299 réponses à ce sujet

[spiritofretribution]

EA ordered Muzyka and Zeschuk to say that.

It is just EA trying not to look as evil as they are.

[Joy Divison]

@Lord Aesir - I am not denying DA2 has fans who are happy with the game and think it is better than Origins. My point is the reason more than twice as people gave negative feedback as positive feedback for DA2 is because Bioware made a conscious attempt to cater to what they felt was a modern audience who played action-oriented games. So instead of questions like "What can we do to make this better?" the developers were asking "What can we do to appeal to the people who play CoD?" And, yes, that led to fundamental issues with the game. There is more preventing DA2 from being a first-rate game that would be remembered in 5 or 10 years than because it recycles environments or that ACT III was rushed.

You seem hung up on the fact that unless a company makes a conscious attempt to expand its audience, it can not do so. This is false. A company expands its market by offering quality products that customers will purchase because its utilitarian or entertainment value is greater than the amount of money they are willing to spend. There are indeed examples of companies successfully targeting new audiences, but they do so by not abandoning their trademarks. Take Mcdonalds. It now recognizes the average consumer is more knowledgable about the unhealthy crap it puts in its product, so it now markets its salads on TV commercials. But they have NOT changed the recipe for its french fries!

There is a reason the word "sell-out" has such a negative connotation in arts and entrainment, it's because conscious attempts to expand a product's appeal have invariably resulted in water-downed mediocre crap that does not measure up to established standards. Apparently it's a big secret that they key to success in such a medium is NOT to sell-out.

This does not mean that film, music, or games shouldn't change. On the contrary, they should. That change should not be dictated by what Bioware's marketers think a demographic who doesn't want to play Dragon Age in the first place wants, rather it should be dictated by what the designers would feel would make for a quality game. Kind of how Origins was made. Or any of the other seminal titles in other genres like Civilization or Command and Conquer.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 08 octobre 2011 - 07:58 .

[Heimdall]

Joy Divison wrote...

@Lord Aesir - I am not denying DA2 has fans who are happy with the game and think it is better than Origins. My point is the reason more than twice as people gave negative feedback as positive feedback for DA2 is because Bioware made a conscious attempt to cater to what they felt was a modern audience who played action-oriented games. So instead of questions like "What can we do to make this better?" the developers were asking "What can we do to appeal to the people who play CoD?" And, yes, that led to fundamental issues with the game. There is more preventing DA2 from being a first-rate game that would be remembered in 5 or 10 years than because it recycles environments or that ACT III was rushed.

You seem hung up on the fact that unless a company makes a conscious attempt to expand its audience, it can not do so. This is false. A company expands its market by offering quality products that customers will purchase because its utilitarian or entertainment value is greater than the amount of money they are willing to spend. There are indeed examples of companies successfully targeting new audiences, but they do so by not abandoning their trademarks. Take Mcdonalds. It now recognizes the average consumer is more knowledge about the unhealthy crap it puts in its product, so it now markets its salads on TV commercials. But they have NOT changed the recipe for its french fries!

There is a reason the word "sell-out" has such a negative connotation in arts and entrainment, it's because conscious attempts to expand a product's appeal have invariably resulted in water-downed mediocre crap that does not measure up to established standards. Apparently it's a big secret that they key to success in such a medium is NOT to sell-out.

This does not mean that film, music, or games shouldn't change. On the contrary, they should. That change should not be dictated by what Bioware's marketers think a demographic who doesn't want to play Dragon Age in the first place wants, rather it should be dictated by what the designers would feel would make for a quality game. Kind of how Origins was made. Or any of the other seminal titles in other genres like Civilization or Command and Conquer.

My disagreement is on how many people you seem to think hate it.  In my experience it is not so extreme and I definitely stil don't take Metacritic user reviews as good indicators.  It's not even just those who believe it was a step up from Origins.  I don't count myself in that number.  There are good number of people, like me, who believe Origins was better, but still enjoy DA2.  And we don't want to see what we liked about it go away so quickly as fans like you would like.  We did not have the fundamental issues with it that you did.

You see, I don't see DA2 as nothing but an attempt to cater to CoD players as you seem to.  I see it as an attempt to create a new type of RPG, an experiment, an attempt to cross genres.  Rather like they did in the wildly successful ME franchise.  Right there is precedant that it can work, right in Bioware's hands.  So they tried to create it and it didn't quite go as they had hoped.  In other words, they have done the same thing before, and it worked, extremely well in fact.  The term "sell-out" is already negative by definition, so what you said there is a bit redundant.  I don't think DA2 was "mediocre crap".

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 08 octobre 2011 - 06:31 .

[seraphymon]

Quite honestly the only site i see being polarised is on this bioware forum site. On virtually every other site or youtube vids that even mention DA2, it gets slammed hard by negative reviews or comments, by regular users. Thats who i believe when concerns are brought up. Wether they are good or bad. As i also dont buy into proffesional reviews, as it is all BS. Biggest case being DA2-Legacy DLC. DA2 was praised while the legacy dlc wasnt near as high, yet for user or the real fanbase, it was the complete opposite.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Lord Aesir wrote...

You see, I don't see DA2 as nothing but an attempt to cater to CoD players as you seem to.  I see it as an attempt to create a new type of RPG, an experiment, an attempt to cross genres.  Rather like they did in the wildly successful ME franchise.  Right there is precedant that it can work, right in Bioware's hands.  So they tried to create it and it didn't quite go as they had hoped.  In other words, they have done the same thing before, and it worked, extremely well in fact.  The term "sell-out" is already negative by definition, so what you said there is a bit redundant.  I don't think DA2 was "mediocre crap".

The changes made from ME1 to ME2 are hardly comparable to whatever happened with DA2. Mass Effect already was a third-person shooter with RPG elements running on the Unreal engine, so they looked at the obvious example that was Gears of War and did the combat right on their second try.

The thing with Dragon Age is that it didn't need to change as much as they did, because it pretty much already was its entire market. It knew exactly what it was, what crowd it catered to and what niche it filled. Now, if the first game was unsuccesful I would understand the changes made, but Origins was both critically and commercially acclaimed. When that is the case with the first entry in a series, surely you are doing something right; what any normal developer would do at this is point is keep doing just that. And with that, I mean keeping the engine and most everything built around it the exact same: just create a new setting and story, keep the gameplay design as it was (perhaps with a twist or two), add a couple of new specialisations and lastly some new skills for the already existing ones.

You don't radically overhaul an entire franchise for no good reason when you're doing something right. To stay with the Gears of War example; whether you like it or not, you can't deny that it's a quality product and that they manage to give their fans what they want and also expect. Same goes for most other popular shooters (and pretty much every other franchise), such as Halo and Call of Duty; overall the core gameplay stays the same over the years, but enough new stuff is added to keep it fresh.

Now, changing everything while working with a tight deadline is taking it to a whole new level...

[Heimdall]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

You see, I don't see DA2 as nothing but an attempt to cater to CoD players as you seem to.  I see it as an attempt to create a new type of RPG, an experiment, an attempt to cross genres.  Rather like they did in the wildly successful ME franchise.  Right there is precedant that it can work, right in Bioware's hands.  So they tried to create it and it didn't quite go as they had hoped.  In other words, they have done the same thing before, and it worked, extremely well in fact.  The term "sell-out" is already negative by definition, so what you said there is a bit redundant.  I don't think DA2 was "mediocre crap".

The changes made from ME1 to ME2 are hardly comparable to whatever happened with DA2. Mass Effect already was a third-person shooter with RPG elements running on the Unreal engine, so they looked at the obvious example that was Gears of War and did the combat right on their second try.

The thing with Dragon Age is that it didn't need to change as much as they did, because it pretty much already was its entire market. It knew exactly what it was, what crowd it catered to and what niche it filled. Now, if the first game was unsuccesful I would understand the changes made, but Origins was both critically and commercially acclaimed. When that is the case with the first entry in a series, surely you are doing something right; what any normal developer would do at this is point is keep doing just that. And with that, I mean keeping the engine and most everything built around it the exact same: just create a new setting and story, keep the gameplay design as it was (perhaps with a twist or two), add a couple of new specialisations and lastly some new skills for the already existing ones.

You don't radically overhaul an entire franchise for no good reason when you're doing something right. To stay with the Gears of War example; whether you like it or not, you can't deny that it's a quality product and that they manage to give their fans what they want and also expect. Same goes for most other popular shooters (and pretty much every other franchise), such as Halo and Call of Duty; overall the core gameplay stays the same over the years, but enough new stuff is added to keep it fresh.

Now, changing everything while working with a tight deadline is taking it to a whole new level...

  I was using it as an example of effective cross genre work, not alterations between sequels.  I'm aware it wasn't the same in that regard.

[Joy Divison]

Lord Aesir wrote...

My disagreement is on how many people you seem to think hate it.  In my experience it is not so extreme...

What experience is this?  Your roommate and brother-in-law?  What market research have you conducted that is somehow more valid than the over 1,000 entries on metacritic?  You don't like metacritic?  Fine, look at Amazon's.

www.amazon.com/Dragon-Age-2-Pc/dp/B0047THYWC/ref=sr_1_3

That is the very definition of mediocrity.

Bioware needs to know they put forth a mediocre product which was a critical, commerical, and artistic disappointment in unambiguous language.  As long as I see advertisements on their webpage citing 9/10 reviews and Bioware employees claiming the reason for fan disapproval because of our expectations - like it is our fault for not liking the changes they made to a game titled "Dragon Age" - that tells me they have not accepted this message yet.

I wouldn't say DA2 was nothing but an attempt to cater to CoD players, but the devs themselves admitted that they wanted to capture this market.  I am saying it was too much of an attempt to cater to CoD players.  Mass Effect works because it was always a FPS with RPG elements thrown in.  It did not establish itself as one thing and then try to do something else.  If Bioware wanted to marry action and RPG, it should have (and do) so with an new project where they have the freedom to implement anything they deem will work and not be beholden to vestiges of a previous title, fanbase expectations, etc., rather than trying to fit the round peg that was the RPG Dragon Age into the round hole of an action-game.

You're right in that mediocre crap may be too harsh, though I don't recall specifically calling DA2 as such (I did say that results to pander to larger auidences invariable result in medicore crap).  DA2 is utterly ordinary, failed to distinguish itself from the crowd, failed to meet expectations, and ultimately represented a step backwards from its predecessor.  Watch the trailor where Hawke battles the Arishok and then experience the kite-fest bore which is DA2's gameplay for this.  How is that anything worth preserving?

Modifié par Joy Divison, 08 octobre 2011 - 07:54 .

[Zjarcal]

Joy Divison wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

My disagreement is on how many people you seem to think hate it.  In my experience it is not so extreme...

What experience is this?  Your roommate and brother-in-law?  What market research have you conducted that is somehow more valid than the over 1,000 entries on metacritic?  You don't like metacritic?  Fine, look at Amazon's.

www.amazon.com/Dragon-Age-2-Pc/dp/B0047THYWC/ref=sr_1_3

That is the very definition of mediocrity.

242 customer reviews define mediocrity?

[Joy Divison]

Zjarcal wrote...

242 customer reviews define mediocrity?

When they are distributed like this:

5 star: 37
4 star: 50
3 star: 53
2 star: 54
1 star: 48

Yes, that is mediocrity. 

[billy the squid]

Zjarcal wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

My disagreement is on how many people you seem to think hate it.  In my experience it is not so extreme...

What experience is this?  Your roommate and brother-in-law?  What market research have you conducted that is somehow more valid than the over 1,000 entries on metacritic?  You don't like metacritic?  Fine, look at Amazon's.

www.amazon.com/Dragon-Age-2-Pc/dp/B0047THYWC/ref=sr_1_3

That is the very definition of mediocrity.

242 customer reviews define mediocrity?

No, but Bioware's own interview statements do give the impression that it was considered mediocre by a lot of people. If it has reached a point where a publicly listed company has to state that the reaction they recieved in response to a product was unexpected, defend the product after it is being roundly criticised, lost fans and made mistakes, then something has gone wrong and it has not gone down as well has they had expected it to.

I wouldn't take Amazon or Metacritic as a gospel truth of the reception, but it remains indicative that the game was not well recieved by a large portion of players.

Modifié par billy the squid, 08 octobre 2011 - 08:15 .

[TheRealJayDee]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

You don't radically overhaul an entire franchise for no good reason when you're doing something right.

Yes!

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Now, changing everything while working with a tight deadline is taking it to a whole new level...

Yes...

[Mr.House]

DA2 really does not feel that different to me minus the faster combat and some over the top animation. That's hardly the same as say stripping the whole inventory system and coverhaul of the powers system that happen in ME2.

Modifié par Mr.House, 08 octobre 2011 - 08:39 .

[BLunted]

Ramus Quaritch wrote...

According to this interview.

I don't buy it. I have a hard time believing that Bioware would have made Dagon Age 2 as crappy as it was if they were not being pressured by EA.

To me, this article just seemed like an attempt at damage control/spin before the old republic came out.

[Morroian]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

You don't radically overhaul an entire franchise for no good reason when you're doing something right.

Yes!

Not everything was right, the console port of DAO was poor, and going by dev statements throughout development they felt the design and gameplay was not something that would hold up in the long term.

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Now, changing everything while working with a tight deadline is taking it to a whole new level...

Yes...

I agree with that.

[Stanley Woo]

Hey Joy Division, Lord Aesir, I think it's time you two took a breather and returned to your respective corners. Give each other (and the thread) a break for a little while. Thank you.

[Zjarcal]

Joy Divison wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...

242 customer reviews define mediocrity?

When they are distributed like this:

5 star: 37
4 star: 50
3 star: 53
2 star: 54
1 star: 48

Yes, that is mediocrity. 

Missing the point, which is that a sample of 242 users does not DEFINE what a fanbase thinks of something. Neither does 1000 reviews on Metacritic, since both those numbers don't even represent 1% of the amount of people who bought DA2.

And no, I'm not saying that those numbers would radically change if you acquired a larger sample (though at the same time you can't say that they wouldn't), but the point is that if you're going to present facts, present weighty facts.

billy the squid wrote...

I wouldn't take Amazon or Metacritic as a gospel truth of the reception, but it remains indicative that the game was not well recieved by a large portion of players.

I most certainly agree, the game wasn't received in a good way by many people. But one should never use Amazon or Metacritic reviews as "proof" of the overall opinion of a fanbase, when those samples are miniscule in size (and yes I know that you're not the one using it as proof).

Modifié par Zjarcal, 08 octobre 2011 - 10:04 .

[The Executioner]

If they had spent another 6 months on the game and kept the level of depth and customization that Origins had, we probably wouldn't be haveing this arguement.

[Joy Divison]

Zjarcal wrote...

...if you're going to present facts, present weighty facts.

What are your "weighty facts"?

[Playest]

 So a Dev reply on this is too much to hope for?

[Zanallen]

Playest wrote...

 So a Dev reply on this is too much to hope for?

What do you want them to reply to? EA doesn't tell them what to do because Bioware is EA. And even then, telling them when to have it done by isn't telling them what to do.

[In Exile]

I love this thread. It's hilarious. Nothing tops apocalyptic language, except maybe when it's about a flopped video game. It's like everyone suddenly forgot gaming is a hobby.  

Some particularly good gems in the last two pages alone:

Joy Divison wrote...
No they shouldn't.  Whenever companies/artists' motivation is to "strive for new fans" rather than producing quality products the result sucks.  That's the very definition of a sell out.

With all the business acumen being displayed on this board, no wonder why the economy is tanked.

Terror_K wrote...
 I used to consider BioWare artists, but now they're just peddlers. It's hurting the company, and I'm complaining not so much due to hate, but due to love. Or former love. BioWare used to be a company I loved and respected that made games I loved and considered works of art. No longer it seems, and that's sad. It's sad to see them falling into the same trap. I'm just trying to let them know, but they don't seem to want to hear it. I guess the millions of yells of the mainstream gamer has drowned out the few who got them where they are today.

[Terror_K]

Morroian wrote...

Not everything was right, the console port of DAO was poor, and going by dev statements throughout development they felt the design and gameplay was not something that would hold up in the long term.

So, as usual, the PC version has to suffer in the process and become just another watered-down port due to the console being the lead platform(s) for the sequel. Dragon Age was never intended to be a console game at all for the longest time; that didn't happen until EA took over the reins and decided to create some console ports in the last year or so of development. The message here from BioWare is "it's okay for the PC version to suffer, but not okay for the console one to."

[ElitePinecone]

Terror_K wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Not everything was right, the console port of DAO was poor, and going by dev statements throughout development they felt the design and gameplay was not something that would hold up in the long term.

So, as usual, the PC version has to suffer in the process and become just another watered-down port due to the console being the lead platform(s) for the sequel. Dragon Age was never intended to be a console game at all for the longest time; that didn't happen until EA took over the reins and decided to create some console ports in the last year or so of development. The message here from BioWare is "it's okay for the PC version to suffer, but not okay for the console one to."

That's business. It might suck, sure, but it's business. 

Unless the PC market suddens quadruples, not many developers are going to prioritise it.

Some of the decisions for the PC version of DA2, like removing the isometric camera, might've been a terrible idea, Not releasing a toolkit without a proper explanation isn't going to win many hearts. But Bioware has no obligations to anybody. If they go for a particular audience that's their perogative. 

Was the design and development of DA2 less than successful? Probably. Was it a personal attack on you, or on PC Gamers? No. Stop pretending that a business decision is a betrayal - Bioware don't owe you anything, and you aren't obligated to buy their games if you don't want to. 

[Terror_K]

ElitePinecone wrote...

That's business. It might suck, sure, but it's business. 

Unless the PC market suddens quadruples, not many developers are going to prioritise it.

Some of the decisions for the PC version of DA2, like removing the isometric camera, might've been a terrible idea, Not releasing a toolkit without a proper explanation isn't going to win many hearts. But Bioware has no obligations to anybody. If they go for a particular audience that's their perogative. 

Was the design and development of DA2 less than successful? Probably. Was it a personal attack on you, or on PC Gamers? No. Stop pretending that a business decision is a betrayal - Bioware don't owe you anything, and you aren't obligated to buy their games if you don't want to. 

So it's good business to annoy your existing fans and customers and make them feel unwanted and betrayed?

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that BioWare should be praised and worshipped for turning their backs on their old fans and for completely messing up one of their IPs and turning it into something completely different than how it was set up. While I'm bowing and scraping to them and buying their future games like a sheep, I should apologise to George Lucas I suppose as well.

Again, what's the point in creating an IP or setting out to create a particular series if you can't even remain consistent and true to the formula? How can anybody be a fan of anything if it lacks identity and is consistently well defined? People become fans of something because of what it is, not because it lacks identity and shifts and warps all the time. What's the point in becoming a fan of Dragon Age when it starts off as an epic fantasy RPG then becomes a cheap console hack'n'slash affair the next moment and then becomes an iPhone puzzle platform game with anime graphics the next? Whether its Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Jade Empire or whatever it is they're making, their series should remain true to itself and what it was supposed to be.

Also, if anything is harming the PC market today it's the way developers and publishers are treating it: cheap ports, few exclusives or games truly made for the platform, draconian DRM with the need of constant internet connections, limited activations and forced registration, etc., forced services like Games for Windows LIVE, delayed releases, lack of advertising and sometimes lack of a Collectors Edition, etc. The publishers themselves are the ones holding it back, and only a few rare exceptions like Valve aren't (and funnily enough, the PC version of Portal 2 apparently slaughtered the console sales).

Modifié par Terror_K, 09 octobre 2011 - 07:37 .