300 réponses à ce sujet

[Sidney]

Savber100 wrote...

Muzyka said BioWare is "checking [Skyrim] out aggressively" as it develops Dragon Age III. The Canadian video
game house informally announced that the next title in the Dragon Age 

You know what they need to learn then...first person combat and graphics.

Syrim can get the CoD types to buy it because combat in Skrim and CoD is basically the same thing or at least if you are good at CoD you'll do well at Skyrim. Toss in that you can play the game, functionally, without ever talking to anyone and it hits that combat first sweet spot.

The graphics are amazing. You can run a TV with in game graphics and not have people roll their eyes.

[Get Magna Carter]

I hope the part of Skyrim they focus on is building a strong single-player game and not worrying about multi-player.
Of course, they are more likely to imitate the amount of bugs....

Modifié par Get Magna Carter, 27 décembre 2011 - 08:26 .

[Get Magna Carter]

TwistedComplex wrote...

For Christ sake

DA:O Drew from Baulders Gate
DA2 Drew from... Dynasty Warriors?
DA3 Will draw from Skyrim

Can you pick something and stick with it, you schizophrenic freaks?

No, DA2 bore no resemblence to Dynasty warriors
[i suspect you've never player Dynasty warriors and are just trusting reviewers who have never played Dynasty Warriors]
-the first game was a one-on-one beat-em-up (some reviewers claim the others are identical...so also one-on-one beat-em-ups or lying reviewers=])
later Dynasty Warriors are about massive battlefields, hundreds of soldiers combining intense action and battlefield tactics

..the small skirmishes in DA2 were much more like Dragon Age Origins than anything in Dynasty Warriors

Modifié par Get Magna Carter, 27 décembre 2011 - 08:33 .

[LinksOcarina]

Forget Skyrim, because its a different style of RPG than Dragon Age is anyway, considering the fact the latter is more of a console RPG while the former is a dungeon crawler in it's barest form.

If Bioware wants to emulate the success of Skyrim, they will fail because Dragon Age is a different RPG all together than Skyrim. The only way to do it is to strip the story down to bare minimum, make exploration more of a priority (something that never was a major aspect of Origins, Awakening or Dragon Age II) and try to feature a more epic questline that would, for all intents and purposes, negate Dragon Age II and the more realistic feel that Bioware was trying to capture.

I can understand the need to better the product, but don't emulate features from other games too heavily, or else you will start to lose what made you yourself.

[DreamwareStudio]

Pedrak wrote...

The annoying thing is, they already did the game who found the balance between strong story and characters on one hand and a huge, vivid world and freedom on the other. That game came out more than 10 years ago and was called BALDUR'S GATE 2.

I know we old-timers are starting to sound like broken records, but, honestly, I'm convinced that if they made a game similar in size and depth to BG2 (maybe with a cool and unusual setting), only with modern visuals, they'd sell as well as Skyrim, probably better, since their writing and characters are more captivating than Bethesda's. Of course, if they try to find a shortcut and to sell just as well with an ok but unexceptional game like DA2, it's going to be a lot harder.

They tried emulating a lot of Baldur's Gate 2 with Dragon Age: Origins and wound up with their best selling game.  Had they continued in that same vein, we might be talking about Dragon Age 2 topping 5 million in sales. 

Other than sheer lunacy and illplaced greed inspired by the belief that appealing to a more general audience they would make more profit, I cannot explain why they would deviate from with what they started.  Hopefully it's a lesson learned that consistency and repeated quality lead to longevity and greater sales, not generalization.

What is so hard to understand that by trying to appeal to everyone you are appealing to almost no one?

[Morroian]

google_calasade wrote...

They tried emulating a lot of Baldur's Gate 2 with Dragon Age: Origins and wound up with their best selling game.  Had they continued in that same vein, we might be talking about Dragon Age 2 topping 5 million in sales. 

Doubt it I'm of the belief that a DA2 which was a replica of DAO would have sold less than DAO anyway, for one thing due to the poor console port.

[FaWa]

Morroian wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

They tried emulating a lot of Baldur's Gate 2 with Dragon Age: Origins and wound up with their best selling game.  Had they continued in that same vein, we might be talking about Dragon Age 2 topping 5 million in sales. 

Doubt it I'm of the belief that a DA2 which was a replica of DAO would have sold less than DAO anyway, for one thing due to the poor console port.

That doesn't matter! Origins: Ultimate Edition is outselling DA2 even thost DA2 came out a year after it. 

Actually, maybe that makes sense when you look at that last part. 

A game comes out only a year after its prequel, and a few months later, the prequel is still outselling the sequal. 

[DreamwareStudio]

Morroian wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

They tried emulating a lot of Baldur's Gate 2 with Dragon Age: Origins and wound up with their best selling game.  Had they continued in that same vein, we might be talking about Dragon Age 2 topping 5 million in sales. 

Doubt it I'm of the belief that a DA2 which was a replica of DAO would have sold less than DAO anyway, for one thing due to the poor console port.

Rather than mean a direct replica, what I should have said was:

Had Bioware/EA continued in the same vein of Origins by keeping the RPG elements while improving upon Origins in the sequel, they might have topped 5 million sales with Dragon Age 2.  Historically, whenever a sequel keeps the spirit of the original while improving upon the original means an increase in customers.

Modifié par google_calasade, 27 décembre 2011 - 10:40 .

[Atakuma]

FaWa wrote...

Morroian wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

They tried emulating a lot of Baldur's Gate 2 with Dragon Age: Origins and wound up with their best selling game.  Had they continued in that same vein, we might be talking about Dragon Age 2 topping 5 million in sales. 

Doubt it I'm of the belief that a DA2 which was a replica of DAO would have sold less than DAO anyway, for one thing due to the poor console port.

That doesn't matter! Origins: Ultimate Edition is outselling DA2 even thost DA2 came out a year after it. 

Actually, maybe that makes sense when you look at that last part. 

A game comes out only a year after its prequel, and a few months later, the prequel is still outselling the sequal. 

I've heard this before but I have yet to see any evidence to back it up.

[Gibb_Shepard]

FaWa wrote...

Morroian wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

They tried emulating a lot of Baldur's Gate 2 with Dragon Age: Origins and wound up with their best selling game.  Had they continued in that same vein, we might be talking about Dragon Age 2 topping 5 million in sales. 

Doubt it I'm of the belief that a DA2 which was a replica of DAO would have sold less than DAO anyway, for one thing due to the poor console port.

That doesn't matter! Origins: Ultimate Edition is outselling DA2 even thost DA2 came out a year after it. 

Actually, maybe that makes sense when you look at that last part. 

A game comes out only a year after its prequel, and a few months later, the prequel is still outselling the sequal. 

Wow, really? Mind providing a source? That's incredible, i didn't know DAO was still outselling it's successor even today.

[DreamwareStudio]

Here is the ranking in sales on Amazon:

Dragon Age 2 = 1,621 in Video Games

Dragon Age:  Origins Ultimate Edition = 1,386 in Video Games

Origins UE ranks higher, though Amazon is no barometer probably.  Then again, you have to figure buyer patterns are pretty consistent, regardless where they are shopping.

Modifié par google_calasade, 27 décembre 2011 - 11:28 .

[Apollo Starflare]

Really curious how this could influence the franchise, I have been wondering whether BioWare (being all experimental and all) would eventually get around to trying their hand at a more open world style of game. Infusing an open world focused game with the same degree of character interaction they are known for in their other titles would seem the sort of challenge they would like to take on.

Not sure DA3 is the place for further experimentation however, and I could see this easily proving to be rather minor in the grand scheme of things.

Anathemic wrote...

http://www.wired.com...2/dragon-age-3/

That's the link you're referring to?

Hey maybe copying off Skyrim will make BioWAre actually implement BOW STRINGS

Pfft, when cows sail to jupiter in a pea green boat.

Also known as: Around the same time we get weapon scabbards/sheaths.

[DreamwareStudio]

From that article:

Muzyka also addressed the common criticism that players could not equip their party members in Dragon Age II, saying BioWare took that feedback to heart.

“We realize that’s important to the players,” he said.

What truly surprises me is that they ever believed it was not important.  To ever make that mistake displays a solid misunderstanding of what an RPG should basically feature.  From a rookie company taking their first dive into the RPG pool I might be able to understand it, but from one with a long history in RPGs?

Totally blows me away, and frankly, I'm not sure that I buy it.  Seems like the lack of equiping party members was a corner they cut to meet the short development timeline.

As for adding bowstrings and sheaths, that would be a big PLUS.  Nothing (except for subpar model renders) takes me out of immersion more than seeing weapons float magically on someone's back or shooting an arrow without a string.  What really gets me is if no string or sheath is present but an audio of a string twanging or a sword being pulled out sounds.  If the game is good enough in other areas (Origins, the Witcher), I can overlook the lack of strings or sheaths, but all in all, I really like to see them.

While we're at it, do you think it might be possible for the DA installment to feature more realistically sized swords?  Please?  Perhaps include the ability to ride a horse...

Modifié par google_calasade, 28 décembre 2011 - 08:55 .

[Plaintiff]

google_calasade wrote...
What truly surprises me is that they ever believed it was not important.

It's not important to me.
 

To ever make that mistake displays a solid misunderstanding of what an RPG should basically feature.

How? While we're on the subject, what should an RPG basically feature and why?

Modifié par Plaintiff, 28 décembre 2011 - 11:07 .

[DreamwareStudio]

Plaintiff wrote...

google_calasade wrote...
What truly surprises me is that they ever believed it was not important.

It's not important to me.
 

To ever make that mistake displays a solid misunderstanding of what an RPG should basically feature.

How? While we're on the subject, what should an RPG basically feature and why?

Someone else asked me that in another thread, so I won't repeat it here.  If you don't care about something so small as party customization, you would not (most likely) be interested in all the facets of a RPG, anyway, and are probably more interested in games that lend themselves more towards action than actual role-playing.

If you are curious, do some googling, look it up on wikipedia, or maybe play some older role-playing games.

Modifié par google_calasade, 28 décembre 2011 - 01:13 .

[Sidney]

google_calasade wrote...

What truly surprises me is that they ever believed it was not important.  To ever make that mistake displays a solid misunderstanding of what an RPG should basically feature.  From a rookie company taking their first dive into the RPG pool I might be able to understand it, but from one with a long history in RPGs?

I'm stunned, and I've played RPG's on the computer since Wasteland on a C64, anyone cares about something that stupid. It has nothing to do with role playing. It is administrative overhead that adds nothing to the game.  I mean how "fun" is going "+3 armor instead of +2 armor....excellent!"

Then again maybe that is the message of Skyrim is that people want games with a ton of adminsitrative elements (note: this doesn't mean depth because Skyrim is a mile wide and an inch deep) loaded into it.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sidney wrote...

I'm stunned, and I've played RPG's on the computer since Wasteland on a C64, anyone cares about something that stupid. It has nothing to do with role playing. It is administrative overhead that adds nothing to the game.  I mean how "fun" is going "+3 armor instead of +2 armor....excellent!"

Then again maybe that is the message of Skyrim is that people want games with a ton of adminsitrative elements (note: this doesn't mean depth because Skyrim is a mile wide and an inch deep) loaded into it.

While DA2 did not have bowstrings or sheaths, it has nothing BUT the "+2 to armor to +3 armor!" factor to its inventory system, so I'm not sure what the argument here is.

Personally, I love choice in an RPG. My favorite type of book to plow through when I was (much) younger was the Choose Your Own Adventure books. These books gave you INSANELY different stories based on your choices, and didn't railroad you into a choice that branches right back to the same spot, regardless.

I know the prevailin argument is "Why would a video game company waste resources into content that people won't see on the first playthrough?" My counter to that? Replayability. Too many people buy a game, crush through it within a few days, then return it to the store. This hurts the company's profit, as this Used copy then goes back on the shelves and a gamer comes into the store and sees the new copy for 20% more than the used one when the game just came out a week ago. Why buy the new one?

But if the majority of gamers don't return/resell their game for weeks or months after it comes out, people who want to play it will have no other option than to buy a new version, which is profit for the company.

If I have to play a game 8 different times to see all of the endings/dialogues/options (as I did with DAO and its mulitple origins/endings) then not only will I buy it, but I will never sell it back. It was the closest I've played to a Choose Your Own Adventure style of story telling. While it surely took you to the same overall plot, ending and story, it did more than any other major studio game I've played.

So I don't care if that falls into anyone's definition of an RPG or not, I'd like to see more of that in future games. Not even just Dragon Age games... but all games, across the board. I'm selfish like that.

[DreamwareStudio]

Sidney wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

What truly surprises me is that they ever believed it was not important.  To ever make that mistake displays a solid misunderstanding of what an RPG should basically feature.  From a rookie company taking their first dive into the RPG pool I might be able to understand it, but from one with a long history in RPGs?

I'm stunned, and I've played RPG's on the computer since Wasteland on a C64, anyone cares about something that stupid. It has nothing to do with role playing. It is administrative overhead that adds nothing to the game.  I mean how "fun" is going "+3 armor instead of +2 armor....excellent!"

Then again maybe that is the message of Skyrim is that people want games with a ton of adminsitrative elements (note: this doesn't mean depth because Skyrim is a mile wide and an inch deep) loaded into it.

RPG is about choice, is it not?  The extra armor adds some variety and every minor detail adds to replayability, not to mention it adds to the feeling of that party being more yours because you've decided what defense they should wear and what weapons they wield.  It's a form of personalization if you will.  So why is that stupid?  Seems an awful lot of people are bothered by something so "stupid."  It seems more asinine to me to have a party in tow, picking up armor dropped from battles here and there that can never be equipped on the party members, but then that's probably just me.

Modifié par google_calasade, 28 décembre 2011 - 03:23 .

[Cultist]

Any change will be improvement from Dragon Age 2. And Skyrim is a good thing to draw inspiration. At least there's no anime\\jrpg acrobatics in battles.
Also:

Modifié par Cultist, 28 décembre 2011 - 04:11 .

[Sidney]

google_calasade wrote...
RPG is about choice, is it not?  The extra armor adds some variety and every minor detail adds to replayability, not to mention it adds to the feeling of that party being more yours because you've decided what defense they should wear and what weapons they wield.  It's a form of personalization if you will.  So why is that stupid?  Seems an awful lot of people are bothered by something so "stupid."  It seems more asinine to me to have a party in tow, picking up armor dropped from battles here and there that can never be equipped on the party members, but then that's probably just me.

All of this is beyond comprehension. I mean truely and well silly. The fact that many people are interested in stupid things is not a shock, the world around abounds with people making silly choices. What is odd is what reactionary types gamers are. It was in a game therefore it should always be in a game no matter the reason for it.

Choice, yes but a mace vs a sword isn't a choice that matters. Rather it is Sten in the Juggernaut or Oghren isn't a choice that matters. Who sits on the Orzammar throne matters in terms of story (although not much in terms of game) but type of weapon or armor doesn't.

Plus, what really galls me about you and your luddite kind is that DA2 did allow for customization - the runes and the mixes you could create allowed every bit as much customization as DAO. Hell, in DAO I can tell you exactly what suits of armor you were wearing at the end of the game - the same ones I was and everyone else was. There was no personalization. More, the runes (because of limited slots) created tradeoffs - add one type of rune and you can't add another. In DAO the armor was strictly linear with better and best suits fairly easily discernable. What you whine about isn't game function but wanting to do no more than play dress up.

I am saddened that the volume of grousing from the small number of whiners might bring this tacky little feature back.

[Yrkoon]

Sidney wrote...



Choice, yes but a mace vs a sword isn't a choice that matters.

I find it stunning that this comment is coming from someone who just finished claiming that he's been an RPG fan since  (insert last century game  here).

RPG fans have been creating whole characters around nothing but their specific weapon choices since...  forever.  Decades before the Drizzt days.

But go ahead.  Tell that  long-time RPG fan that  his Dwarf can't use an axe, he has to use a longsword instead for streamlining purposes.  See where that takes you on the mockery scale..

Modifié par Yrkoon, 28 décembre 2011 - 04:59 .

[nitefyre410]

/facepalm.... Bioware should have NEVER released that statement... they should went about their work quietly because now when DA 3 comes out instead of it being judged by its merits and how it stacks against the rest its going to compare to well the execute the EA version of Bethesda formula

[Fast Jimmy]

Yrkoon wrote...

But go ahead.  Tell that  long-time RPG fan that  his Dwarf can't use an axe, he has to use a bow or a longsword instead.  See where that takes you on the mockery scale..

Actually, DA2 DID tell RPG fans that their Dwarf had to use a crossbow. And it, along with the character in general, was one of the few widely praised things about the game.

Not defending or attacking the argument either way, just pointing out the funny.

[Yrkoon]

nitefyre410 wrote...

/facepalm.... Bioware should have NEVER released that statement... they should went about their work quietly because now when DA 3 comes out instead of it being judged by its merits and how it stacks against the rest its going to compare to well the execute the EA version of Bethesda formula

^YEP. And for once it won't be our (the fans') fault for having such 'unrealistic' expectations  (David Gaider's favorite gripe). Muzyka is deliberately name-dropping his company's product in an attempt to ride  on the coat tails of Skyrim's success. It's a calculated move, like everything is at that altitude. And when it comes back to bite them in the ass, lets remember how it began.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 28 décembre 2011 - 05:08 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Yrkoon wrote...

^YEP. And for once it won't be our (the fan's) fault for having such unrealistic expectations. Muzyka is deliberately name-dropping his company's product in an attempt to take advantage of Skyrim's success. It's a calculated move, like everything is at that altitude. And when it comes back to bite them in the ass, lets remember how it began.

Agreed. After MONTHS of carefully tailored responses to avoid any kind of fallout or negative response, the fact that Bioware came out and dropped the Skyrim bomb in relation to Dragon Age may be a sign of things to come.