18 réponses à ce sujet

[Everwarden]

Hello children. Today I'd like you to put on your imagination hats. Have your imagination hat on? Good. (Slow children are allowed to skip to the end paragraph)

Now, imagine a nice, shiny Taco Bell. You enjoy coming to Taco Bell often to partake in much delicious taco goodness. Today you're planning to buy two supreme tacos and a double-decker with the delicious fake cheese slathered on. You enter the Taco Bell and approach the counter, trying to ignore the sticky mass of.. something.. that you step in on the way to the counter. 

A dead-eyed, borderline psychotic looking Taco Bell employee grunts at you from behind the counter, indicating that you are to order now. You order your usual, and in a mere two minutes the award winning Taco Bell staff prepares you a fine meal. You take your lunch to a nearby table and pause for a moment to inhale the fumes of delicious taco aroma that waft out of the bag.

You open the bag, and to your horror there are no tacos in the bag at all! No burritos, no gorditas, not even an enchirito! Instead, there is a mass of tortillas forced rather awkwardly into the shape of a hamburger bun, topped with a slab of taco meat shaped roughly like a hamburger patty and two gallons of fire sauce. 

Confused, you stroll back over to the register and point out to the dead-eyed potential serial killer who takes orders that this isn't even remotely close to what you wanted. The dead-eyed employee stares back, confused, and fetches the manager.

The manager approaches, nose in the air. 
"Is there a problem with your order, sir/madam?" Asks the manager in a tone that suggests that he would much rather be off watching Two and a Half Men reruns in his 'back office' (an out-of-order bathroom stall) than dealing with an unreasonable customer.

"Er.. yes, just a small one." You timidly reply. "You see, I ordered tacos."
"Yes? And?" Says the manager, motioning to the taco-burger hybrid monstrosity on the counter.
"Well, that's not a taco." You say. "And it has two gallons of fire sauce on it. I mean, I like fire sauce, but too much is too much."
"Fire sauce is -AWESOME-! So more of it equals -MORE- awesome!" The manager exclaims, then continues, "We're trying to broaden our appeal by making a meal that both burger -and- taco lovers can enjoy." The manager grumbles. "That bastard Ronald McDonald boasts trillions and trillions of burgers served, we want in on that burger action!" 
"But you're.. Taco Bell." You reply in a confused voice. "You sell tacos." 
"You just hate change." The manager says, crossing his arms and huffing angrily. "If tacos are going to survive as a fast food, we need to evolve out of this narrow-minded anti-burger mentality. Making pure tacos these days is just a recipe to go bankrupt. Do you know what it costs to make a taco these days?!"
"But.." You reply, brain aching. "..McDonald's isn't the -only- burger chain. It's just the largest. Burger places are a dime-a-dozen, and the competition is steep. Why not stick to what you do well?"
The manager continues to stare blankly. 

There is a long pause. After a moment of reflection, you facepalm. 
"Can I just get a refund, please?" You ask in an exhausted tone.
"No." Says the manager. "But I'll be sure to send the higher-ups your feedback and let them know you don't approve of the changes."


TL;DR version: Bioware changing from what they do best to get the Call of Duty fanbase is a bit like Taco Bell making bad tacoburgers to get the McDonald's fanbase. Taco Bell does fine making tacos, and if they want to make a taco burger they should take their time and make a good one. Or else they risk losing their taco-loving fanbase. 

Modifié par Everwarden, 13 octobre 2011 - 01:06 .

[Stanley Woo]

Everwarden, while your analogy was entertaining to read, your basic premise is a little misguided. At no time did you "order" a game. Neither Dragon Age Origins nor Dragon Age II were developed based on anything you did or anything you, as an individual, requested. In fact, you're not even at a taco restaurant.

Instead, think of yourself at a buffet type restaurant. The restaurant has done a study of the kinds of food enjoyed by people in your area, in your state/province, in your part of the country. Up here in Edmonton, that would be standard North American far as well as Ukrainian food and Chinese food. The restaurant is trying to please the greatest number of people possible, but cannot possibly accommodate every individual's tastes or preferences.

If you love tacos and want tacos, well, there's always the chance that the buffet restaurant may not have them on the menu. They might have them on the menu tomorrow, but perhaps they don't have them on the night you go to eat. When taking your order, your server isn't asking you "what would you like to eat?" but "would you like to partake of our buffet?" because all the work has already been done to set up the buffet and it's just waiting for people to say "yes" or "no," There might be a special option (for an extra charge) to partake of the buffet plus all-you-can-eat crab legs. Super yummy! Again, however, the crab legs have already been prepared and are just waiting for you to say "yes, i want that" or "no, I don't want that." Your order of "I'd like my usual" will make no sense to the server if your usual is a cheesy gordita, 3 beef hard tacos and extra hot sauce. The server isn't there to serve you, per se, but to facilitate your purchase of the buffet.

Likewise, your individual ideas of what the buffet should serve is immaterial. you can suggest things the restaurant should offer in the future or tell the restaurant which foods you hate, but ultimately, it is up to the restaurant to determine what kinds of foods the majority of their diners would want based on market research, past history, and maybe comment cards, restaurant reviews and current trends in food.

[Stanley Woo]

Dang it, now I want tacos. Thanks a lot, thread!

[Stanley Woo]

Everwarden wrote...
Well, as a thinking human being I think anyone above the age of four should find this incredibly insulting: 

They're not only making a game they know their main fanbase isn't going to enjoy, but also insulting the action game fanbase (hell, I play action games, too) by assuming they'll take any drivel and eat it up. Further, they lied and pretended that Dragon Age 2 would have the same depth as Origins in their marketing, just with a fresh new graphical theme and narrative style. It's like they thought no one would notice that the game didn't actually meet any of the standards they set themselves. 

You're starting down the road of sensationlist hyperbole and insulting those who disagree with you, Everwarden. We can disagree with each other without belittling those with different tastes.

[Stanley Woo]

I kinda liked it. It was creative and gave us an interesting hook for the discussion.

[Stanley Woo]

RussianSpy27 wrote...

What happens when a buffet's customer base/cultural analysts make a mistake in thinking that for example new Ukrainian youth no longer like raw salty lard (pig fat) with a shot of vodka, but believe that they should be introduced to the North American popular regular bacon and a glass of Molson Dry?

They try it out and it turns out that many Ukrainians dislike the change of menu and wrote up negative reviews of it.  

Now what?

Then things change slightly. Perhaps the restaurant starts serving "lard-and-vodka" less often and replaces it on those days with bacon-and-beer. I mean, it's one thing to say that Ukrainian youths no longer like something. it's something entirely different (and far more compelling) if the restaurant ends up with entire tubs of lard-and-vodka left over at the end of the night.

But the restaurant isn't only serving youths. It serves families, seniors, couples and even has a "plumbers welcome" sign on the front door. That lard-and-vodka dish would have to be generally disliked by a bunch of those different folks before the restaurant spends time and effort in coming up with a new dish.

In the case of the Dragon AGe II "buffet restaurant," we have addressed some of the player/fanbase/community complaints in our DLC. Both Legacy and Mark of the Assassin were well received by our community, and many of the comments indicate that we are indeed succeeding in removing or toning down some of the things most talked about here in the forums. As much as some of the critics would like us to somehow take the lessons we've learned and go back to make the original Dragon AGe II release better, that would require time travel, which hasn't really been invented yet, no matter how often you see it on British television programmes.

[Stanley Woo]

KilrB wrote...
So, your "community" now only includes only those who liked DA2 and bought the dlc?

Nice to know where of us (now apparently) former members who didn't like DA2 and refuse to pay for more of it now stand ...

In this particular instance, since you have removed yourself from the group of people who have played Legacy and/or Mark of the Assassin and posted a review of it, yes, in this particular instance, when I say "well received by our community" I am excluding those who have not played and reviewed those things.

You are still part of the BioWare Social Network, you still have opinions and ideas regarding Dragon Age II, and you are part of the "community" when I discuss how Dragon Age II was received. But when I say something like "Dragon Age II was received okay by our community," I am not saying that each and every community member likes it okay. I am, in that case, averaging the totality of the discussions I have seen posted here and generalizing the sentiments I have seen posted by individuals.

If you wish to disagree with me, you are free to do so. This is a forum where we encourage people to share ideas. if, on the other hand, you wish to be disingenuous by taking what I say out of context to fuel your righteous indignation at a game you dislike, then I would encourage you to please try a different tactic. I prefer sincerity, just as I believe you would prefer it from me.

[Stanley Woo]

KilrB wrote...
You can't have it both ways Stan.

I can indeed have it both ways. I can generalize and average the opinions of Mark of the Assassin based on the feedback I see being posted in the MotA feedback thread. I can (and should be able to) sum up the general trend or tone of the average and apply the word "community" to it without having to append all my sentences involving "community" with "but some people disagree."

The disingenuousness that I refer to is you deliberately taking your interpretation of the word "community, which you have already decided will upset you, cramming it into my words to make it sound like I intend to upset you, and then, predictably, getting upset about it.

Are we, the BioWare customers and fans who didn't like DA2 and refuse to be taken for more money, part of the BioWare "community" or not?

It's simple ... YES or NO.

Yes, absolutely. Very yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. A million times yes.

I will counter with: Do you, as an individual, speak for and represent all of "the BioWare customers and fans who don't like DA2 and refuse to be taken for more money"?

It's simple... YES or NO.

Because if you do, then future conversations with you will be very simple and we'll be working under the same assumptions and definitions. If not--if even one of the people you purport to speak for doesn't totally agree with you--then you have the same problem you are accusing me of having: the accuracy of your every opinion will be called into question unless you specifically address the fact that you do not represent 100% of those who didn't like DA2 and didn't purchase the DLC.

It's not the best way to argue, because if you want to be upset by something, you'll always find a way to do it, so I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. i will always assume that they like something about the company or the game, and that their passion stems from some of their expectations not being met, rather than malice. I would hope that even the folks who disagree with me or don't like me will grant me the same courtesy.

[Stanley Woo]

Everwarden wrote...
Compare to Dragon Age II. You start out running, smashing enemies, and (SPOILERS, sort of) then you see two people you don't know or care about die. This is a scene that typifies Dragon Age 2 as a whole every well. This wasn't a mistake, or something forced through because of time constraints, this was a deliberate design choice because Bioware thinks that the mainstream is too stupid to handle something more intelligent.

That is -not- streamlining, that is dumbing down for the sake of appealing to a mass market, because the devs saw metrics that suggested a percentage of people didn't get past the Tower of Ishal.

Emphasis mine.

I will disagree with your reasoning there, as I don't think insulting those with different tastes in videogames is conducive to mature, civil, productive discussion of this topic. It is even less productive when you accuse others of thinking that way.

When it comes to deliberate design choices, there is a huge difference between "too stupid to handle something" and "prefer to not do something." Just as an example using an RPG game feature from way back, I am not "too stupid to handle" food and hunger mechanics in RPGs; however, I "prefer to not" be required to buy or hunt for food, and eat for fear of starvation. by the same token, I am not "too stupid to handle" complex rule systems in RPGs. Being a longtime pen-and-paper RPG player, I have played and run games with many different rule systems. But I "prefer to not" deal with too many rules.

"Streamlining" can be defined as removing some features that a certain class of players "prefer to not do." Many like to categorize themselves as the few, the proud, the elite while cursing the mainstream as "kiddie" or unsophisticated. This kind of classism doesn't make for constructive discussion, so let's please try to avoid it. Thank you.

[Stanley Woo]

Everwarden wrote...
I'm not being classist. I actually don't think the action fanbase -is- that stupid. I'm not calling anyone stupid here, I'm saying that Bioware's design philosophy is predicated upon the notion that fans want less choice/story, and more exploding enemies. I don't think that all that many 'prefer' exploding enemies and instant action in lieu of narrative and character development.

Acknowledged. Thank you for clarifying.

[Stanley Woo]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
But you do have a point about it not needing to be done by the player. Still, it would be nice to see it in cutscenes. All we've seen Hawke do is drink and drink and drink. Man's got an iron liver, doesn't he?

I know, right? My theory is that eating looks a lot stranger if you don't have a chewing animation, and there was likely no way to make food and the eating of it look good in cinematics. I mean, eating, chewing, swallowing, maybe cutting of meat, using utensils, all for how much benefit? Probably not a huge benefit for all that work, I'm guessing.

However, in regards to the post you quoted, forcing the player to watch two people die that they don't know is a poor game design thing imo. I don't know anything about the sibling or Wesley beyond a few obvious things. Who are they to me?

This is why a prologue that started off in Lothering, led to Ostagar, and eventually led to where the base game began is crucial imo. It allows the player to get to know both siblings as they play, and I personally feel that the game would've been strengthened much more had both siblings survived along with Leandra. Wesley and Ostagar would've been enough for a person to understand the death toll a Blight causes.

Had both siblings survived, the Mage-Templar conflict could've been strengthened much more for reasons I've mentioned in other threads.

I am inclined to agree with you on this matter. i found the Serial Killer plot to be extremely effective, and I would almost tear up every time I had to test it. Such a heart-wrenching finale to that quest chain, I thought. Bringing your sibling to the Deep Roads was less emotionally wrenching, but I thought we did it with a certain panache that would tug at the heartstrings a little. Having your sibling turn up in Act 2 (i think it was) based on what you did in Act 1 was pretty amazing, i thought. but you're right, we probably could have done way more to make characters like Wesley more awesome and memorable so that, when stuff happens, the player cares more about them.

Joss Whedon does this pretty well, and I sometimes curse George R.R. Martin for going the opposite route on this: making the reader care about a character just so he can do horrible, horrible things to them.

EDIT: Bringing your sibling into Legacy helps as well, and it's pretty awesome.

Modifié par Stanley Woo, 15 octobre 2011 - 12:58 .

[Stanley Woo]

RussianSpy27 wrote...
Stan, thanks for replying to so many of fans' posts including mine about lard and vodka. I hope one day to have a shot of vodka with you, or a glass of beer (in the worst case scenario ).

Thank you, but I'm a teetotaler. I don't drink at all, but I would be happy to share a beverage.

Here comes the key question: how do you know that those who "prefer to not to" (in the case here where we're specifically dealing with removed features from DA:O) happen to be the mainstream and the majority? 

Maybe those who want some old features back are indeed the "many and the proud"? As you probably know from my posts, I like most DA2 features, but having been on the forum long eough and seen player reviews accross the net, I am not sure that those who "prefer not to" are indeed the majority. 

There are all kinds of maybes, and nothing is ever certain. All we can do is look at whatever data we need to and make a best guess, based on what we've done in the past, what's going on in the present, what's likely to come up in the future, and what kinds of things we want to do in our game. Remember that we are (and have to be) the ultimate arbiters of what we put into our game, and while we try our best, there's no way we can please everyone with every game.

[Stanley Woo]

KilrB wrote...
We are either all, those who liked DA2 and shelled-out for the dlc and those who didn't, part of the Bioware "community" or we're not.

If all of us ARE, then you cannot make the blanket statement that "they were well received by the community".

Of course they were "well received" IF you don't count all of us who refused to buy them.

If you EXCLUDE us from the "community".

If you had said well received by those who like DA2 I could understand.

But you didn't, tou said "community".

I consider, or maybe considered now, myself a member of the BioWare "community".

I personally introduced 4 fellow gamers who never played rpg's to DA:Origins.

Like myself, they are still playing it.

None of us liked DA2.

Of course we didn't buy any of the dlc.

You say we're part of the "community".

Yes, absolutely. Very yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. A million times yes.

Yet insist you have the authority/right to exclude those of us who didn't like DA2 and purchase the dlc from said "community" when used to justify your statements.

If you mean the BioWare "community" as a whole, or even just the
Dragon Age "community" then I question the truthiness of your statement.

Or were you talking about some exclusive "DA2 lovers only community"?

If you mean the BioWare or Dragon Age "community" then ... you can't have it both ways Stan.

Either we're ALL part of the "community" ALL the time, and have to be treated and counted as such ...

... or we're not part of the "community", period.

(Edit for grammar.)

If that's the way you're going to play, KilrB, then I will respectfully bow out. You seem to be fixated on this exclusion thing, and I would prefer not to let you entangle me in your semantic games. Thanks all the same.

[Stanley Woo]

Everwarden wrote...
True, but the choices you make on what to put into said game will determine whether or not it's actually a game people want to play. Bioware seems to be hard-lining on certain fairly unpopular decisions. You have the right to do that as a company, but don't be shocked if sales aren't strong. 

To give a couple examples of unpopular decisions that have been confirmed to be set in metaphorical stone:

1. Not being able to talk to your companions except during their quests. Mr. Gaider has made it perfectly clear that the 'cinematic presentation' of companion interaction isn't possible unless scripted, and thus in a particular pre-set location. He also made it clear that this style is going nowhere. Not a dealbreaker, but I don't think many people outside of Bioware prefer this method. 

2. Companion armor being fixed for 'stylistic' reasons. Granted, this isn't something I personally care about at all, but I've seen a lot of dislike over this decision. 

3. The art direction. More specifically, the art direction regarding elves and darkspawn. I'm sure -someone- out there likes the changes (that someone is likely a Bioware employee), but I can't remember ever seeing anything positive regarding these changes from a non-Bioware employee. Yet Bioware is sticking to its guns on this and refusing to admit that the style shift might have been a mistake.

Be careful you're not letting confirmation bias blind you to the opinions of those you may disagree with. Since release, I have indeed seen people on this very forum support and even enjoy the three items you list. Now whether this represents a majority or minority is something else entirely, but we don't have the luxury of only reading positive responses or only reading negative responses. It all has to figure (in some way, shape or form) in future decision-making.

And this should go without saying, but for some reason needs to be repeated every so often: whether we agree with an idea, opinion or suggestion, has no bearing on whether it will appear in a future product, since a game is composed of a huge series of decisions and ideas crammed together in an effort to meet certain goals (the project's "vision," if you will).

[John Epler]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Everwarden wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

I'm still undecided about the art style but I'm sure I'm not alone in not deriding it.

Fair enough. That's two I've come across in favor of the changes. 

But then again, both uberdowzen and  Eudaemonium liked DA2.
They both belong to that small (perhaps not on this forum, but get the gist of any other channel...) group from which Bioware almost exclusively select that feedback they hope will help them create a DA3 that will be better received than DA2.

The logic of that approach escapes me. But when I tried to do threads that focused on what particularly those, who didn't like DA2, liked or disliked about DA2, my threads were immediately locked.

So it's either that or they're selecting the feedback which will back the decisions they've already made. The logic of that approach is less puzzling. But it sure beats me why no one is alarmed by the fact that the selected feedback mainly represents those who were already largely fine with DA2.

Let's be clear. Your topics that were locked had the following titles:

'Is there any game out there that has more retarded armor design than DA2?'
'DA3 will fail because...'
'All the recent idiotposts? What's the deal?'
'Ok, folks, stop posting here.' (a complaint about the registered forums)

If you don't see the problems with those thread titles, then I don't think you understand the concept of reasoned, balanced discusison rather than simply looking for a chorus of yes-men.

And then 'What DA2 haters think DA2 did right'. Which started off with a fairly confrontational tone, and then degenerated into insults and bickering.

So let's not pretend that we've been mercilessly censoring you. The majority of the topics you've made have stayed open, just like anyone else who had problems with DA2. If you truly feel that this forum is being censored to only include the positive comments, well, I don't think we're looking at the same boards, frankly. It's simply not a statement I can agree with in any fashion.

And you simply don't know what channels we're taking feedback from. You're correct in assuming that once a board turns into 'DA2 is the worst and the people involved with it should be fired/die', we probably aren't going to be paying as much attention to those people and posts as someone saying 'I didn't like DA2, and here are the reasons why'.

[John Epler]

bEVEsthda wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...
And then 'What DA2 haters think DA2 did right'. Which started off with a fairly confrontational tone, and then degenerated into insults and bickering.

The way I remembered it, the reason you gave for locking that thread wasn't insults and bickering. But I do agree that the thread failed, simply because people posted unserious things like "the uninstall", etc. But if there were any insults and bickering, then it must have been the precious DA2 fans attacking.

That right there? Referring to the 'precious DA2 fans'? That's exactly what I'm talking about. How is that constructive? And precisely how do you think that's going to read to anyone who isn't already on your side of the fence? It's unnecessarily confrontational and does little to frame the discussion in a reasonable fashion. That is what I am talking about.

So let's not pretend that we've been mercilessly censoring you.

That's not what I was saying. I was infering you wasn't interested in a particular angle on constructive criticism.

 The majority of the topics you've made have stayed open, just like anyone else who had problems with DA2. If you truly feel that this forum is being censored to only include the positive comments, well, I don't think we're looking at the same boards, frankly. It's simply not a statement I can agree with in any fashion.

And a statement I never made.

Then I misinterpreted your post. Fair enough, but it's certainly not the first time you've accused us of censoring the forums to support a particular viewpoint. However, in this case, I apologize for misreading what you wrote. Mea culpa.

You're correct in assuming that once a board turns into 'DA2 is the worst and the people involved with it should be fired/die', we probably aren't going to be paying as much attention to those people and posts as someone saying 'I didn't like DA2, and here are the reasons why'.

And you think I've been involved with those boards? If you check my posts more carefully, you will find that if I ever posted in a such thread it would have been to defend M.L's person, or the choices he made (from where he was).

And here you are misinterpreting sometihng -I- said. I've never suggested that you posted on those sorts of boards, nor have I accused you of posting those sorts of topics. However, they do exist and I wanted to make a clarifying distinction between negativity (indeed, there are boards out there which are primarily negative and still remain constructive) and hostility. The latter is quickly disregarded, while we still look at the former for reasons and to try and get a better understanding of where we can improve in the future.

And since you're on your high horse: I do think the forum is moderated in a biased manner. I see DA2 fans behave in much worse manner than I ever did when I was banned (or I'm completely mistaken about the reason why I was banned). But I also think you're entitled to do that. It's your forum. I'm just a guest. And, ultimately, It's not me that takes the damage of that.

And how many of those insults are reported to admins or moderators? Bear in mind that moderating these forums is not the full-time job of -anyone- who does it. We have other things to take care of which, as a rule, take priority. As a rule, the people who get banned are banned because someone reports them, and while I have a couple of 'pro' DA2 people who seem to do it, there's really only a single 'anti' DA2 person who reports things to us with any regularity. And generally, those people are taken care of. I've certainly banned my share of 'pro' DA2 people who were unable to remain polite and civil, but I can only do so if people tell me about them. If you have specific instances where you find yourself concerned, then please, let me know.

[John Epler]

bEVEsthda wrote...


I have no particular desire to be argumentative here. It's just that I want to be perceived for what I stand for. And not to be be painted in broad, preconceived brushstrokes. Of course, I fully understand that you cannot keep track of and completely distinguish every person. I don't expect or demand that. But I do want to be clear.

In which case I apologize. There have been literally thousands of people on these forums since DA2 came out, and it's true that I occasionally unconsciously lump them together. If that's not a point you've ever attempted to make - again, fair enough.

[Stanley Woo]

are we no longer on topic? Because this thread sounds like it's run its course.

[Stanley Woo]

I think we've come to the end of this discussion. Thank you.

End of line.