260 réponses à ce sujet

[syllogi]

Stanley Woo wrote...
In order to survive, artists MUST become businessmen. Without considering the commercial concerns of their art, how will they make enough money to survive long enough to make the one project that everyone considers a true work of art? Stephen King did not write Cujo or Carrie first. Baldur's Gate II was not BioWare's first project. The iPod was not Apple's first piece of hardware. Most Hollywood hopefuls in L.A. work as servers and baristas not because the jobs are inspiration or vehicles for their art, but to make enough money to let them survive until their next project. it is not irony to not starve to death, and there is no shame in an artist being able to pay their rent month after month.

Carrie was indeed Stephen King's first published novel.  He had sold a few short stories before that, but nothing remarkable.

I totally get the idea that artists must become business people to survive, or else hire business people to guide them.  What I worry about these days is the idea that the entire genre of western RPGs is dying, because they don't sell as well as one or two breakout FPS games.  I can deal with a lack of bowstrings, but everything about the marketing and presentation of DA2 was alarming.  It really felt like Bioware was warning DA:O fans, even before the game came out.  At least, that was the impression I got, from following development.  When the game came out, I wanted to love it, and eventually it has grown on me, but I still feel like it had the potential to be much more than what it was.  From the recycled areas, to the shallow side quests and badly implemented endgame, I wish there was more to it every time I play.

Right now I'm enjoying Skyrim, and its plethora of bowstrings, but I still count some Bioware games as my all time favorites, despite their lack of features that other games had at the time they came out.  The difference was that I didn't get the impression that Baldur's Gate 2, Neverwinter Nights, or KOTOR were trying to be something they weren't, or were rushed or unfinished.  Whether it's true or not, that's how I felt about DA2.

[TheRealJayDee]

Stanley Woo wrote...

TwistedComplex wrote...

I refuse to believe that both Bioware and EA believed that you could create a worthy sequal to DA:O with the time they were given.

Then we shall have to agree to disagree.

In all honesty, I do have rather big problems believing it as well. Maybe if you had just tried to tell DA2's story with the foundation you had from DA:O, but definitely not with the amount of changes you wanted to incorporate. But yeah, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

In the end I do believe that DA2 might have had the potential to be a really great game, and it pains me that my excitement level for the Dragon Age franchise has gone from "ridiculously psyched" to "still kind of interested" from one game to the next. I hope DA3 will "win me back", although I can already say that chances of me preordering again are very small.

[TwistedComplex]

Stanley Woo wrote...

TwistedComplex wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

In order to survive, artists MUST become businessmen. 

Not to the extent that Bioware has become.

Bethesda didn't compromise when it came to Skyrim. DICE didn't compromise when it came to BF3.

Since when did Bioware start giving up the little details, the things that make games immersive, and say "Well we can't have bowstrings because that would mean we can't have hair physics!!!"

ALL game companies compromise on some thing or another. Just because you don't see them or know what they are does not mean it didn't happen. Game development is all about doing the best with the resources you have at hand. For Bethesda, one of the side effects of having such an open world in their games has always been that they cannot account for every little thing that players do, so it is possible for NPCs and plots to behave in ways they did not intend. That is the "compromise" Bethesda makes. it only becomes "TEH WORST THING EVAR" when you disagree with it on the internet.

First of all, NPCs DO react to some of your actions

Secondly, the Elder Scrolls series has NEVER been a reactive series of games.

The difference of course is Bethesda took what made the series great and made it better. Bioware just completely changed the series like a photo switching to its negative.

DA:O received MASSIVE universal acclaim and praise, but rather than building on what you had, you tried to make it "BUTTON-AWESOME EXTREME EDITION!!" 

(Keep in mind when i say "you" i mean Bioware, not Stanley specifically)
And looking at your logic of having to comprimise to make other features a possiblity; you took out the different races and starting areas whos story tied in with the main quest, you took out different areas and instead gave us one city with endless repeated areas all so you can have a voiced protagonist? But the biggest compromise of all was probably trading a loyal fanbase for business. And where did it get you? It got you the lowest rated Bioware game in history that's constantly railed agianst in the gaming community, that's where.

I think Bioware Edmontons biggest regret should be soiling the good name of Bioware for people like Bioware Austin and Montreal, where they still have people with great talent.

[FieryDove]

TwistedComplex wrote...

I think Bioware Edmontons biggest regret should be soiling the good name of Bioware for people like Bioware Austin and Montreal, where they still have people with great talent.

Complain about DA2 if you must...I do on many things. But this was way overboard and uncalled for.

[grregg]

TwistedComplex wrote...

(...)

I think Bioware Edmontons biggest regret should be soiling the good name of Bioware for people like Bioware Austin and Montreal, where they still have people with great talent.

I hesitate to stand in the way of dramatic exaggerations, but just out of curiosity, did BioWare Austin and Montreal actually release any games? Or did they get their apparent good name via some other means?

[devSin]

FieryDove wrote...

Complain about DA2 if you must...I do on many things. But this was way overboard and uncalled for.

It's actually funny, because Edmonton is BioWare.

The other stuff is EA, or Fantasy Island with James.

grregg wrote...

I hesitate to stand in the way of dramatic exaggerations, but just out of curiosity, did BioWare Austin and Montreal actually release any games? Or did they get their apparent good name via some other means?

Austin has been working on TOR since shortly after the release of A New Hope.

They've spent eleventy billion dollars and have nothing yet to show for it.

Montreal is certainly not "BioWare". EA consolidated some of its rogue branches under the BioWare label, but these people have not worked to bring you BG, NWN, KotOR, JE, ME, or DA (that's all Edmonton, right there).

If those two are what this guy wants more of, then I'm thinking what he really wants is something that's not actually BioWare at all. And to that, I say that EA has generic forums at EA.com. Enjoy!

Modifié par devSin, 23 novembre 2011 - 06:41 .

[Monica83]

Bioware is not the same company it was in past.. And this is utterly sad

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The prison break scenario, I think, immediately stops them from being NPCs.  They're PCs as soon as you let the player control them in an independent environment.

They may well become NPCs again later.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think player control always equals player character. The control you have over the NPCs in dialogue is extremely limited compared to the PC. You can choose if they talk, but not what they say.

Also, consider NPCs you send into the Fade at Redcliffe. Again you can control where they go and have limited dialogue choices, but it's nowhere near the scope of the PC's choices. Why? Because we're not allowed to make the NPCs say/do things that go against their character. eg. Morrigan will never cut a deal with the Desire Demon, not even for power. The PC has that choice however, because the PC is not constrained by Morrigan's persona.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think player control always equals player character. The control you have over the NPCs in dialogue is extremely limited compared to the PC. You can choose if they talk, but not what they say.

Also, consider NPCs you send into the Fade at Redcliffe. Again you can control where they go and have limited dialogue choices, but it's nowhere near the scope of the PC's choices. Why? Because we're not allowed to make the NPCs say/do things that go against their character. eg. Morrigan will never cut a deal with the Desire Demon, not even for power. The PC has that choice however, because the PC is not constrained by Morrigan's persona.

DAO is not particularly well implemented in this regard, I'll agree.  There are contradictory game mechanics, whereby we do have total control over the companions under some circumstances, but not under others.

I would prefer a BG level of control over the party members.  They too could object to the party's overall direction and leave the party or even fight you, but while they were in the party they were entirely puppets of the player.  And that's what the characters in a party-based game should be.

This middle-ground BioWare seems to be trying to inhabit doesn't really work.

[Stanley Woo]

TeenZombie wrote...

Carrie was indeed Stephen King's first published novel.  He had sold a few short stories before that, but nothing remarkable.

I stand corrected. For some reason, though I want a horror novel fan at the time, i read the bejeebers out of Cujo, but have never seen the movie. i have seen the movie Carrie, but have not read the book.

What I worry about these days is the idea that the entire genre of western RPGs is dying, because they don't sell as well as one or two breakout FPS games.

You are more than welcome to entertain those fears, but they're the same fears our community has been discussing since 2003, when we announced Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. the game was very different from what we did before with Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights, being a console game as well as a more action-oriented RPG, and people were worried that this was going to be the trend of BioWare's future games. they felt we'd stripped out all the RPG elements, were catering to the "low-attention-span" "console kiddie" crowd, and had "betrayed" our "core fanbase" to bow to the almighty dollar. Any of that sound familiar?

I can deal with a lack of bowstrings, but everything about the marketing and presentation of DA2 was alarming.  It really felt like Bioware was warning DA:O fans, even before the game came out.  At least, that was the impression I got, from following development.  When the game came out, I wanted to love it, and eventually it has grown on me, but I still feel like it had the potential to be much more than what it was.  From the recycled areas, to the shallow side quests and badly implemented endgame, I wish there was more to it every time I play.

And that is an entirely fair comment to have. We have admitted that we did not do enough to inform our community about just how different DA2 was going to be, and we are well aware of how some of our fans interpreted our marketing messages. This is why, in the aftermath of Dragon Age II's release, we had so many developers, including david Gaider and Mike Laidlaw, coming into the forums to talk to the community and gather information. this is why I engage in so many threads and discussions, and why John Epler jumps into so many threads, and why we have continued doing so long after the initial furor has died down.

This is the main reason that arguments like BioWare not caring about the community or about making good games fall flat. Constantly talking to you guys for months, encouraging feedback, and speaking to you as openly and honestly as we can, is not the sign of a studio that doesn't care. We can't and don't promise to always agree with you or do what you want us to, but we do promise always to listen and consider what you say.

[Monica83]

Stanley Woo wrote...

TeenZombie wrote...

Carrie was indeed Stephen King's first published novel.  He had sold a few short stories before that, but nothing remarkable.

I stand corrected. For some reason, though I want a horror novel fan at the time, i read the bejeebers out of Cujo, but have never seen the movie. i have seen the movie Carrie, but have not read the book.

What I worry about these days is the idea that the entire genre of western RPGs is dying, because they don't sell as well as one or two breakout FPS games.

You are more than welcome to entertain those fears, but they're the same fears our community has been discussing since 2003, when we announced Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. the game was very different from what we did before with Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights, being a console game as well as a more action-oriented RPG, and people were worried that this was going to be the trend of BioWare's future games. they felt we'd stripped out all the RPG elements, were catering to the "low-attention-span" "console kiddie" crowd, and had "betrayed" our "core fanbase" to bow to the almighty dollar. Any of that sound familiar?

I can deal with a lack of bowstrings, but everything about the marketing and presentation of DA2 was alarming.  It really felt like Bioware was warning DA:O fans, even before the game came out.  At least, that was the impression I got, from following development.  When the game came out, I wanted to love it, and eventually it has grown on me, but I still feel like it had the potential to be much more than what it was.  From the recycled areas, to the shallow side quests and badly implemented endgame, I wish there was more to it every time I play.

And that is an entirely fair comment to have. We have admitted that we did not do enough to inform our community about just how different DA2 was going to be, and we are well aware of how some of our fans interpreted our marketing messages. This is why, in the aftermath of Dragon Age II's release, we had so many developers, including david Gaider and Mike Laidlaw, coming into the forums to talk to the community and gather information. this is why I engage in so many threads and discussions, and why John Epler jumps into so many threads, and why we have continued doing so long after the initial furor has died down.

This is the main reason that arguments like BioWare not caring about the community or about making good games fall flat. Constantly talking to you guys for months, encouraging feedback, and speaking to you as openly and honestly as we can, is not the sign of a studio that doesn't care. We can't and don't promise to always agree with you or do what you want us to, but we do promise always to listen and consider what you say.

Honestly stanley your team shovel out a rushed and bad maded sequel and when people complain on first time many people be callded 4chan trolls.. Then "People that are afraid to change".. Honestly say that bioware care of the comunity it's not so right.. Not after all the spreaded lies.. No after the word the team used to bash who is complaning is just to easy come out and tell now: ho we care about you or.. The fan reaction caught us of guard... too much convenient..

[nightscrawl]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Perhaps the arrows fly via magicks, or the will of the Maker, or your characters are moving so fast that you don't see the strings. All sorts of possibilities that do not necessarily equate to a need or justification to declare people lazy.

So too, we're not talking about real life here. We're talking about a game. If you can suspend your disbelief enough for someone to cast a fireball from his/her fingertips, or even wield a glowing sword, do you really need to see the bowstrings?

While I don't agree with the "you suck" part of the OP's statement, I think they probably could add bowstrings if they wanted. World of Warcraft is seven years old now, they added bowstrings a few years ago after players clamored for them.

I will add though that one of the reasons they might have left it out altogether is because of the way our characters hold the bows. If you were to suddenly add a bowstring it would appear to be clipping through the person's arm, which is also an "immersion killer", as the OP puts it.

It's a give and take really. Speaking for only myself, I would rather see a bowstring clipping through an arm than have none at all. However, in the end it's not really a big deal for me, in fact I didn't ever think about it until this thread.

[bEVEsthda]

Stanley Woo wrote...

You are more than welcome to entertain those fears, but they're the same fears our community has been discussing since 2003, when we announced Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. the game was very different from what we did before with Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights, being a console game as well as a more action-oriented RPG, and people were worried that this was going to be the trend of BioWare's future games. they felt we'd stripped out all the RPG elements, were catering to the "low-attention-span" "console kiddie" crowd, and had "betrayed" our "core fanbase" to bow to the almighty dollar. Any of that sound familiar?

Sure.  ...And?..

I mean, it really was the trend of Bioware's future games! Wasn't it?

KotOR was quite fun enough, once it appeared on PC. And so was indeed DA:O.
However, I'm totally with those who argue that there was maybe a better way ahead from BG, than the one you took. Also, I think that for a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, DA:O is bit too much like a spiritual successor to KotOR.
But, nvm, I said already many years ago that I would be happy enough with DA:O, the way it would be. And I was.  One has to be satisfied with what is possible. Everybody can't have her/his personal perfect game.

...But if DA2 is the new trend of Bioware's future games...

[AlexXIV]

Stanley Woo wrote...

I have no doubt you care about the communtiy, or John, or David. Whether the big bosses do, I have my doubts. I am not sure what this feedback is useful for, if I assume that the feedback from DA:O led to DA2, then maybe no feedback is better. For me anyway.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 23 novembre 2011 - 06:25 .

[devSin]

Stanley Woo wrote...

And that is an entirely fair comment to have. We have admitted that we did not do enough to inform our community about just how different DA2 was going to be, and we are well aware of how some of our fans interpreted our marketing messages. This is why, in the aftermath of Dragon Age II's release, we had so many developers, including david Gaider and Mike Laidlaw, coming into the forums to talk to the community and gather information. this is why I engage in so many threads and discussions, and why John Epler jumps into so many threads, and why we have continued doing so long after the initial furor has died down.

I'm sorry, but this just seems to be lip service.

David Gaider has probably the least forum activity of his career in the last year here. Mike Laidlaw's impromptu appearances on the forums after the game was actually available to the public can be tallied on one hand. John Epler just seemed to want to talk. And your conversations almost universally tend to be about something not really substantially related to the actual game.

I also think you're putting emphasis on "different" to try to steer the conversation away from "bad". Yes, we know the game is different. Yes, we know some people don't like it because of those differences.

But there's also tons of places where you guys simply messed up. And nothing you could have said beforehand would have kept people from rightly criticizing you for the things you did wrong.

If you can't even own up to it, then you're not actually here to participate, you're simply here to try to placate.

And I say that as somebody who really enjoyed the game, in spite of all your misses.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm willing to take Stan at his word on this. I think BioWare knows they made mistakes.

Whether they think they made the same mistake that I think they made remains to be seen.

[AlexXIV]

devSin wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

And that is an entirely fair comment to have. We have admitted that we did not do enough to inform our community about just how different DA2 was going to be, and we are well aware of how some of our fans interpreted our marketing messages. This is why, in the aftermath of Dragon Age II's release, we had so many developers, including david Gaider and Mike Laidlaw, coming into the forums to talk to the community and gather information. this is why I engage in so many threads and discussions, and why John Epler jumps into so many threads, and why we have continued doing so long after the initial furor has died down.

I'm sorry, but this just seems to be lip service.

David Gaider has probably the least forum activity of his career in the last year here. Mike Laidlaw's impromptu appearances on the forums after the game was actually available to the public can be tallied on one hand. John Epler just seemed to want to talk. And your conversations almost universally tend to be about something not really substantially related to the actual game.

I also think you're putting emphasis on "different" to try to steer the conversation away from "bad". Yes, we know the game is different. Yes, we know some people don't like it because of those differences.

But there's also tons of places where you guys simply messed up. And nothing you could have said beforehand would have kept people from rightly criticizing you for the things you did wrong.

If you can't even own up to it, then you're not actually here to participate, you're simply here to try to placate.

And I say that as somebody who really enjoyed the game, in spite of all your misses.

I myself took a break from this forum and likely I will again. Because it has become very silent around here and there is not much point to come here anymore actually. Until DA3 release is announced maybe. And I understand that all the negativity around was and is a less than homey feeling for the devs. I still think it was and is important that people voiced their opinions, even the negative or maybe especially the negative ones. Because I think something went wrong and it was important that it wasn't unnoticed. However I feel if the hype returns and we can positively look forward to DA3 then things may become busier and nicer again and then probably also with more devs posting here more regularly. I just think of the things posted here lately there is nothing really new or surprising. So I really can't blame anyone for staying away for a while.

[Maria Caliban]

I get that not everyone loves Dragon Age 2. That's fine. I like things people dislike and dislike things others like.

I know at least one poster on this thread who said she'd never buy the game. Who said she played it at a show and it was mindless hack and slash. Eight months later, she's still hanging around, talking about what a horrible game it is.

I just don't understand it. BioWare doesn't owe you a game that caters to your taste. If you think Dragon Age 2 is evidence of BioWare being cheap, lazy hacks, that's fine. There are lots of games out there that I consider bad and game companies I'd be hesitant to buy from. What I don't do is spend months and years on the websites of those companies talking about how horrible they are.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 23 novembre 2011 - 10:06 .

[AlexXIV]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I get that not everyone loves Dragon Age 2. That's fine. I like things people dislike and dislike things others like.

I know at least one poster on this thread who said she'd never buy the game. Who said she played it at a show and it was mindless hack and slash. Eight months later, she's still hanging around, talking about what a horrible game it is.

I just don't understand it. BioWare doesn't owe you a game that caters to your taste. If you think Dragon Age 2 is evidence of BioWare being cheap, lazy hacks, that's fine. There are lots of games out there that I consider bad and game companies I'd be hesitant to buy from. What I don't do is spend months and years on the websites of those companies talking about how horrible they are.

Well I heard you shouldn't believe everything that is said on the internet. So as you said, if someone spends months here talking about how they dislike the game it just shows how much it means to them. Or maybe how much this community means to them, or the franchise, whatever. For me it is almost the same. I loved DA:O despite shortcommings and I wish I could love DA2 too. I can't. It's not terrible or anything, just not in the same league as DA.O was. For me anyway. I can honestly say that DA:O surprised me. I bought it blind because I learned of it a couple of days before release and didn't have the time to gather alot of information. I just knew the name and that Bioware is making it. So I downloaded it a day before release and played the next day, without really expecting too much, without waiting for it for a year or half a year, etc.. And it was much more than I expected. The problem is that DA2 was the other way round. I waited for it, expected much.

[jlb524]

AlexXIV wrote...
So I downloaded it a day before release and played the next day, without really expecting too much, without waiting for it for a year or half a year, etc.. And it was much more than I expected. The problem is that DA2 was the other way round. I waited for it, expected much.

I acutally had the opposite experience.

Expectations are a funny thing.

[TheRealJayDee]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I just don't understand it. BioWare doesn't owe you a game that caters to your taste. If you think Dragon Age 2 is evidence of BioWare being cheap, lazy hacks, that's fine. There are lots of games out there that I consider bad and game companies I'd be hesitant to buy from. What I don't do is spend months and years on the websites of those companies talking about how horrible they are.

Everything you said would be totally fine, if it weren't for DA:O. A game I absolutely love, despite it's shortcomings, that introduced a new fantasy universe I consider pretty interesting and that became one of my most played games ever. I still care about Thedas, I still care about the Dragon Age franchise, I sttill don't understand why DA2 had to become one of the greatest dissapointments of my gaming life.

I still don't consider it a really bad game, but it was too different from it's predecessor in too many ways to feel like a worthy sequel to me. Before BioWare released DA2 I'd never have considered BW to be a company I'd be hesitant to buy from. DA:O was a day one purchase, DA2 my first preorder ever.

I hope Dragon Age 3 will be a game I will gladly buy, and in which I can further explore Thedas and shape it's history. I hope BioWare will find a way to make the game attractive for both people who love DA2 and for those who had problems with it. Not sure that's possible or going to happen, but that's what I'd want.

[Stanley Woo]

devSin wrote...
*snip*

Sounds like you're more interested in assigning blame to assuage your disappointment rather than engaging in actual discussion, devSin. And that's cool and everything, but we've already talked about some of the ways where we went wrong and can improve on future projects and have engaged in several multi-page threads to that effect. We're not going to grovel on request.

[Persephone]

The only time that ever bothered me was during the Dalish origin in DAO. That beginning....I LOLed.

[bEVEsthda]

Persephone wrote...

The only time that ever bothered me was during the Dalish origin in DAO. That beginning....I LOLed.

You mean the missing bow strings?

Don't want to seem harsh on the OP, but yea, this is to me the most insignificant complaint I can remember having seen gone all the way to 8 pages.

[Realmzmaster]

Bowstrings are the least of DA2 issues according to many posters. Those major points should be addressed first. The problem of recycled areas is a major screw up for many gamers. Bowstrings maybe immersion breaking for the OP, but I think far more people were concerned about recycled area among other points.

Now if you consider lack of bowstrings to be systematic of a larger problem there could be agreement, but not the lack of bowstrings themselves. Too many cRPGs I have played lack bow strings. Some of those made GOTY.

I am willing to give the developers the benefit of the doubt and take Stan at his word.