441 réponses à ce sujet

[Fallstar]

Ponendus wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

And again, instead of tacking on MP, make a robust massive single player RPG. Look at Skyrim- its been the most played game on Steam for weeks now by a large margin and if you look at the recent Xbox Live activity chart for the past week, Skyrim, a single player RPG, is only behind Call of Duty. Even ahead of other multiplayer games like FIFA , Gears, Madden and Battlefield.

What's your point? Do you want Bioware to copy Bethesda and make a sandbox game?

I think, but I may be wrong, that the analogy is that The Elder Scrolls games tend to make improvements from game-to-game in order to keep up with current trends. The core philosophy, general gameplay and overall 'feel' is basically the same in every installment.

Compare this to Dragon Age, which completely revamps, adds new (and some would say unnecessary) features, changes the artwork, and even core concepts like voiced protagonists etc with each installment. That is why I think Bethesda is a good role-model for how to grow, and yet keep a fanbase happy.

I do acknowledge we only have one sequel to go off here, but if this rumour is true, it points towards even more total re-hashing into the future, which is not what I want (and it appears many others).

Change for change's sake is just silly and unecessary imo. Particularly when the change is towards aspects that are already abundantly present in other franchises and leaves those of us who appreciated the original flavour with nothing but a bitter taste and nothing to quench it.

This. Although a lot of features were cut from Morrowind to Oblivion that made Oblivion lose a lot of the character Morrowind had, the essence of the game remained the same. It was an epic, sandbox rpg with the focus on you carving out your own story. Skyrim takes that even further and is a truly mind blowing experience. Even though things have been changed and features removed, Bethesda still know what type of game they are creating.

Origins for me was about experiencing an epic story, but one in which there was such a great deal of attention to the small details too, that it still is one of the best games I've ever played. Whereas DA:2 didn't really seem to know what it was trying to achieve. The combat system felt more like that found in an mmo to me than that found in a crpg, the UI was too clean cut and seemed to give the bare minimum information like an fps, and the dialogue system seemed to be focussed more on trying to emulate ME's 'cinematic experience' rather than allowing the player to role play. 

Hopefully Bioware have a clear vision for what they actually want to do with Dragon Age, because at the moment things seem a bit murky to me. They've gone from what was probably one of the top 5 rpg's of the decade with Origins, to DA:2, which though still clearly a title from an AAA developer, wasn't in the same class. 

Modifié par DuskWarden, 01 décembre 2011 - 01:47 .

[vswiss23]

I think it would be fun to have multiplayer because it will allow people to play together, and add some competition among the players.

[Sylvianus]

Skyrim is a good thing for all rpgs. All those I know who don't give a crap about rpgs, love Skyrim, they spend their time playing it. Because with Skyrim they feel badass, as if they are heroes themself, like with call of duty, as if they are soldiers themself, with even more; badass music, rpg, finishing moves ( we all love that, why the hell bioware removed that in DA2 ), decent graphics, a big world, badass armor, origins, bloody dragons. It's like total freedom.

If they never played a rpg, thanks to Skyrim, they discovered something new.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 01 décembre 2011 - 02:00 .

[Brockololly]

Atakuma wrote...
What's your point? Do you want Bioware to copy Bethesda and make a sandbox game?

No- I'm saying that instead of squandering resources on a MP mode which will likely be forgotten about within months after release, double down on making a massive single player game with tons of content.

Instead of shoving multiplayer into every game whether it makes sense or not, focus on the single player. The success of single player only games like Skyrim or The Witcher 2 or Arkham City or Deus Ex:HR shows that not every game needs multiplayer to be commercially successful.

[FaWa]

Ohgodohgod nonononononono please no

[AngryFrozenWater]

I think it boils down to this...

The doctors believe that the hybrid RPG/action games are the future. They have stated this many times in the past. Action games are using more and more RPG elements and thus they think it is a good idea to reverse that and add more action to their RPGs.

I think this logic is flawed. What it shows is that there is more interest in RPG elements in action games. Well, BW creates RPGs. They should be happy about that. Instead of making these RPG elements better BW are actually removing these successful RPG elements in favor for action elements. MP is part of successful action games. And thus BW thinks MP needs to be added.

Of course there is a second reason. EA's policy is that all new games should have a MP element. And whether BW likes it or not, they have to add that as well.

On the other hand, older BW games already had a MP element, so BW does not understand what the fuzz is all about. I think they have missed the point that many gamers make: There are only very few games that can have great SP and MP combined in one game. Usually one of the two suffers. BW games are first and foremost a SP experience and thus this fear is not unfounded. BW will never understand that, because they have to go that route. Management dictates it.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 01 décembre 2011 - 02:25 .

[Firky]

Brockololly wrote...
As for the notion this whole thing is some planned leak by BioWare to gauge fan reaction....does it really take a genius to figure out people would be pissed at news of a tacked on deathmatch MP mode? I mean, if they had to do something like this to hear what people would think about it, then they are just incredibly aloof and makes me think that BioWare still is clueless as to what the audience paying attention to DA wants. Yeah, people would be curious to see better graphics with Frostbite 2 maybe, but a deathmatch MP mode? Please.

Not everyone hates the idea. And, that tweet doesn't read to me like anyone is clueless. It reads to me like someone trying to give a polite response to quite a rude and personal attack. I know some people use Twitter to attack high profile people, and don't see a problem with that, but I think sending someone an @ is like talking to them directly.

[Ponendus]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I think it boils down to this...

The doctors believe that the hybrid RPG/action games are the future. They have stated this many times in the past. Action games are using more and more RPG elements and thus they think it is a good idea to reverse that and add more action to their RPGs.

I think this logic is flawed. What it shows is that there is more interest in RPG elements in action games. Well, BW creates RPGs. They should be happy about that. Instead of making these RPG elements better BW are actually removing these successful RPG elements in favor for action elements. MP is part of successful action games. And thus BW thinks MP needs to be added.

Of course there is a second reason. EA's policy is that all new games should have a MP element. And whether BW likes it or not, they have to add that as well.

On the other hand, older BW games already had a MP element, so BW does not understand what the fuzz is all about. I think they have missed the point that many gamers make: There are only very few games that can have great SP and MP combined in one game. Usually one of the two suffers. BW games are first and foremost a SP experience and thus this fear is not unfounded. BW will never understand that, because they have to go that route. Management dictates it.

I strongly agree with alot of this. If Action developers are responding to need and so adding more RPG elements, then that speaks to the desire for 'more RPG' in games by the public. BioWare's response is to thus remove RPG elements? Or at the very least add action elements?

Makes no sense at all to me.

[Gatt9]

Volourn wrote...

"This is what I'm talking about! I could sell games better then them! These repeated strageties over and over again."

BIO has a 10+ track record to show off their ability to sell games. How is your track record when it comes to selling games?

It says a lot when a game like JE sells 1.5-2mil copies for BIO it's cosnidered a ''dissapointment' sales wise while people are claiming the 760k copies sold for DS3 by Obsidian is a 'success'.

Now, BIO doesn't always do things perfectly, but to claim they don't knwo what theya re doing is ridiculous. And, EA is also no strnager to success.

People whined about DA1 pre release as well saying that it was 'betraying' BIO's roots (notiwthstanding the fact that BIO's roots were not games let alone that their first game wasn't even a RPG) yet the series has done absolutely fine.

The dcos have made hundreds of millions of dollars. To claim they don't know what theya re doing is ridiculous.

You may want to recheck some of your references there...

First,  ME1 and ME2 were 2 million range sellers as well,  DA2 was an outright flop,  with all indications that they had a hard time cracking 1 million units.

You might also want to take a look at the company in question,  Bioware is the name of a branch of EA,  so to bank on "Bioware's history" is pretty pointless,  the company is run by EA.

You may also want to take a look at EA.  Specifically,  do a bit of research on their releases in 2011.  Bulletstorm and Dead Space 2 underperformed,  DA2 and Shadows of the Damned flopped,  NFL 2011 sold less units in it's first week than NFL 2010 did,  and BF3 is being heavily outsold by it's opponent.

While you're reading up,  look into these keywords:  Bulffrog,  Westwood,  and Origins.

Further,  you may want to note that every EA game is getting multiplayer,  and coincidently Online Passes.  It doesn't take much to put 2 and 2 together here...

[Brockololly]

Firky wrote...
Not everyone hates the idea. And, that tweet doesn't read to me like anyone is clueless. It reads to me like someone trying to give a polite response to quite a rude and personal attack. I know some people use Twitter to attack high profile people, and don't see a problem with that, but I think sending someone an @ is like talking to them directly.

Of course not everyone hates the idea. But it sure seems a healthy number of people have serious misigivings about the idea of a deathmatch MP mode for DA. If after the negative reaction many had to DA2, BioWare couldn't realize people would have a similarly negative reaction to this sort of news, then I'd say they are kind of aloof.

Like the tweet mentioned, look at the comments on various forums or news articles at different sites on this rumor. Most of the positive reactions are prefaced by excitement for the prospect of Frostbite 2 or cautiously optimistic on the condition that single player isn't affected adversely. The majority of comments are ones of disbelief, incredulity and negativity. There isn't anything rude about pointing out people's negative reactions to this story. And like Mike said, as one of the top people in charge of the direction of DA, I'd hope he sees the reaction to this rumor- whether real or not- and takes heed when thinking of how the games evolve in the future. Especially after DA2, this kind of reaction shouldn't come as a surprise.

[Ponendus]

Brockololly wrote...

Firky wrote...
Not everyone hates the idea. And, that tweet doesn't read to me like anyone is clueless. It reads to me like someone trying to give a polite response to quite a rude and personal attack. I know some people use Twitter to attack high profile people, and don't see a problem with that, but I think sending someone an @ is like talking to them directly.

Of course not everyone hates the idea. But it sure seems a healthy number of people have serious misigivings about the idea of a deathmatch MP mode for DA. If after the negative reaction many had to DA2, BioWare couldn't realize people would have a similarly negative reaction to this sort of news, then I'd say they are kind of aloof.

Like the tweet mentioned, look at the comments on various forums or news articles at different sites on this rumor. Most of the positive reactions are prefaced by excitement for the prospect of Frostbite 2 or cautiously optimistic on the condition that single player isn't affected adversely. The majority of comments are ones of disbelief, incredulity and negativity. There isn't anything rude about pointing out people's negative reactions to this story. And like Mike said, as one of the top people in charge of the direction of DA, I'd hope he sees the reaction to this rumor- whether real or not- and takes heed when thinking of how the games evolve in the future. Especially after DA2, this kind of reaction shouldn't come as a surprise.

Conversely, imagine how the reaction would be if for once one of these rumours was 'guess what? we are going back to our roots, DA3 is around the corner, we have listened to your feedback and we can't wait to show you what we are working on'.

If they just did that the reaction would be overwhelmingly positive imo. Why they are trying to convince us a new direction is better, I just don't know. Hopefully they have numbers to back up that a new direction is what people want, because otherwise it means that the heart of DA left with the developer/s that left after DAO - and no amount of us stomping our feet is going to change it. Which is disappointing.

[attend]

My daughter got Kirby's dreamland for her birthday. She immediately ripped open the jacket and proceeded to play for 3 hours. Then she turned to me and stated, "This sucks, there is no story. All you do is fight."

Out of the mouth of babes.

I agree with the posters above. MP takes away from a game (series) resources that could be used to create a better game. I have to deal with people all day and gaming is my escape. I do not want to share it with others, unless I am discussing with my friends later what a great (or vomit inducing) game it was.

EA/Bioware would be better served (speaking monetarily) if they used those extra funds to say....remove the dead bodies from a premise that has aged 3 to ten years. Have characters change clothes/styles if a period of time has passed. Build enough time/action between characters that you actually care if they are lost (cough..Bethany/Carver). Have a companion character say more than one phrase (that they say over and over) when your character speaks to them.

Oooooppps. Did not mean to rant, but I hope they get the picture. Streamline is a bad word for cutting out details/playable options. If they expect me to shell out my hard earned money then I feel I have the right to ask that I receive a product worthy of what I paid for it. If you are removing RPG elements, then soon it is not a RPG. Those are the games I buy, not MP.

Modifié par attend, 01 décembre 2011 - 03:09 .

[MerinTB]

Brockololly wrote...

Atakuma wrote...
What's your point? Do you want Bioware to copy Bethesda and make a sandbox game?

No- I'm saying that instead of squandering resources on a MP mode which will likely be forgotten about within months after release, double down on making a massive single player game with tons of content.

Instead of shoving multiplayer into every game whether it makes sense or not, focus on the single player. The success of single player only games like Skyrim or The Witcher 2 or Arkham City or Deus Ex:HR shows that not every game needs multiplayer to be commercially successful.

They can also learn from history and Bethesda's mistakes in the past.

They started as a non-RPG company (like BioWare) and had some success but once they started making RPGs the company became known as a leader in RPG games (like BioWare.)
From The Arena to Skyrim you can see a progression, one that's even carried to Fallout 3 (though that game still takes a different route and is it's own separate, if in many ways similar, thing) in some respects and yet Fallout is a different franchise so differences are much easier to allot for.  TES games do grow and evolve over time, but it feels like a much more natural progression.
To be fair to BioWare, they create or develop into different franchises, so leeway should be given (as for Fallout 3 for Bethesda) for some experimentation and different styles for different franchises.  But, inside a franchise, BioWare should follow closer to the Bethesda model of evolution and not revolution.
Here's the mistakes to learn from.  Battlespire.  Red Guard.  Set in the same TES world, but entirely different styles of games.  Both intended as new series based on the existing world (An Elder Scrolls Legend series and The Elder Scrolls Adventures line) and seeking to capitalize on the "faster, action paced" combat or "iconic character with cinematic storytelling" aspects which were NOT TES's strong suits or selling points.  Both were one-only's of apparent attempts as spin-offs (like the Sub-Zero adventure game spin-off for Mortal Kombat) because both were poorly received.  Bethesda learned it's lesson, came back with Morrowind, and BOOM.
Evolution, not revolution, in a successful series.

[Firky]

Brockololly wrote...

-snip-

There isn't anything rude about pointing out people's negative reactions to this story. And like Mike said, as one of the top people in charge of the direction of DA, I'd hope he sees the reaction to this rumor- whether real or not- and takes heed when thinking of how the games evolve in the future. Especially after DA2, this kind of reaction shouldn't come as a surprise.

Perhaps I misunderstood your point. I thought you were saying that an exchange like that, if it were the case that this rumour was a deliberate leak, might indicate that BioWare were "clueless." But maybe you were just saying that if the rumour were a deliberate leak, they'd have to be clueless not to have anticipated the reaction? If so, my mistake.

If your point is that it's good that the people in charge of DA care about the reaction to their game, sure, I think so, too.

I'm sure we can disagree on the other point. Personally, I say things about games on Twitter sometimes, but there are reasons why I wouldn't do so and @ a designer. Especially if I wanted to make the point that negative reaction made me happy - which may be a step further than "pointing out", as you say. (Or a celeb about how I'm happy people think that their hair looks terrible, or non gaming equivalent. That's not a good one, because I don't think any of us here care about hair, do we?) But, that would feel too personal to me. But, it's an emerging social thing, so ... who knows? (PS. And, of course, people can say what they like. I only raised that I thought it was rude because I misunderstood your point.)

Still, I'm getting OT, so I'm out.

Modifié par Firky, 01 décembre 2011 - 04:53 .

[Daveros]

But I don't wanna be a dragon...

[The Edge]

I respect whatever decision they make... I just hope it doesn't change DA too much, or the gameplay cohesion of the series may be at risk...

Couldn't we impliment these radical ideas on a new IP instead of on one that has a distinct fanbase already?

[Sad Dragon]

Good Bioware Games with Multiplayer:
So I thought i would go on and list some games that they have made in the past that did include multiplayer.

Baulders Gate -- Sure it was co-op but it did feature Multiplayer.
Baulders Gate 2 -- Same as above
Neverwinter Nights -- This was full scale multiplayer with user run servers with DMs doing running plots of their own in worlds they themselves created.

I would also like to say tht for me at least the Multiplayer in Neverwinter Nights was actually the highlight of the game and actually one of the best things that has come out of Bioware to date (yes, i really think it is THAT good).

Multiplayer isnt necessarily a bad thing, it can even be a great thing -- it all depends on how the implementation of said multiplayer is handled.
Now think about this for a bit: The only game that Bioware made that didnt have multiplayer up until the point of KOTOR was MDK, every single game up to that point -- excluding MDK -- had multiplayer.

EDIT:
Just wanted to add. I remember wishing that both KOTOR and Dragon Age Origins had a NWN style multiplayer. At one point i even remember discussing it in a forumthread and the mods had to come in to put the hops to rest -- and i remember being a bit sad that such multiplayer wouldnt make it into Dragon Age Origins. So for a while there myself and a lot of other forumites actually wanted bioware to put in multiplayer. Sure it wasnt a shoting gallery or anything like that, that was asked for but still...

-TSD

Modifié par Sad Dragon, 01 décembre 2011 - 07:25 .

[Jorina Leto]

ratzerman wrote...

No comment
No comment
Kinda-sorta-deny
No comment
Confirm

Yeah, that's going to happen.
I've learned my lesseon from ME3.

Dragon Age III will feature multiplayer.

If you don't like multiplayer (like me), here's the way to go: Detach yourself emotionaly from the series and do not buy the game.

[Ponendus]

Jorina Leto wrote...

I've learned my lesseon from ME3.

Dragon Age III will feature multiplayer.

If you don't like multiplayer (like me), here's the way to go: Detach yourself emotionaly from the series and do not buy the game.

While I do understand the sentiment, can I ask: would your opinion change if ME3 turned out to be great despite the multiplayer (which is after all touted to be an 'addon' to the game, not part of it)? I mean, you are 'learning your lesson' based off something that isn't actually released yet...

I don't like multiplayer either, i'm just looking for a shred of hope here. :innocent:

[Tom12]

somehow the thought doesnt go out of my head that the next dlc for da2 could be the multiplayer using frostbite 2. Well by using frostbite 2 they make a huge step forwards but with the multiplayer a huge step backwards, if they would make the next story based dlc in frostbite it would have been great but please no multiplayer

Modifié par Tom12, 01 décembre 2011 - 09:20 .

[Xewaka]

I will default to my usual statement: "Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 had multiplayer". However, from what I gather, the system in place will not be a cooperative effort, but rather some sort of PvP arena play. Which is ridiculous, considering Bioware's utter and complete inability to balance classes between themselves in any given game.

[FedericoV]

Xewaka wrote...

I will default to my usual statement: "Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 had multiplayer".

I agree but co-op multy with PVE and PVP multy are not exactly the same thing.

They are two different gameplay genres imho. Moreover as someone has pointed out above, it would require a lot of additional work becuase it would ask to re-balance the game (the whole system is based aroung SP PVE) and even to bring all the art assets to the Frostbite engine.

Having said that: they can add all the external feature they want to their Single Player games to please EA and support Origins, but in case I do not want to hear them speak anymore about lack of zots, resources, budget and time.

Modifié par FedericoV, 01 décembre 2011 - 10:44 .

[Bryy_Miller]

FedericoV wrote...
Having said that: they can add all the external feature they want to their Single Player games to please EA and support Origins, but in case I do not want to hear them speak anymore about lack of zots, resources, budget and time. 

They use that as explanation because that is the explanation. It's not an excuse, and treating it as it is one is foolish. No developer - not even Valve - is going to have unlimited resources. Dragon Age is not BioWare's only game to work on, and it is not EA's only game, either. 

[FedericoV]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

They use that as explanation because that is the explanation. It's not an excuse, and treating it as it is one is foolish. No developer - not even Valve - is going to have unlimited resources. Dragon Age is not BioWare's only game to work on, and it is not EA's only game, either. 

No, they use it as an explanation. It's an excuse since the game was charged full price nonethelees and they knew what they were doing. Good faith or bad faith does not change the final result because they have choosen consciously to develop the game with an unrealistic cycle and they have done nothing before release to express some concern about it (with the honorable exception of Gaider and Woo).

If you charge a game on the same price range of your competitors in the AAA market, I expect that game to respect the same standard in terms of quality and content. Moreover, while they knew that DA2 was a rushed game they cinically  pushed pre-orders because they knew that the game wold not have been a long seller.

Having said that: that's the market. I do customer service for a living. My customers do not care of the excuses or the causes when there's a problem, not at all. They do not care if the dog has eaten my homework. They just want three things: a fair price, very good quality and a reasonable deadline. If I cannot  respect those request, they change supplier or ask for a discount.

Modifié par FedericoV, 01 décembre 2011 - 11:32 .

[ejoslin]

FedericoV wrote...

No, they use it as an explanation. It's an excuse since the game was charged full price nonethelees and they knew what they were doing. Good faith or bad faith does not change the final result because they have choosen consciously to develop the game with an unrealistic cycle and they have done nothing before release to express some concern about it (with the honorable exception of Gaider and Woo).

If you charge a game on the same price range of your competitors in the AAA market, I expect that game to respect the same standard in terms of quality and content. Moreover, while they knew that DA2 was a rushed game they cinically  pushed pre-orders because they knew that the game wold not have been a long seller.

Having said that: that's the market. I do customer service for a living. My customers do not care of the excuses or the causes when there's a problem, not at all. They do not care if the dog has eaten my homework. They just want three things: a fair price, very good quality and a reasonable deadline. If I cannot  respect those request, they change supplier or ask for a discount.

EXACTLY!  That is the thing that has bothered me when the devs and when people here have said that "lack of resources and time" is the reason that DA2 fell short.  That would be fine had the game cost $20 when it came out.  But it cost $60 AND had day 1 DLC for another $7 if you hadn't preordered.  If I'm going to pay close to $70 for a game, I really do expect it to have the same quality and care and attention and resources put into it as OTHER games that cost the same or even a bit less.