bioware has a list as long as these forum posts of things that need to be improved if there is going to be a future for the Dragon Age series. For them to list every single one of these, especially before they have a fix in the near future to demonstrate, would not be likely (although I know that is now what you meant). But I can guarantee you the art style is on that list. While Laidlaw and company may be saying that the art style is here to stay (and judging by the monster size of the "key" weapon in Legacy, it appears it is) I  hope that they will recognize this art style as sometimes ugly, most of the time juvenile and all the time not for me. 

That is, after all, what I've been saying in this thread for the better part of two days now, at least.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 09 octobre 2011 - 04:42 .

[xkg]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
1) Crushing Prison (I'm assuming it makes the Ogre explode. Haven't yet seen it in action)

On Ogre http://www.youtube.c...iU6b3BxU#t=155s
On Human

Modifié par xkg, 09 octobre 2011 - 04:33 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Morroian wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

In my estimate, Bioware had something really huge by the tail, with DA:Origins. Had DA2 been a reasonable sequel to Origins, the franchise would have grown substantially. 

I disagree, IMHO its likely that the console market would have dropped off just for example. 

I do not see how in a million years mirroring the style of a game designed for PC but was so well received it was ported to consoles would hurt the console market. Obviously people who played consoles enjoyed it enough to demand these ports were done. To stay in the same theme of that game couldn't possibly LESSEN console players. Demand for the original game CREATED the console presence.

[Fast Jimmy]

Il Divo wrote...

I found this rather interesting. It's good to know that George Lucas had pre-teens in mind when he created Han Solo and Darth Vader.

I'll let you get away with Vader, because he wears the same costume the entire original saga.

But Han Solo? Come on. 

The guy wears about three different costumes in each movie. Sure, you have the generic one he is seen wearing in the Mos Eisley (sp?) bar, but he also wears the furry get up on Hoth, the Imperial disguise on the Death Star, the rebel suit... yet, SOMEHOW, we are able to actually determine that it is him. We must all be miracle genius babies because he didn't wear the exact same articles of clothing the entire trilogy.

The same could be said of Luke, Leia and Lando.

Don't use Star Wars as an argument for sensible marketing strategies, either. ITS A TRAP!

[TEWR]

alex90c wrote...

To be fair, DAO already had creatures with horns on their heads and it
was the developers' original intent for Kossith to have horns. That
shouldn't be an issue.

Feathers also shouldn't be an issue considering DAO also had them.

Can't comment on fluffy hair.

This
is something that angers me about the forums. What people claim to be
bad about DAII was something that in most cases was already present in
DAO.

I thought the general art style in DA:O just seemed to be a bit more "grounded". Sure, when I first got the game I was pretty new to the genre so I didn't think much of it, but now ten months later where I've seen (not necessarily bought, might have just looked at screenshots) plenty of other RPGs, DA:O's art style just seems to be the odd one out (in a good sense, I mean that it is more original) among all the other RPGs I've seen with spikes galore, chainmail bikinis and all the rest of the typical fantasy stuff.

Then DA2 comes along and rather than sticking to this, it decides to gravitate more towards the typical fantasy stuff which I've already seen a million times now.

I was kinda in the same boat as you. DAO was my first cRPG that I've played, but prior to that I had played plenty of JRPGs. But it seems to me that JRPGs are now moving towards more realistic armor for their characters.



....I need to go back and play Final Fantasy XII. That was a great game. I really loved how you could fight airborne enemies only with bows, guns, certain technicks, and magic. It added a lot of realism to the battles.

Side note: why I love the Final Fantasy games is due in large part to the fact that it mixes the archaic with the modern in a very successful way (IMO)

Pygmali0n wrote...

I agree that it's not the strongest ground to fight on. Bevesthda may have a kernel of truth but in this area attack them on their weakest point - FF Fenris. Unique looks are a good idea in principle, more realism in the execution would be appreciated. Even fantasy worlds ought to have rules.

I didn't really see anything wrong with Fenris' look. The only thing that really presented an issue were the spiked pauldrons, but that's a minor issue for me because the rest of what he's wearing is actually very realistic looking armor.

[Pygmali0n]

Arms, legs, groin, stomach, neck and head exposed. Brown silks can turn blades of grass but little else.

[xkg]

Speaking about the "cool" stuff. Just look at Fenris' sword lol. Looks more like a staff.

[TEWR]

the neck, legs, and head of many people in Dragon Age is exposed in battle. Teyrna Eleanor had this problem. Daveth had this problem. And others.

Though there was definitely one different thing to this: they could be equipped with other armor. And Bioware has said that they're going to work on a way to equip companions with armor that would also hopefully add a significant visual difference without getting rid of the unique body types. But even if the visual difference isn't seen, I'll be content to know that I've equipped them with better armor.

[alex90c]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

the neck, legs, and head of many people in Dragon Age is exposed in battle. Teyrna Eleanor had this problem. Daveth had this problem. And others.

Though there was definitely one different thing to this: they could be equipped with other armor. And Bioware has said that they're going to work on a way to equip companions with armor that would also hopefully add a significant visual difference without getting rid of the unique body types. But even if the visual difference isn't seen, I'll be content to know that I've equipped them with better armor.

What I don't understand is why Fenris has all of that ... well whatever it is and then a random block of metal strapped to his chest. 

[Fiery Knight]

xkg wrote...

Speaking about the "cool" stuff. Just look at Fenris' sword lol. Looks more like a staff.

What sword is that even? I would really wanna get that one.

[TEWR]

It might be a maul or a battleaxe

What I don't understand is why Fenris has all of that ... well whatever it is and then a random block of metal strapped to his chest. 

The chest and the head are the places that need the most protection, so having a metal plate over the chest is normal. He is a former slave, so I doubt appropriate armor was something he could acquire (plus Danarius and Hadriana were pricks).

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 09 octobre 2011 - 05:40 .