134 réponses à ce sujet

[Cultist]

Command and Conquer franchise. A decade-old RTS series with huge fanbase.
C&C: Tiberian Dawn announced. Key features - no more base building no more "traditional" RTS mechanic. Make way for innovation!
Community outrages, pleading EA to stick with the "traditional" playstyle. Official response followed - fans and community can't understand the great idea, the new horizons. Don't stand on the way of innovation.
Release time. Biggest disaster that finished the franchise, even bigger than Duke Nukem Forever. C&C degraded to the point where the only sequel in production is a flash-game for social networks. Starcraft 2, on the other hand, remained as a king of RTS by promoting "traditional" gameplay.
Master of Orion 3 - same story, "innovations" turned disastrous and killed the franchise.
Heroes of Might and Magic - too numerous no mention - fails when innovaions implemented, success when "traditional" gameplay got refined.
See the pattern? Same stories can be repeated forever, yet...
Deus Ex 3 - developers repeated their previous game success by refining Deus Ex 2 and avoiding radical changes. Result - huge financial success.
Portal 2, Dead Space 2, New Vegas, Starcraft 2, Skyrim. All fared perfectly. And of course - Dragon Age: Origins, successing BG2.
The point of this is not to forbid or prevent innovation, but DO NOT FIX WHAT IS NOT BROKEN!
Beta of Diablo 3 is the best example of this - they removed all that annoyed playersin D2 and improved all the other aspects.
Refine it, remove worst aspects, empathise the best. And players will be happy. They'll buy and praise the game.

Modifié par Cultist, 29 décembre 2011 - 04:28 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I can't help but agree.

You can say gamers are over-reactive, stuck in their ways and hate change... but even if that is true, shouldn't that teach you that too radical of an innovation is a bad idea? You aren't going to keep innovating and then one day magically cure gamers of this, if it turns out to be even a semi-valid argument.

Improve on what was wrong, don't re-write everything. If you want to do that, create a new franchise or spin off. If they made DA2 a totally action game and called it "Dragon Age: The Kirkwall Sagas" then it might have been received remarkably better than Dragon Age 2.

[Cultist]

It's like horse race. The same rules but modernized with time - got registrators to define winner, improved track's ground not to harm horses etc. Improvement without harming the core.

[Gunderic]

Don't agree with that mentality in principle but that would've went much better for Dragon Age 2.

[nitefyre410]

I do agree to an extent but l let me add a little twist in the thinking in this... Something that many gamers may ignore sports... especially major professional sports. I know your saying to "WTF" but just follow along. Now in Sports I.E football you have great teams, good teams and bad teams. Over the history of the league the teams or Franchises reach greatness by fielding a highly talented to team that will not only win one game but lots games and championship. Now that does mean you are not going to lose that happens but you want to Win a lot more than you lose. Then a team comes along the builds a Dynasty winning more than once in a single decade with great players that influence the generation following them.

Still after while what happens... these player age, younger faster players come in the league... the team while at one time is great but now just can't quite keep up. The owner does not have money to play the old players and has to starts thinking of the future and the franchises continued success. So you do something called Rebuilding and building for the future moving older players and coaches for new younger talent to adapt to the competition and stay competitive. Now sometimes this rebuilding process is smooth but most of the time its not... you are going lose and make mistakes but you learn from the those mistakes and eventually with smarts, brains and a good eye you are back on top again.

Now what in the bloody hell does this have to do with Dragon Age... almost everything and more...see while Origins in its rights was great game(just like the great player)... it just would not hold up.If you just compare and contrast DA:O with Mass Effect it looks like a step backwards. Now I know many here did not do that but a lot did. For many Mass Effect was they first time of hearing about Bioware. Now we as fans could give a good damn less about that we just want our game and want out money not to be spent one crap. What Bioware has and I mean HAS to do is to know when its time the start moving a franchise in new direction when the old model starts to get stale. Now that can be for many different reasons in gaming its mostly do to tech advancement you can simply do more with what you have. The trick is to make the move at the right time and make the change seem almost seamless. ..

A company that is deadly good at this is Nintendo ... just look at how Mario and Zelda have changed over they years but some how it all seemed so seamless. I by far AM NOT a Nintendo Fan boy but just like the Yankees who I hate with passion any true Red Sox fan does...I got to respect the success they had.


Here another thing that I thought DA:O is likened as the spiritual successor to Baulders Gate and I think just in opinion that my be one issues. Bioware for all of it success has not had game franchise that was completely its own and not set in some other Universe... D&D or Star Wars. So they may lack the experience in creating a world that is able grab the player completely from ground zero.

[Fast Jimmy]

In response to the above comment about Mario and Zelda... these games have not changed in the slightest in the past decade. They are still done great, include a few new features, have a few new characters... but essentially, it is the same game over and over again. And it KILLS in making money.

Link still uses the hookshot to access new areas, or bombs to blow open secret passages, or a boomerang to stun the enemy... Mario still platforms across creation to save the princess, or some such.

Nintendo has had lots of turn over through the years, many seasons of "rebuilding." But these games sell NOT because of the name, but because the experience is always good and is always just a little more refined or varied than it was in the past.When you have games that use the Mario or Link title but aren't true to this formula, they are usually failures. Mario RPG, which was a real game on the SNES, was a total failure. Skyward Sword, which featured four player links, was not nearly as successful as other Zelda games.

Bioware has made LOTS of games that are set in their own worlds. Jade Empire, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Baldur's Gate... these are all VERY detailed worlds with their own histories, nations, politcal groups, religions, legends and geography. To say Baldur's Gate and DAO is from DnD is like saying DnD is from Tolkien, and that Tolkien is from Wagner, and that Wagner is from Germanic mythology, that Germanic mythology is from Nordic mythology, which is from ancient Arian stories... Everything was influenced by what came before it. But the world's that Bioware created were not cut and pasted from a Dungeons and Dragons book. They were built around the same concepts of character class, character statistics and skills, but that's just a framework for how your game works, not the world you created or the story you tell.

Lastly, the difference between a sports team and a video game company? A sports team has to go out on the field every week and try their best. They may have off weeks, or injuries, or be stuck in a funk, and that may cause them to not perform as well.

But a video game company only needs to perform when they release a game. They work hard, do tons of planning, huge amounts of detail... but they don't have to go on the field until they are good and ready. If they give the green light, say their game is ready to go, it better be the best they can play, period.

[nitefyre410]

You will here not disagreements on my part with anything you just said - just wanted to get the pot stirred and going.

Bioware worlds are detailed. what is one thing that stands of about Dragon Age: Origins to the Average consumer(not us the hardcore gamer) over something like Elder Scrolls V as far character wise or setting or story etc. Both Western RPG, both CRPG's both borrow from Mythologies from the same area both even have Dragons. Its the hook and one things the defines what a Bioware game is... for us who played BG and KOTR we knew but for many the first time was they know anything about Bioware was and is Mass Effect and Shepard , N7, etc,etc.

Dragon Age while its a deep universe does not have the hook that one thing that grabs and pulls you in and gets you interested and if your going to build a new franchise that what you need.

in the end I do agree at the end of the day Dragon Age 2 was not ready hit the field yet and for that it suffered. There was some things that you just don't do the long gaps between acts with no explanation of what happened in between. The ABSOLUTELY nonsensical fight with First Enchanter. Combat I had not issues with besides that terrible masking of the enemy spawns.

So to bring this all full circle what happened to Dragon Age 2 is what happens when you put a young Rookie on the field that not quiet ready... they get the asses kicked for the most part.

[Meris]

I agree that there wasn't the need to innovate too much on Dragon Age 2 (especially since Dragon Age 2 turned out to be a cash-in and thus you shouldn't try to innovate). But now BioWare is in a bit of a difficult position: deny it all you wish but those few innovations done right in Dragon Age 2 have following within the fanbase - especially combat aimed changes and a voice acting protagonist.

Modifié par Meris, 28 décembre 2011 - 10:12 .

[Arthur Cousland]

I agree with "if it ain't broke..." somewhat. If something works and people like it, then why mess with a good thing, unless it is improved?

Change is good, only if the change is an improvement. Change for the sake of change isn't always a good thing. Origins didn't need a makeover and DA2 feels more like another franchise or spin-off than a sequel.

If Bioware thought they were "innovating" by having the game take place entirely in Kirkwall, and having the city evolve so little over the 7 years, they can keep their "innovation". No one ages, many npcs will carry on with repeating conversations over the duration of the game, and many of the same npcs and merchants never move. Kirkwall looks the same in year 7 that it did in year 1. It doesn't seem like Kirkwall changed much since the Tevinters were there with their slaves either, with the statues still in place and etc.

Modifié par Arthur Cousland, 29 décembre 2011 - 09:40 .

[Ponendus]

Yes, you have a point.

However, I do think that enhancing a game is perfectly fine, but yes change for the sake of change rarely turns out well.

It's funny because there were some great enhancements made in DA2 (combat responsiveness for example), it almost feels like they just kept tweaking and changing and growing until it grew into something completely different. I imagine it a little like an artist that never puts the paintbrush down but keeps tweaking until the artwork looks nothing like what was intended. Usually the artist in that scenario will then tear the picture down and start again. I somewhat hope BioWare does just that.

[FirstWarden]

I agree with Zelda being a prime example of how little changes and here and there minor improvement over each sequal can still make a great game. Why doesn't Bioware only change things that need improvement. Flaws, bugs those kind of things. Why do you need to improve a succesful storyline, graphics and many more great options?

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I always ask this question and I don't think I get much of an answer.

Dragon Age 2 is undoubtedly different from Origins in many key areas (the merits of which I'm not interested in discussing), but what exactly about Dragon Age 2 was innovative in the context of the genre?

I get the feeling that people (wrongly) associate change with innovation.

[Brockololly]

mrcrusty wrote...

I always ask this question and I don't think I get much of an answer.

Dragon Age 2 is undoubtedly different from Origins in many key areas (the merits of which I'm not interested in discussing), but what exactly about Dragon Age 2 was innovative in the context of the genre?

I get the feeling that people (wrongly) associate change with innovation.

Ask the likes of Laidlaw, Darrah, Zeschuk and Muzyka since they're the ones constantly claiming DA2 was so incredibly "innovative." 

Certainly I don't think much of anything in DA2 was innovative from the POV of the genre as a whole. Stuff like the icons maybe, but even then thats similar to the tones from Alpha Protocol. The voiced PC with paraphrases and dialogue wheel is from ME. The framed narrative has been done in Alpha Protocol and countless other games- and Alpha Protocol did a truly interactive framed narrative unlike DA2.

The only rationale I can think of is that the changes from Origins to DA2 are called "innovative" if you're looking at it from the confines of Dragon Age as a franchise. Which, makes any change an innovation by their definition since you're only comparing DA2 to Origins.

[LinksOcarina]

Brockololly wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

I always ask this question and I don't think I get much of an answer.

Dragon Age 2 is undoubtedly different from Origins in many key areas (the merits of which I'm not interested in discussing), but what exactly about Dragon Age 2 was innovative in the context of the genre?

I get the feeling that people (wrongly) associate change with innovation.

Ask the likes of Laidlaw, Darrah, Zeschuk and Muzyka since they're the ones constantly claiming DA2 was so incredibly "innovative." 

Certainly I don't think much of anything in DA2 was innovative from the POV of the genre as a whole. Stuff like the icons maybe, but even then thats similar to the tones from Alpha Protocol. The voiced PC with paraphrases and dialogue wheel is from ME. The framed narrative has been done in Alpha Protocol and countless other games- and Alpha Protocol did a truly interactive framed narrative unlike DA2.

The only rationale I can think of is that the changes from Origins to DA2 are called "innovative" if you're looking at it from the confines of Dragon Age as a franchise. Which, makes any change an innovation by their definition since you're only comparing DA2 to Origins.

Friendship/Rivaly refined the concept of intrapersonal relationships to a new level, just like how Alpha Protocol did it with their dialouge system. 

The innovation I think they meant was between their own games, not outside sources though. But one thing I need to point out is that they didn't really innovate with 2, they refined it into a different direction.  The only thing really removed was a more slower-paced, tactical system of attacking and the old-school dialouge system. You can still use tactics in 2 but pressing a button makes things easier. As for the dialouge parts...it was kind of too old school, albiet still effective, for the type of game Origins was made to be.

So Dragon Age 2 wasn't innovative, but it did refine a lot of what was in origins, namely skills trees, class differences and dynamics, the tactics system, friendship/rivalry, and some may argue the art style (which honestly is a matter of taste. I like both equally.)

[vallore]

nitefyre410 wrote...




Now what in the bloody hell does this have to do with Dragon Age... almost everything and more...see while Origins in its rights was great game(just like the great player)... it just would not hold up.If you just compare and contrast DA:O with Mass Effect it looks like a step backwards. Now I know many here did not do that but a lot did. For many Mass Effect was they first time of hearing about Bioware. Now we as fans could give a good damn less about that we just want our game and want out money not to be spent one crap. What Bioware has and I mean HAS to do is to know when its time the start moving a franchise in new direction when the old model starts to get stale. Now that can be for many different reasons in gaming its mostly do to tech advancement you can simply do more with what you have. The trick is to make the move at the right time and make the change seem almost seamless. ..

But why would something like, say, DAO2, not hold up?

This is often assumed as a gospel truth, and I’m not criticizing you but, when it comes up to provide reasons for that assumption, we only get vague answers, usually in the line of the “need to change” or “go with the times,” or yet to ”avoid stagnation.”

But seriously, what was causing the need to change in that particular direction?

Where was the stagnation?

I saw cause for evolution not revolution.

You see, for a gamer, what is relevant in a game feature is, if the presence or absence of it in the game results in an increase of his fun, or if it actually decreases it.

It doesn’t really matter if it the feature is old, or done before. Conversely, it doesn’t matter if some new feature is a revolutionary innovation either; bottom line, what it matters is “is the feature fun or not?”

And for many of us, most of the old ant tried features of DAO resulted in a fun game, while the innovations brought by DA2 were simply not fun.

[Realmzmaster]

@vallore,

You are correct, but for many of us the opposite is true many of the changes in DA2 were fun and improve on things in DAO that many did not think were fun. (Mages comes to mind for me).

[nitefyre410]

FirstWarden wrote...

I agree with Zelda being a prime example of how little changes and here and there minor improvement over each sequal can still make a great game. Why doesn't Bioware only change things that need improvement. Flaws, bugs those kind of things. Why do you need to improve a succesful storyline, graphics and many more great options?

Yet there are   complaints that even with as great as twilight princess and Skyward Sword  Nintendo is still missing the boat on a lot of things.  One major complaint... Voice actors  and writing. 


My Biggest complaint with  DA 2 is not the changes they were in right direction because I never want to see "Moving to Postion"  when the bad guy is RIGHT there for  then entire  combat scene again...I might just pull my hair out. 

Where DA 2 failed was that they were not throught out and were poorly executed.  

Three Acts with multiple year gaps in between Acts and no real explanitation between..not good story telling and not being savvy enough to mask you enemy spawn  points  come'on man thats game designed and story telling  101.

[vallore]

Realmzmaster wrote...

@vallore,

You are correct, but for many of us the opposite is true many of the changes in DA2 were fun and improve on things in DAO that many did not think were fun. (Mages comes to mind for me).

Indeed. But I would point that, while many of the fans of DA2 seem to enjoy DAO too, (if to a lesser extent), the reverse doesn’t seem to be so true, (at least not to the same degree).

As I see it, if the changes brought by DA2 were mostly unnecessary, as DAO could be improved without changing direction; but now that those changes are out the problem is worse; they create a new, serious problem:

Keep the changes as they are and BW will likely lose yet another chunk of the franchise’s audience; reverse the changes and they will also disappoint part of the audience.

[Realmzmaster]

vallore wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

@vallore,

You are correct, but for many of us the opposite is true many of the changes in DA2 were fun and improve on things in DAO that many did not think were fun. (Mages comes to mind for me).

Indeed. But I would point that, while many of the fans of DA2 seem to enjoy DAO too, (if to a lesser extent), the reverse doesn’t seem to be so true, (at least not to the same degree).

As I see it, if the changes brought by DA2 were mostly unnecessary, as DAO could be improved without changing direction; but now that those changes are out the problem is worse; they create a new, serious problem:

Keep the changes as they are and BW will likely lose yet another chunk of the franchise’s audience; reverse the changes and they will also disappoint part of the audience.

I happen to like them both. I played DAO first. I still like DA2 better. Neither is as good as BG1 & 2. You are correct Bioware may lose part of its audience, but sometimes that is the price that is paid for experimentation, change and "innovation".

[vallore]

[quote]nitefyre410 wrote...

[quote]FirstWarden wrote...



My Biggest complaint with  DA 2 is not the changes they were in right direction because I never want to see "Moving to Postion"  when the bad guy is RIGHT there for  then entire  combat scene again...I might just pull my hair out. 

[/quote]



I’m not so sure that that was a move in the right direction… going from the “move to position” to teleports, grasshopper jumps, and turbo-rushing made melee feel so absurd for me that I couldn’t even play it, and that from someone that is usually quite neutral to different styles of combat.  

[twincast]

nitefyre410 wrote...
Yet there are complaints that even with as great as twilight princess and Skyward Sword  Nintendo is still missing the boat on a lot of things.  One major complaint... Voice actors  and writing. 

1) Despite Nintendo's claims to the contrary Link is a rather defined character in all the games, so voice acting wouldn't affect role-playing since there isn't any in the sense of playing your own character, not to mention that it isn't an RPG, but an action adventure to begin with.
2) The biggest annoyance isn't lack of voice-over, but that Link still can't say more than Yes and No.

Modifié par twincast, 29 décembre 2011 - 06:18 .

[LarryFat]

Tl;dr version
Dragon age 2 is...
NOT what the fans had expected
NOT anything ANYONE had asked for.
Trying cater for a bunch of gamers who weren't even into the genre (Aka the CoD crowd)
It was a huge dissapointment for anyone who liked Origins for what it was.
A semi strategic dungeon crawler with heavy rpg elements.
Bioware decided to shoot for a crowd much bigger but a far smaller attention span. They tried to get cash-in on the big success origins had been with DA2. telling a story that was more or less obsolete to the entire story of the dragon age universe.

Modifié par LarryFat, 29 décembre 2011 - 08:42 .

[FirstWarden]

@nitefyre,

Yes, they did make some good improvents, but the CHANGES they made were terrible IMO.

[alex90c]

mrcrusty wrote...

I always ask this question and I don't think I get much of an answer.

Dragon Age 2 is undoubtedly different from Origins in many key areas (the merits of which I'm not interested in discussing), but what exactly about Dragon Age 2 was innovative in the context of the genre?

I get the feeling that people (wrongly) associate change with innovation.

Da2 simply wasn't innovative. Neither was Origins. Yes, Muzyka is constantly talking out of his ass.

[nitefyre410]

vallore wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...




Now what in the bloody hell does this have to do with Dragon Age... almost everything and more...see while Origins in its rights was great game(just like the great player)... it just would not hold up.If you just compare and contrast DA:O with Mass Effect it looks like a step backwards. Now I know many here did not do that but a lot did. For many Mass Effect was they first time of hearing about Bioware. Now we as fans could give a good damn less about that we just want our game and want out money not to be spent one crap. What Bioware has and I mean HAS to do is to know when its time the start moving a franchise in new direction when the old model starts to get stale. Now that can be for many different reasons in gaming its mostly do to tech advancement you can simply do more with what you have. The trick is to make the move at the right time and make the change seem almost seamless. ..

But why would something like, say, DAO2, not hold up?

This is often assumed as a gospel truth, and I’m not criticizing you but, when it comes up to provide reasons for that assumption, we only get vague answers, usually in the line of the “need to change” or “go with the times,” or yet to ”avoid stagnation.”

But seriously, what was causing the need to change in that particular direction?

Where was the stagnation?

I saw cause for evolution not revolution.

You see, for a gamer, what is relevant in a game feature is, if the presence or absence of it in the game results in an increase of his fun, or if it actually decreases it.

It doesn’t really matter if it the feature is old, or done before. Conversely, it doesn’t matter if some new feature is a revolutionary innovation either; bottom line, what it matters is “is the feature fun or not?”

And for many of us, most of the old ant tried features of DAO resulted in a fun game, while the innovations brought by DA2 were simply not fun.

"Fun" is completely subjective because I can find fighting games fun but you may absolutely hate fighting games but does the fact that you don't like fighting games make them any less fun for someone.  

Honestly I think alot of people look at Origins through rose colored glasses  as do those whole defend  Dragon Age 2.  Both were flawed and lacking in the alot of things  that Bioware  has to get better.  I think origins gets over on a very old school nostigic fell so people look past things like

Moving to Position for the entire length of combat and the mutliple choice dialouge options that felt more like a test than game. A  interesting but run of the mill Story staple story and absolute Joke of anatongist... Really  a Giant Decoying  demon corrupted Dragon as the Arch Demon.  Just to have that trumpet by loghain  who has to be smart enough to know that Dark spawn Blight are or not is more of threat to his home than his former  enemy. Comat the was like playing patty cake instead of combat.... You know I under stand the whole spiritual successor to  BG but for crying out loud Tech as moved forward... use it.      

As well as Dragon Age 2 with its complete senseless time skips, closed off map(an issue for both games) Its 2011 damn it let go and explore and travel  to where I need to get to. Stop telling about deep world and let me go explore it.   A Three Act Story was lossely tied togother at best and times skips that lest lacking information about what's going on.    Not being to hide enemy Spawns... GAME DESIGN 101 my god  I have seen 16 bit era  aracade brawlers do better that.. The combat looked better as let it looked like a fight and playing  patty cake but it lacked any and all tatcial value.  

Could care less about how Darkspawn in both games they were ugly and in the endwill be nothing  bloody spots on ground.  


Now the being said I had fun playing both games... though I  sounds like didn't .   DA have better classes  even if some of the skills were meh.  The plot while run of the mill was at least tied together  and had direction... DA  2 not so much.  Even through I had to be point and click on where I want  go at least i had a few places to go instead of  just  Kirkwall.   I think Kirkwall itself was  pretty damn cool looking city... it was former slave trading hub and it looks and feels that way with gates and the stone and the on way to get  in and out of different places.

 
The problem with the changes is not that they were made its the fact they implemented its the face that they did not impliment  the right way as rushed but they had to be made and it looks like some people on the team were not all on the same page cause DA 2 was over the place.