260 réponses à ce sujet

[Killjoy Cutter]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Look at the DLC for DA2. Both Legacy and Mark fo the Assassin addressed some of the community's concerns regarding story, level design and combat, but some people are refusing to acknowledge it because they're not going to buy those DLC. there's not really anything we can say to those folks except "we've already done it, and hope to continue to be able to." Others are going to look at the next project and still refuse to believe we've changed or addressed any concerns, so great is their antipathy towards us and reaction to DA2.

Though MotA's ending still has the biggest concern of DAII being unaddressed: Hawke being too lazy to take any sort of action when he should act, even if the plot were to dictate that he should fail anyway.

Otherwise, the DLCs are kind of an improvement, but it's still jarring -- for me -- to see most of the enemies not attacking in the same style that we do.

I thought Legacy and MotA had some improvements and addressed some concerns. 

However, both end with a moment in which the player is rendered powerless, a spectator.  I can't go into the details on this thread because it's on the no-spoiler forum, but in both cases it appears that Bioware's story goes into a corner where it can only get out again by rendering the player a bystander for a moment or two. 

[devSin]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Why should it be alarming when one of our games doesn't appeal to you?

Doesn't appeal to or isn't good enough for?

Sonic doesn't appeal to me, and I rightly don't judge you on it. KotOR doesn't appeal to me, and I rightly never judge you on it. TOR won't appeal to me, and I rightly won't judge you on it.

Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Dragon Age, and Mass Effect appeal to me. And I've judged you on all of it.

Do you think the issue is simply that people don't like DA2 for what it isn't, or do you accept that at least some people would like DA2 just fine if it had actually been good?

Since BioWare set the standard for what "good" is with all the games of those series I listed, can you truly not see how it would be alarming when you fail to meet that standard (at least up until you release another product that is seen to meet it)?

I don't think it makes any sense that you could say "But you know we'll do better because look at all the stuff we did before!" Yeah, I saw all of it. And then you did DA2.

Stanley Woo wrote...

Besides the obvious money spent on the game, what does it actually mean to you if one BioWare game fails to meet your expectations?

Because we don't know why it failed to meet expectations. Without knowing what went wrong, there's no way to assure anybody outside your company that the future will be any different, that the future even can be different.

Maybe you have no creative control anymore. Maybe the weight of a large company that requires profits to be in the tens of millions will prevent you from ever returning to the greatness you once held. Maybe the best talent has left the company and they don't make people of that caliber anymore.

Unless you can say what really happened (or even that you agree or disagree that there were some fundamental issues with how the game turned out*), which we've already established is something you neither should nor could do, I don't think it's fair to hold it against people that they have concerns, even to the point of questioning whether you "care" or not.

* By this, I mean whether anybody there actually believes DA2 falls short of being a BioWare™ game. Not that waves were done poorly and companions couldn't wear armor and the same map was used ten times (the assumption there being that the game would have been just fine but for those specific issues, i.e., Mike's checklist).

Stanley Woo wrote...

Apparently, based on this latest post, devSin, it means doom and gloom and the potential... what? It means you won't buy BioWare games anymore? I have always couinseled people to do their research and make educted decisions on buying games. If BioWare games no longer meet your criteria for purchase, well then, tha'ts your decision to make, isn't it?

If you decide to no longer purchase BioWare games, whose games are you going to purchase? If BioWare is one of the best that there is, who is going to take their place when they no longer make games you consider to be great?

The potential is not taking your money and spending it elsewhere. The potential is losing the ability to spend it anywhere. I think *that's* why people get a little panicked about it.

Nobody else is going to make a BioWare game. You guys are going to have to do it.

Stanley Woo wrote...

We can't claim to be excellent, despite a history of great games, but you can question this same "excellence" based on one game? Seems like a double standard to me.

You can claim to be excellent. You have been excellent.

But if you no longer excel, then you are no longer excellent. You *were* excellent. You *aren't* excellent.

And again, this is not me questioning anything. I think you are excellent, and will continue to do so until you demonstrate a complete and irreversible inability to deliver (and probably the BioWare label would no longer exist or be in use by the time I ever considered such a thing might be true). But I think people can be forgiven for having some skepticism as to whether you can deliver in the future at the level you've been able to in the past.

Stanley Woo wrote...

But that isn't "all the proof" you need. the very existence of the forums, our participation herein, our approachability at conventions, our "commitment to quality," and even this discussion we're having--which I would glady have with anyone face-to-face just as easily as through text--are all indications that BioWare cares more than zero about the community. I'm trying to disprove the notion that we don't care, since some folks seem to ignore all the ways with which we demonstrate that we do care.

See, I don't see this necessarily as proof, and I don't know that it's something you can prove.

Most companies have forums. The same five people from the company do all the posting here (and it's not even official authorized-by-marketing-and-legal communication). Luke almost never posts. Is that proof that BioWare and/or himself doesn't care? Mary, Sheryl, do they care? Where's Matt talking about art? Where's Andreas talking about more and better graphics capabilities? Where's Yaron talking about not modeling areas with lower intestines? Where's Mark talking about IE (because that's actually all we really want to talk about)?

As just a normal fan, how am I supposed to judge who cares about what? Do "you" care, or does just David/John/Stanley care? Does David/John/Stanley caring actually translate into anything tangible, or is the only result that we maybe get a tear from you guys when things don't work out in our favor?

I lump conventions into press-related activities, and I don't attend, and I wouldn't hold it against you guys for never showing up (David can still go to promote his books, though), but nor do I take it to be some proof of your overwhelming concern for the fans.

Stanley Woo wrote...

I don't even know what you're referring to by "one of those guys,"

That same response ("Sounds like you're more interested in assigning blame") was used to shut down threads by some of the more rabid posters back when the game was released and things were getting pretty ugly. You basically grouped me in with those nutjobs by saying that.

I am not! :-)

Stanley Woo wrote...

I think that if we were to sit down and hash this out, we would find that we're butting heads over things on which we actually agree and that we're merely hitting each other's buttons the wrong way or inadequately articulating what we're really getting at.

I certainly don't want to hit any buttons; it's not my intent, and you're not hitting my buttons.

This is a meta-argument (which is why I said it's not important). I'm simply suggesting your argument wasn't successful, not that I disagree with the spirit behind it.

I know you guys care. I know you make good games, and I know you plan some specific improvements for future games. I believe you, and I'm looking forward to DA3 just as much as I looked forward to DA2 (and I'm not even finished with wanting more stuff for DA2).

I believe it. But I do so because I believe you're awesome. If I didn't believe it, I'm having a hard time thinking of something you could say to prove to me otherwise.

Stanley Woo wrote...

Aside from a few details (and maybe one giant issue)

Giant issue?

Modifié par devSin, 25 novembre 2011 - 09:33 .

[TEWR]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Look at the DLC for DA2. Both Legacy and Mark fo the Assassin addressed some of the community's concerns regarding story, level design and combat, but some people are refusing to acknowledge it because they're not going to buy those DLC. there's not really anything we can say to those folks except "we've already done it, and hope to continue to be able to." Others are going to look at the next project and still refuse to believe we've changed or addressed any concerns, so great is their antipathy towards us and reaction to DA2.

Though MotA's ending still has the biggest concern of DAII being unaddressed: Hawke being too lazy to take any sort of action when he should act, even if the plot were to dictate that he should fail anyway.

Otherwise, the DLCs are kind of an improvement, but it's still jarring -- for me -- to see most of the enemies not attacking in the same style that we do.

I thought Legacy and MotA had some improvements and addressed some concerns. 

However, both end with a moment in which the player is rendered powerless, a spectator.  I can't go into the details on this thread because it's on the no-spoiler forum, but in both cases it appears that Bioware's story goes into a corner where it can only get out again by rendering the player a bystander for a moment or two. 

To be honest, all that's needed is for Hawke to attempt to solve the problem at hand only for the plot to make him fail in his action. That way, both Bioware and the player are satisfied.

take for instance Legacy's ending for the old coot. Hawke could attack him, only for the old coot to overwhelm Hawke and company, have Hawke dangle off of the edge, and the old coot could summon a barrier that keeps the party trapped for -- as Varric would say afterwards -- hours.

Alternatively, the player could find out that Hawke wrote a letter to the Wardens telling them about everything that happened.

I've already addressed how MotA should've ended for anti-Qunari Hawkes in other threads before.

[Killjoy Cutter]

That's actually what I don't want -- for *anything* to be determined by cutscene fiat.

[Stanley Woo]

devSin wrote...
Giant issue?

Yes, the giant issue of: if you don't hate us and still think we're cool, and will continue to do so until we prove otherwise in your estimation, what the heck are you arguing about/for? You will believe what you believe until you believe otherwise. We will continue to do what we do until we do otherwise.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

That's actually what I don't want -- for *anything* to be determined by cutscene fiat.

Actually, that's perhaps the only time when I would deem cutsecnes appropriate.  If there's some outcome the game otherwise isn't going to model, showing why it's impossible in a cutscene would be a good way to do it.

Like the High Road in NWN2.  At the start of teh game, everyone tells you there are two ways to Neverwinter, but the game only models one of them (the journey by sea).  The other route, the High Road, is mentioned repeatedly, but it doesn't exist.

What they should have done is have the High Road be present, but not passable.  I proposed before that it could be simply a death-trap, but if the developer wanted to ensure that the player's characters didn't die just because they tried something they weren't supposed to try, instead there could be a cutscene showing insurmountable odds and a hasty retreat.

[AlexXIV]

I don't know about that. I'd say bowstrings are more important than a road that I can't use.

[TEWR]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

That's actually what I don't want -- for *anything* to be determined by cutscene fiat.

well, I wasn't saying that a cutscene automatically makes Hawke attack. Just if you choose the dialogue option that would lead to you being distrustful of what's in front of you right now and has you attack.

So you choose it, and then the old coot attacks back.

Hawke dangles over the edge, cuts out to Varric, and the DLC is ended.

Really, it would be the same type of ending that we already got, only Hawke does something proactive -- and still fails -- should the player have chosen that option.

[AlexXIV]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

That's actually what I don't want -- for *anything* to be determined by cutscene fiat.

well, I wasn't saying that a cutscene automatically makes Hawke attack. Just if you choose the dialogue option that would lead to you being distrustful of what's in front of you right now and has you attack.

So you choose it, and then the old coot attacks back.

Hawke dangles over the edge, cuts out to Varric, and the DLC is ended.

Really, it would be the same type of ending that we already got, only Hawke does something proactive -- and still fails -- should the player have chosen that option.

I have the same complaint. I don't mind the railroad, I mind the obvious railroad. There can always stuff happen that forces the player a certain road, but it must be believable. I'd for example like a better reason why you have to choose templars or mages in the end. 'To uphold order' seems a bit like an asspull considering you can side with the mages. At least Meredith should directly attack Hawke if he refuses to aid her or something. But just everyone going in their camp to prepare for the final stage is, well ... odd.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 26 novembre 2011 - 12:00 .

[devSin]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Yes, the giant issue of: if you don't hate us and still think we're cool, and will continue to do so until we prove otherwise in your estimation, what the heck are you arguing about/for?

Because you're arguing with me? I'm just responding to you, to be honest.

The only comment I had was about your initial response to a bit you quoted (way back when); it probably wasn't even fair, but it obviously came across worse than my posts usually do since you concluded I was only interested in casting blame. And because I've only seen that accusation used against people who were really being obnoxious here, I was obligated to reply.

It looks like we've just been circling the drain ever since. :-)

Modifié par devSin, 26 novembre 2011 - 12:50 .

[NKKKK]

Remember Stanley Woo can't agree to your positions even if he wanted too, he may or may not know his company has changed, but he can't speak out on due to his paycheck.

End of linhurrrrr

Back to Skyrim, a game that has bowstrings.

Modifié par NKKKK, 26 novembre 2011 - 01:14 .

[Realmzmaster]

NKKKK wrote...

Remember Stanley Woo can't agree to your positions even if he wanted too, he may or may not know his company has changed, but he can't speak out on due to his paycheck.

End of linhurrrrr

Back to Skyrim, a game that has bowstrings.

I am sure Mr. Woo knows exactly what Bioware is or is not. The company has not changed. It is still a business. Always has been. What has changed is the perception of that business by the gamer. The last time I checked the purpose of any business is to make money otherwise it is out of business. That primary premise has not changed. Now wether they make a good game is up to the gamer to decide.

That is entirely subjective. Yes back to Skyrim a game that has bow strings but is in need of a plot and story. I miss the days of Morrowind.

[NKKKK]

The company has not changed.

LOL

What has changed is the perception of that business by the gamer.

No, it was an inferior game.

The last time I checked the purpose of any business is to make money otherwise it is out of business.

There was once an bard, who was given more money by a baron to make more songs. The bard lamented that his songs had to be made in a time quota and were genuinely inferior to the songs he would make in taverns alone.With people coming all around to see him.

Yes now he has money, but his regulars have become alienated and he is the laughing stock of other bards.

Modifié par NKKKK, 26 novembre 2011 - 01:40 .

[Realmzmaster]

NKKKK wrote...

The company has not changed.

LOL

What has changed is the perception of that business by the gamer.

No, it was an inferior game.

The last time I checked the purpose of any business is to make money otherwise it is out of business.

There was once an bard, who was given more money by a baron to make more songs. The bard lamented that his songs had to be made in a time quota and were genuinely inferior to the songs he would make in taverns alone.With people coming all around to see him.

Yes now he has money, but his regulars have become alienated and he is the laughing stock of other bards.

As I said you have only your perception to say that the company has changed. Perception is not a fact. Also many of the composers had patrons and they expected the music to be made for certain events they were giving. Many masterpieces were made that way along with many great composers.

One game with bowstrings had a 5 year incubation period and still came out with no story or plot. Fancy that.

[tmp7704]

Realmzmaster wrote...

As I said you have only your perception to say that the company has changed. Perception is not a fact.

If i recall things right, in at least one of the interviews the very heads of BioWare said nowadays they pay much more attention to how their games are going to perform financially, than they used to. That'd be about as close as you can get to getting objective confirmation from the actual subject that yes, their attitudes have changed.

[Realmzmaster]

tmp7704 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

As I said you have only your perception to say that the company has changed. Perception is not a fact.

If i recall things right, in at least one of the interviews the very heads of BioWare said nowadays they pay much more attention to how their games are going to perform financially, than they used to. That'd be about as close as you can get to getting objective confirmation from the actual subject that yes, their attitudes have changed.

You may be right on that point, but I think it is because Bioware was on the verge of bankruptcy at one time because they did not watch the bottomline. Bioware and Pandemic Studios formed a partnership with Elevation Partners (Elevation Partners is a private equity firm). The partnership became VG Holding Corporation . Each partner retained their identity and brand. This is one of the reasons DAO took 5 years.
EA  bought VG Holding  in 2007. EA closed Pandemic studios which was still losing money in 2009. So yes Bioware may look at the bottonline more closely based on that experience. Which is what Bioware should have been doing all along. .

[Realmzmaster]

If the only thing wrong with DA2 was missing bowstrings I could agree with the OP. Unfortunately that is not the case.

[tmp7704]

Realmzmaster wrote...

So yes Bioware may look at the bottonline more closely based on that experience. Which is what Bioware should have been doing all along. .

Yeah, i'm not sure if that change can be really said to be a bad thing per se (although it'd seem that they're making some poorly received choices as result, so the jury is kinda out on that)  But i was only focusing on whether there was any actual change to speak of... and i think given what they said themselves it is safe to say there indeed was some.

[Zanallen]

tmp7704 wrote...

If i recall things right, in at least one of the interviews the very heads of BioWare said nowadays they pay much more attention to how their games are going to perform financially, than they used to. That'd be about as close as you can get to getting objective confirmation from the actual subject that yes, their attitudes have changed.

I'm willing to bet that not paying as much attention to the financials of their business is what lead Bioware to being purchased by EA. Hell, if Bioware had been paying attention to their bottom line, maybe they would still be independant today.

[Realmzmaster]

Bioware between 2003 and 2005 produced nothing. 2003 saw the release of Knights of the Old Republic which was very good and sold well. 2005 saw the release of Jade Empire which sold ok. Mass Effect was released in 2007 and sold well. Sonic in 2008 which sold poorly. In 2009 Mass Effect Galaxy for the iOS which sold poorly and Dragon Age in 2009. Dragon Age was the one bright spot in a six year period.

If I was EA i would have canned Sonic and Mass Effect Galaxy, but Bioware had already committed to developing the games before being acquired by EA. If the good doctors had made better decisions and watched the bottomline Bioware may still be an independent company like Zanallen said. But hindsight is always 20/20.

[AlexXIV]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Bioware between 2003 and 2005 produced nothing. 2003 saw the release of Knights of the Old Republic which was very good and sold well. 2005 saw the release of Jade Empire which sold ok. Mass Effect was released in 2007 and sold well. Sonic in 2008 which sold poorly. In 2009 Mass Effect Galaxy for the iOS which sold poorly and Dragon Age in 2009. Dragon Age was the one bright spot in a six year period.

If I was EA i would have canned Sonic and Mass Effect Galaxy, but Bioware had already committed to developing the games before being acquired by EA. If the good doctors had made better decisions and watched the bottomline Bioware may still be an independent company like Zanallen said. But hindsight is always 20/20.

Not sure but it seems to me up to 2009 they released a new game every 2 years which were, all in all, relatively successful, up and downs included. That's not unhealthy by far, actually Bethesda or Obsidian have a worse statistic. Maybe successful Bioware games don't take the 4 millions sales hurdle, but that's something different. However Bioware are picked from Lucasart for their 100 million dollar project, SWTOR, which looks like they still have a good name as game developers to those who are looking for one. Maybe that was that they merged with EA to be able to lift this heavy weight.

Only thing that really annoys me is Jade Empire. This game is in nothing inferior to KotOR. I think people sometimes are just full of prejudice. Yeah, I think it is because of the asian theme, and not going to say more to it because it would just result in me throwing around insults and getting banned.

[HiroVoid]

I liked Jade Empire, but it's still only above DA2 for me. That has more to do with the lack of places you go to for me more than anything I think.

[AlexXIV]

HiroVoid wrote...

I liked Jade Empire, but it's still only above DA2 for me. That has more to do with the lack of places you go to for me more than anything I think.

I am not sure it really has less places to go than for example KotOR. Anyway, you'd have to buy it first because the overall rating of this game was 9/10 and still only sold around 1 million. So it is relatively safe to say something about the marketing went wrong. Or ... Bioware customers are at least 70% racists who wouldn't buy one of their games just because it is asian themed. So, now I said it ...

Modifié par AlexXIV, 26 novembre 2011 - 11:02 .

[Xewaka]

AlexXIV wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...
I liked Jade Empire, but it's still only above DA2 for me. That has more to do with the lack of places you go to for me more than anything I think.

I am not sure it really has less places to go than for example KotOR. Anyway, you'd have to buy it first because the overall rating of this game was 9/10 and still only sold around 1 million. So it is relatively safe to say something about the marketing went wrong. Or ... Bioware customers are at least 70% racists who wouldn't buy one of their games just because it is asian themed. So, now I said it ...

Wuxia, martial arts films in general, are a very popular genre, and were as well during Jade Empire release. That commentary makes no sense.

[AlexXIV]

Xewaka wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...
I liked Jade Empire, but it's still only above DA2 for me. That has more to do with the lack of places you go to for me more than anything I think.

I am not sure it really has less places to go than for example KotOR. Anyway, you'd have to buy it first because the overall rating of this game was 9/10 and still only sold around 1 million. So it is relatively safe to say something about the marketing went wrong. Or ... Bioware customers are at least 70% racists who wouldn't buy one of their games just because it is asian themed. So, now I said it ...

Wuxia, martial arts films in general, are a very popular genre, and were as well during Jade Empire release. That commentary makes no sense.

You make no sense.