134 réponses à ce sujet

[Meris]

alex90c wrote...

Bioware have also stated that they're not doing a 180, and that they want to go more in the DA2 direction (e.g. waves are staying, hooray!!!). I think when DA3 comes out, similarities it has to Origins will be more coincidental than intentional.

Being a compromise between Origins and DA2 isn't doing a 180.

[jcainhaze]

Dragon Age Origins was not and is NOT broken. That is the point. And DA2 was NOT a fix of any sort! It is actually DA2 that is broken and needs fixing.

[Aaleel]

I still think Bioware never thought that Origins would be as successful as it was. I think they had decided to make these changes and move towards a broader audience from the start. They also probably thought that the development length/costs weren't worth it at the end as well.

By the time Origins came out and then became as successful as it was, they would have been into DA2 development by then.

Only feasible explanation to explain why you would make drastic changes on the second game, that was their best selling ever,

It's like a car company having car of the year and then deciding to change the body, lights, interior, etc on the next year's model.

Modifié par Aaleel, 03 janvier 2012 - 03:33 .

[jcainhaze]

Aaleel wrote...

I still think Bioware never thought that Origins would be as successful as it was. I think they had decided to make these changes and move towards a broader audience from the start. They also probably thought that the development length/costs weren't worth it at the end as well.

By the time Origins came out and then became as successful as it was, they would have been into DA2 development by then.

Only feasible explanation to explain why you would make drastic changes on the second game, that was their best selling ever,

It's like a car company having car of the year and then deciding to change the body, lights, interior, etc on the next year's model.

I think it was overzealous greed combined with laziness and an uninspired group of developers.

[Meris]

Call me an another one from the masses, but considering Inon Zur's interview* and the time put behind DA:O, I genuinely believe its EA's fault.

*I believe he apologizes for problems in the in-game soundtrack due to the lack of time, which in turn would be due to 'EA's capitalizing DA:O's success'.

Modifié par Meris, 03 janvier 2012 - 03:44 .

[jcainhaze]

Well it's all speculation but yeah EA is probably at the heart of the problem. It's a shame because EA should be the driving force behing taking Bioware quality to the next level.

Modifié par jcainhaze, 03 janvier 2012 - 03:52 .

[Melca36]

alex90c wrote...

Meris wrote...

alex90c wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I'd prefer a series tried something new and failed, rather than end up playing the same games forever and ever because developers are too afraid of upsetting their "loyal fanbase".

I consider DA2 a success, I prefer it over Origins and would like to see more games like it. I don't really care what anyone else thinks.

Looks like you will probably be upset because they already said they are bringing back elements from Origins.

Where have Bioware ever said that?

What do you think DA3 being a compromise between Origins and Dragon Age 2 means?

Bioware have also stated that they're not doing a 180, and that they want to go more in the DA2 direction (e.g. waves are staying, hooray!!!). I think when DA3 comes out, similarities it has to Origins will be more coincidental than intentional.

They're bringing back customization. They're going to add more non combat quests.  They said they would tone down combat.

As fun as DA:2 was it did sell less an Origins.   They need to find a balance that appeals to ALL fans.  

[Melca36]

Meris wrote...

alex90c wrote...

Bioware have also stated that they're not doing a 180, and that they want to go more in the DA2 direction (e.g. waves are staying, hooray!!!). I think when DA3 comes out, similarities it has to Origins will be more coincidental than intentional.

Being a compromise between Origins and DA2 isn't doing a 180.

Its not.

The developers even acknowledged missteps with DA:2. Some of the hardcores are still in denial.

[Melca36]

Double post

Modifié par Melca36, 04 janvier 2012 - 01:52 .

[Fast Jimmy]

jcainhaze wrote...

Well it's all speculation but yeah EA is probably at the heart of the problem. It's a shame because EA should be the driving force behing taking Bioware quality to the next level.

I don't think EA is a totally fair scapegoat.

EA bought Bioware right after ME1 came out, before DAO was released. You could point to the convergence of Mythic and Bioware just as easily as being an influence, since that was more in line with when DA2 was first being formulated.

In the span of four or five years, Bioware has morphed into a totally different creature than it was back in 2006. For good, bad or indifferent, there are many different players, leaders and forces at work. They are hoping that the RPG can be expanded and blown up to appeal to many people, like how shooters went from a small group of gamers playing Quake and Counterstrike in the 90's to millions of people playing Halo in the early 2000's. Whether or not that is attainable is as of yet uncertain, but I'd say 10 million copies sold of a WRPG in the first month for Skyrim is a sign that it is possible.

Will Bioware be able to appeal to a large group of people and also retain its soul and appeal it has held for so long?

I think so. Even beyond that, I think they don't stand a chance at making RPGs more mainstream and more successful UNLESS they stick to their guns and continue to do what has been so successful in the past.

But trying to appeal to the non-RPG crowd by adding more trigger-fast action, strip out customization for the sake of avoiding complexity and watering down plot and story to avoid "standard RPG tropes" is insulting to not just prior Bioware fans, but also to the non-RPG crowd, who is expected to like something because they appear to pander to the lowest common denominator in tastes.

Let the Wii turn non-gamers into gamers... Bioware should be focused on making games that appeal to people, regardless of their prior video game experience. That's why there is a "Casual" difficulty.

[jcainhaze]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

jcainhaze wrote...

Well it's all speculation but yeah EA is probably at the heart of the problem. It's a shame because EA should be the driving force behing taking Bioware quality to the next level.

I don't think EA is a totally fair scapegoat.

EA bought Bioware right after ME1 came out, before DAO was released. You could point to the convergence of Mythic and Bioware just as easily as being an influence, since that was more in line with when DA2 was first being formulated.

In the span of four or five years, Bioware has morphed into a totally different creature than it was back in 2006. For good, bad or indifferent, there are many different players, leaders and forces at work. They are hoping that the RPG can be expanded and blown up to appeal to many people, like how shooters went from a small group of gamers playing Quake and Counterstrike in the 90's to millions of people playing Halo in the early 2000's. Whether or not that is attainable is as of yet uncertain, but I'd say 10 million copies sold of a WRPG in the first month for Skyrim is a sign that it is possible.

Will Bioware be able to appeal to a large group of people and also retain its soul and appeal it has held for so long?

I think so. Even beyond that, I think they don't stand a chance at making RPGs more mainstream and more successful UNLESS they stick to their guns and continue to do what has been so successful in the past.

But trying to appeal to the non-RPG crowd by adding more trigger-fast action, strip out customization for the sake of avoiding complexity and watering down plot and story to avoid "standard RPG tropes" is insulting to not just prior Bioware fans, but also to the non-RPG crowd, who is expected to like something because they appear to pander to the lowest common denominator in tastes.

Let the Wii turn non-gamers into gamers... Bioware should be focused on making games that appeal to people, regardless of their prior video game experience. That's why there is a "Casual" difficulty.

I didn't scapegoat EA, broski.  I've suggested several possibilities from laziness and lack of inspiration to inadequated resources.  I was just saying that EA is probably at the HEART of the problem.  EA certainly didn't say "Hey DA and ME are great games.  Lets take our time and turn out another quality product".  Instead I'm sure they were wetting their pants with excitement to quickly capitalize on 2 very successful titles that took along time to develope. 

I had no idea Skyrim sold 10 million copies already.  That's ridiculous!  That's on par with COD titles isn't it?  Anyway this is such a loaded conversation.  It just brings completely different questions to mind like"

1.  So if Bethesda sold 10 mil copies at $60 bucks a pop withing 1 month then how the heck can they not find the resources to produce a better story and atleast make sure that some idiot npc doesn't keep telling me I look like my someone stole my sweet role right after I killed the **** world eater!!!! 

Anyway I think they derailed with DA2 if they were looking at building towards a huge seller like Skyrim.  No wonder these Bioware tards are looking at morphing Dragon Age into an Elder Scrolls rip.  Come on guys stick to your own style.  When did you lose faith in your own product and become such biter.  lol

According to the urban dictionary --- A biter is, as you've already read in the other definitions, someone who can't formulate any of their own good ideas, so they steal ideas from those around them

Modifié par jcainhaze, 03 janvier 2012 - 05:40 .

[THEPURPLEVAGRANT]

"if it aint broke dont fix it"
{bunch of words i dont feel like reading}

thats really dumb. seriously if that mentality was taken by game developers wed be stuck playing Pack man and Pong!

Bioware took a gamble with Dragon Age II and what came out was a faster, darker, sexier, edgier game.  More traditional RPG fans didnt like this, but its the way the tide of things goes, so deal with it. OK man? If you want Baldurs Gate, play Baldurs Gate. its still there.  We dont need 5 baldurs gates, 1 is enough.

I dont know what all the fuss over Dragon Age II is, i loved it.

[jcainhaze]

Removed

Modifié par jcainhaze, 03 janvier 2012 - 08:29 .

[twincast]

LinksOcarina wrote...

I'm not talking about Super Mario Bros. 2....i'm talking about Mario Bros. and Super Mario Bros.


And how does Adventure of Link counter the argument?  It's a side-scrolling game that is more of an RPG over a top-down game that is more of an action/adventure.

Going from a very simple arcade game to a side-scroller for home consoles with a slightly different name is continuing the IP to me, but not the series.

Because they went straight back right after.

[twincast]

THEPURPLEVAGRANT wrote...

I dont know what all the fuss over Dragon Age II is, i loved it.

Good for you? Most did not.

Modifié par twincast, 03 janvier 2012 - 09:23 .

[chrcol]

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.

The word is used because its sold as innovating.

Now I have only played the demo of dragon age 2, it was "good enough" to make me go out and buy not only dragon age 2 but also dragon age origins.  However now I am playing origins it is very clear already to me it is the much better game.

A common problem with software seems to be whenever a sequel (if a game) or upgraded version is made the developers seem to feel they have to completely revamp to prove its something new, then it gets called innovation by reviewers and the like and its automatically assumed to be better.

Ultimately I agree on your core point which is just because something has changed it doesnt mean its innovation, and I get sick of hearing the word.

If a dragon age origins 2 came out tommorow which has the same interface, same skill system,, same role playing system but just new story line I would snap it up, as its already proven to me.

Another thing as well if they didnt "innovate" so much then maybe we would see less buggy games, as games are defenitly more buggier in the modern era there is no doubt about it.

[alex90c]

Melca36 wrote...

alex90c wrote...

Meris wrote...

alex90c wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I'd prefer a series tried something new and failed, rather than end up playing the same games forever and ever because developers are too afraid of upsetting their "loyal fanbase".

I consider DA2 a success, I prefer it over Origins and would like to see more games like it. I don't really care what anyone else thinks.

Looks like you will probably be upset because they already said they are bringing back elements from Origins.

Where have Bioware ever said that?

What do you think DA3 being a compromise between Origins and Dragon Age 2 means?

Bioware have also stated that they're not doing a 180, and that they want to go more in the DA2 direction (e.g. waves are staying, hooray!!!). I think when DA3 comes out, similarities it has to Origins will be more coincidental than intentional.

They're bringing back customization. They're going to add more non combat quests.  They said they would tone down combat.

As fun as DA:2 was it did sell less an Origins.   They need to find a balance that appeals to ALL fans.  

And it was trying to appeal to "all" fans that got them in to the mess that was DA2. Bioware know full well they can't just compromise with everything, so they've either got to go toward the DA2 direction or the DA:O direction. They choose the former, along with some elements from Origins, rather than the latter with some elements from DA2.

[Pleasureslave]

Interesting.
New players that was attracted to forums by DA2 here seem to advocate for action-over-RPG style.
And old-timers seem to like Origins more because, well, it's more closer to classic RPG like Baldur's Gate.
The problem is - new players from modern jRPG and action-oriented genberation are here to stay and next Dragon Age should be a hybrid of traditional RPG and action. Otherwise, certain part of players will be disappointed.

Modifié par Pleasureslave, 03 janvier 2012 - 11:52 .

[HanErlik]

Pleasureslave wrote...

Interesting.
New players that was attracted to forums by DA2 here seem to advocate for action-over-RPG style.
And old-timers seem to like Origins more because, well, it's more closer to classic RPG like Baldur's Gate.
The problem is - new players from modern jRPG and action-oriented genberation are here to stay and next Dragon Age should be a hybrid of traditional RPG and action. Otherwise, certain part of players will be disappointed.

 Probably a hybrid will disappoint both sides. I, for one, will not buy the third game if it contains DA2's so-called innovations.

[Melca36]

alex90c wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

alex90c wrote...

Meris wrote...

alex90c wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I'd prefer a series tried something new and failed, rather than end up playing the same games forever and ever because developers are too afraid of upsetting their "loyal fanbase".

I consider DA2 a success, I prefer it over Origins and would like to see more games like it. I don't really care what anyone else thinks.

Looks like you will probably be upset because they already said they are bringing back elements from Origins.

Where have Bioware ever said that?

What do you think DA3 being a compromise between Origins and Dragon Age 2 means?

Bioware have also stated that they're not doing a 180, and that they want to go more in the DA2 direction (e.g. waves are staying, hooray!!!). I think when DA3 comes out, similarities it has to Origins will be more coincidental than intentional.

They're bringing back customization. They're going to add more non combat quests.  They said they would tone down combat.

As fun as DA:2 was it did sell less an Origins.   They need to find a balance that appeals to ALL fans.  

And it was trying to appeal to "all" fans that got them in to the mess that was DA2. Bioware know full well they can't just compromise with everything, so they've either got to go toward the DA2 direction or the DA:O direction. They choose the former, along with some elements from Origins, rather than the latter with some elements from DA2.

Actually they succeeded quite well so I will have to disagree. I know plenty of people who were disappointed in the game but thought the two DLCs were great!  

So like it or not, they did reach a compromise. LOL  

[Realmzmaster]

HanErlik wrote...

Pleasureslave wrote...

Interesting.
New players that was attracted to forums by DA2 here seem to advocate for action-over-RPG style.
And old-timers seem to like Origins more because, well, it's more closer to classic RPG like Baldur's Gate.
The problem is - new players from modern jRPG and action-oriented genberation are here to stay and next Dragon Age should be a hybrid of traditional RPG and action. Otherwise, certain part of players will be disappointed.

 Probably a hybrid will disappoint both sides. I, for one, will not buy the third game if it contains DA2's so-called innovations.

There lies the problem. I will be vehemently critizing DA3 if it goes back to many of the conventions that I disliked in DAO and were better conceived in DA2. If DA3 goes back to the gift giving system in DAO instead of the friendship/rivalry system, I will not like it. If it goes back to the awful two hander and mage combat that is a non-starter. If it goes back to the complete lack of urgency that will be a problem. If it goes back to where I have to recruit all the armies to stage a war that is unrealistic. If DA3 goes back to encounters where the enemy cannot have or call for reinforcements especially in places where they should be that is not good.
The gamer should not be able to tuck his/her squishies in a corner without being harassed by the enemy. The stealth system in DAO was broken. There should be no way that a rogue can diappear in broad daylight with no cover.
Certain aspects of DAO were broken. I like DAO, but I can give a list of the things I thought were broken and how it was not the spiritual successor to BG. I was there for the heated debates on how gamers felt betrayed by Bioware because of DAO and how unlike BG it was (sound familar?). No permadeath of the PC. Instant health and mana regeneration, turn based combat that allowed for true tactical encounters, full creation of the 6 member party and the list  goes on.

When I make a comparison with DAO and DA2, I compare it to all the cRPGs I have played over time. The changes are dramatic. The changes between DAO and DA2 are nowhere near as dramatic as BG to DAO. Many conventions that I like were stripped out of DAO in comparison to BG and NWN.

[Drasanil]

Realmzmaster wrote...
If it goes back to the complete lack of urgency that will be a problem.

There was a sense of urgency in DA2? 

If DA3 goes back to encounters where the enemy cannot have or call for reinforcements especially in places where they should be that is not good.

You mean like knights in full plate jumping off tall buildings?

The gamer should not be able to tuck his/her squishies in a corner without being harassed by the enemy.

Yes a player should not do the tactically sane thing and minimise his opponent's advantage in numbers through the use of cover, bottlenecks and narrow terrain... no just drop some more parachuting knights on him! That'll learn him to use tactics! 

The stealth system in DAO was broken. There should be no way that a rogue can diappear in broad daylight with no cover.

The stealth system is an abstract representation due to gameplay mechanics, it was no different in DA2 where rogues could disappear mid fight in even emptier surroundings, if anything this element got worse in DA2. Neither the DAO or DA2 engine and controls are really suited to proper stealth play, in fact pretty much all party based games 'abstract' stealth elements. 

I was there for the heated debates on how gamers felt betrayed by Bioware because of DAO and how unlike BG it was (sound familar?).

Not really, considering those voices died down about a week or so after release, where as DA2's disapproval is nearing the one year mark. Hell, Bioware's forums are pretty much the only place you even hear the game praised or defended with any sort of sincerity. 

No permadeath of the PC.

Please, now that's just intellectually insulting, the only perma-death there is in a video game is if you delete your save files. Not to mention D&D has bloody ressurection spells, the setting pretty much invented the revolving door afterlife.

Instant health and mana regeneration, turn based combat that allowed for true tactical encounters, full creation of the 6 member party and the list  goes on.

Aren't these all pretty much complaints about dragon age not using D&D/D20 mechanics?

When I make a comparison with DAO and DA2, I compare it to all the cRPGs I have played over time. The changes are dramatic. The changes between DAO and DA2 are nowhere near as dramatic as BG to DAO. Many conventions that I like were stripped out of DAO in comparison to BG and NWN.

You're comparing a transition from one system to another, to changes made to a set of core mechanics with in the same franchise/system. That's not even a remotely realistic or apt comparison. To compare more adequately and to a similar standard: the DAO>DA2 transition was about as well recieved as the transition from D&D 3.5e to 4e.

[Realmzmaster]

DA2 did not need a sense of urgency given that it span 7 years. DAO on the other hand the warden was suppose to raise an army. What was the ArchDemon doing ? Reading a book? The darkspawn should have obliterating the map of Ferelden not just Lothering. In fact the darkspawn should have been make attacks all over the map. An army just stops at Ostagar and does nothing until the Warden settles the Civil war? Really?

I will take para-trooping enemies in full armor compare to the almost total lack of reinforcements in DAO. Also the sheer idiocy that the armies were to meet at Redcliffe when a central location or capital city was a better staging area.
The only reason that bottlenecks can be used is that the player only has to worry about the enemy in front of him. My complaint is that DAO allows for no reinforcements for the enemy, which has not the case in other games like Pool of Radiance, TOEE, BG and Icewind Dale.

MotA showed how stealth could be done more realistically and makes more sense than in DAO or DA2. So yes it can be done.

The voices did not die down a week after release for DAO. The complaints were heard for a long time just like DA2 now. Awakenings and the dlc only compounded the problem.

BG had permadeath in that once the PC died you had to reload. The whole party has to die in DAO and DA2 for that to happen and you are going to tell me that is realistic. I bring that up because gamers are complaining about DA2 (and DAO) not having bowstrings.

If your companion died you had to take out time to get them to a healer or have your healer attempt a resurrection which was not alwys successful that (IMHO) added to the role playing and was realistic within the context of a fantasy setting.

No, it is not just D & D mechanics I can also include Rolemaster, GURPS, Tunnels & Troll, Runequest, Stormbringer, Fantasy Trip and Sword & Sorcery. Throw in Fighting Fantasy with it (so you can pick one).

Yes in certain games like Hack, Rogue the save game files are erased. If you played Ironman (akin to Nightmare plus) in certain cRPGs your save games were gone if the PC died. That was a choice in the Wizardry games. Many gamers pick that choice. Which was closer to group play than the system now. If your character died in group play it was roll up another character, unless the group was able to resurrect you.

If you market a game as the spiritual successor to another game your company created then the comparison is fair. By saying that the developers should expect comparison. No I do not give free passes because you want to say it is a new IP.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 04 janvier 2012 - 06:08 .

[Pleasureslave]

Speaking of urgency - After first Fallout, all fans pleaded Black Isle for one thing - to remove time limit.
Dead Rising my friend is a huge fan of zombies but he said that time limit killed that game with great potential.
Time limit could be thrilling for players but for others it could be a huge turnoff. When choosing between good thrill and turnoff - it is better to avoid turnoff, because it means leaving players. And thrills could be implemented in more "safe" ways.
Overall we are not in position to assume what darkspawn should or shouldn't do, how they should of shouldn't act - that like ridiculous agrues from starwars fanatics about how some characters from films should act "correctly".
DA:Origins was improvement because it dealt with many of BG's flaws. Permadeath? That was a relic of old hardcore gaming. But harmed gameplay with frequent saves and loads, as permadeath was way too random. Gameplay>>>>>>realism or devotion to the "roots" of RPG genre. Origins implemented injuries.
No reinforcements for enemies? Well enemies were tougher in Origins and not like zergling waves in DA2.

Also the sheer idiocy that the armies were to meet at Redcliffe when a central location or capital city was a better staging area.

That is your opinion. Based on...what? I suggest you reading Vegetius - upon whose writings medieval warfare was waged and especially part about castles. But that again this is specualations that have no relation no game, but to show how subjective your ideas are.
Origins did not followed rules of D&D or others - it created its own rules.

[Zanallen]

Pleasureslave wrote...

That is your opinion. Based on...what? I suggest you reading Vegetius - upon whose writings medieval warfare was waged and especially part about castles. But that again this is specualations that have no relation no game, but to show how subjective your ideas are.

Really? You don't think having the armies gather at Redcliffe was a stupid idea? Despite the path of the darkspawn going directly up the center of Ferelden before sweeping out to the sides? Hell, you just have to look at the ending of DAO to see why it was a stupid idea. The darkspawn completely bypass Redcliffe and continue their established path to sack the capital of the country.