138 réponses à ce sujet

[kingtigernz]

Nurot wrote...
Count me in among group 3. I love (practically) everything about DA2. I love how innovative Bioware was with DA2. That is why a simple carbon copy of DA2 for DA3 could not possibly match DA2:s greatness. If they want to do that than they should keep being innovative and experimental, just as they were with the Baldurs gate games, Mass effect 1 and 2 (I haven't played ME3 yet), DAO and DA2. Surprise me!

I could write a long list of what I liked about DA2 (and someday, maybe I will), but for now I will just copy/paste your list, since it covers the majority of what I liked. I have to add that I really loved the combat though, since you felt that it was a less important feature for you. I could have played DA2 for the combat alone, with not a single drop of story. Of course, that mindblowingly good (innovative!) story only made the game even greater.

Care to explain where exactly this so called inovation was in relation to DA2.Inovation is nothing more than a cheap PR line to attract interest,streamlining a game is not inovation.

[Adrian68b]

I agree with Nurot, both about the relativity of online polls and innovation in DA2. I'm a psychologist and researcher and I quite understand topics like surveys and sampling (I teach them also). An online poll is at least double biased, first because a not every DA gamer care about forums, and answering a poll is optional. Also, a survey is always as good as the questions asked. Ask stupid or non-relevant questions and you get unusable answers. So, what that poll about voiced PC character shows us? Those who answered (a biased sample) are divided. But the poll don't offer information about how important is a voiced/silent character for immersion, story ...

[Heavenly_King]

nedpepper wrote...

Bioware wants to hear from from fans about what they would like for Dragon Age 3.  The problem with this is how do you get anything useful from a fractured fanbase? 

There seems to be three broad groups. 

First: The we want Origins back.  Silent protagonist.  classical story.  Modifications galore.  Scrolling dialogue.  They hated DA 2 and see nothing about it that is redeeming. My take.  I have zero interest in GOING BACK to this.  Games should evolve.  But do they have a point about keeping certain RPG elements?  Sure.  But  to what extent?

The second group:  This is a group that was disappointed by DA 2 and felt that there were elements about it that worked and some didn't.  They're fine with certain changes.  The want to see some things returned from Origins, like certain classes, more options for the progtagonist, but also are willing to keep someideas like the Voiced Protagonist, the cinematic approach blended with the cRPG style that keeps  both the role playing aspect and the story strong and visually interesting.   These are the nitpickers.  There's a lot of different ideas.  These are the people you may want to pay attention to, because I think they're still in love with this franchise and only want to see it get better.  And better yet, they may be wary, but they are still Bioware consumers.  What they don't want is Dragon Age 3 to turn into Mass Effect 3, and I'm not even talking about endings.  Dragon Age is a role playing game much more than Mass Effect.  It's the hook.

The third group:  The people who loved Dragon Age 2 and would be happy with more of the same.  I will be honest, I really like Dragon Age 2.  I love the personal touch, I love the companions, and I'm going to miss my Hawke tremendously.  I'm going to miss Merrill and Fenris and Isabella.  (Pretty sure we'll see Varric again). I love the idea that it was ballsy and, depsite the rushed flaws, created a real gray area character who wasn't a godly superhero like Shepard and the Warden.  I'd like to see Bioware get even MORE experimental.  Forget about the Darkspawn as this great evil horde. (Hell, I'd like to have a talking darkspawn as a companion.  I want to get to know them.)  Let's dive into some political intrigue.  I don't need to fight hordes of monsters.  Give me a great story, a flawed protagonist, and well written companions.  I DIG the idea that romances have no gender.  I don't need a roll of the dice, turn based fighting system.  Fighting just gets from one part of the story to the next.  I'm fine with how it worked in DA 2.  At least it wasn't as tedioius as Origins. Give me moral issues to deal with.  I don't need to dress my companions.  (Although having them change clothes every once in awhile would be nice as the story progresses.) Let the role playing and the story telling become hand in hand, streamlined just enough that you don't fall into the Skyrim and Origins issue of doing so many random non plot related side quests that I start to feel disconnected from the main story.  I want an interactive novel.  I know my group is the minority.  I get that.  I also know that we may be the ones who get the least fan service.  But, I also want this IP to be strong and, well, loved again.  I love the series, I love the writing, and I love the concept.  So, I'm on board, regardless.  I'm the easy consumer.  You've already sold me.  Again, and sadly, I'm the minority. 

But what I hope comes from all of this, is that no matter what group you're in, you'll keep in my mind that no one group is right.  And the truth is that Bioware is going to have to come up with a compromise for all three groups.

One last thing.  For the people who just want to bury this franchise and have nothing constructive to say...why?  What's the point?  Do you want to continue playing Dragon Age or not?  Ask yourself that question.  You may not want to give Bioware the benefit of the doubt.  I get that.  There's...trust issues.  But if you are so disillusioned with this company (and I believe you are the TRUE minority), maybe it's time to let it go.  Do something else.

So, what group do you fall In?  What's the soluton?  Can this fractured fanbase somehow help Bioware in deciding where to go with the Dragon Age franchise?

I am in the second group.    I liked the cinematic approach, the voiced main character, and the more dynamic combat.

But the game lacked many things of DA:O, like customization.  You could previously customize the armor of your party members.    You could even turn your team mates into which ever class you wanted, including the main character.   I was a mage that could handle a 2 handed sword .     The weapon customization was really awesome!!!   There also needs to be more exploration, and less reused enviroments. 

AND FINALLY THE GAME NEEDS AN EPIC STORY!!!!!!!  ......and not the story of a "side mission"

[Adrian68b]

About innovation in DA2. There's a great deal of innovation in DA2 story. It's the first Bioware game concerning a family story (Hawke's family). Having a family in a RPG game complicate decisions, make them more personal. A family member loss is a major event in DA2, and is beautifully staged. Of course DAO also has family connections for almost every PC (except the mage and the dalish). But it was distant during game (except maybe the dwarf noble at Ostagar). The major decisions in DAO are made without thinking about PC's family. In DA2 it's the opposite. Imagine a dwarf merchant as the main character in DA2. Will he/she care about mages-templars conflict? Why? He/she is no mage, his/her family has no mages.

[Adrian68b]

I also understand the option about Hawke being only human. It was a forced option (forced by the story). The main character has to be a Kirkwall descendent from a human family (not elf or dwarf, it won't do). Sadly, that removed a very appealing option available in DAO (selecting a PC with a different personal history). BUT remember that Dragon Age is an unfolding story. DAO and DA2 aren't independent like BG and Icewind Dale. DAO and DA2 are parallel stories, staged in two different locations in Thedas, and both are very important for the next chapters (I hope to be chapters, not just DA3). Sometimes a good story needs something like DA2 in order to unfold. Think about "The Empire Strikes Back" in Star Wars.

[Calbeb]

I really liked Dragon Age 2, despite the fact that the game is very flawed. My enjoyment of it is likely, in part, due to the fact that I tend to love Bioware games for the characterization. Dragon Age 2 felt, to me, like Bioware's most personal game. I loved my team.

With that said, I feel like there are lots of things that can be done to improve the game, much of which has been covered ad-nauseum. Dragon Age 1 did an amazing job of world-building, and providing a sense of epic scale. Each of the games "acts" managed to tell a story of an entire culture. The opportunity to learn about the Chantry by exploring an ancient temple full of riddles, explore the templar and mage debate through the tower, play Dwarven politics and end up in the midst of a landsmeet all came together to form an epic narrative.

I think Dragon Age 2's combat was an improvement, but it's encounter design was not. The DLC improved the situation though.

If Dragon Age 3 could take the sense of scale and exploration of the first game, and merge it with the characterization and combat improvements of the second, then Dragon Age 3 would be, in my mind, a huge success. I realize that is easier said than done however.

Modifié par Calbeb, 27 mars 2012 - 06:41 .

[Adrian68b]

Another great innovation in DA2 was Varric as the storyteller. It was just great. Bioware had some attempts before (Icewind Dale series) but nothing like this. Varric's "embellishments" are both hilarious and fun (remember Varric reaction "what?" when the seeker doesn't buy his version).

[seraphymon]

Adrian68b wrote...

About innovation in DA2. There's a great deal of innovation in DA2 story. It's the first Bioware game concerning a family story (Hawke's family). Having a family in a RPG game complicate decisions, make them more personal. A family member loss is a major event in DA2, and is beautifully staged. Of course DAO also has family connections for almost every PC (except the mage and the dalish). But it was distant during game (except maybe the dwarf noble at Ostagar). The major decisions in DAO are made without thinking about PC's family. In DA2 it's the opposite. Imagine a dwarf merchant as the main character in DA2. Will he/she care about mages-templars conflict? Why? He/she is no mage, his/her family has no mages.

There was no innovation in DA2. Everything has been done. It may have been more fresher to bioware  and or DA, but seriously that was just a dumb marketing ploy.

Now the idea behind all of this sounded alot better than what was actually executed. It shoulda been complicated decisions, but everything pans out the same in the end. aside from a few key decisions, like what happens to your sibling . But when one dies at the start how are you ssupposed to feel emotional? Or with your mother having no control. I completely disagree in that it was not staged beautifully.

[Adrian68b]

Perfectly told, Calbeb! That was indeed the main DAO strength. Plus the fact that playing all different Origin stories offered the gamer an even greater taste of cultures, habits and interactions between races. And, of course the darkspawn are the perfect enemy: as alien as could be (no reasoning, no peace or armistice possible). And the Archdemon, the perfect, godlike leader. DA2 has nothing similar in scale. Only qunari culture and a bit more about elfs. The opponents are not so grand in DA2: qunari, demons, mages and templars. But I still state that this conflict between mages and templars is pivotal for the DA universe story in terms of consequences. And yes, DA2 was the most personal game from Bioware, and it was a very good option. It offered a personal view of how it is to be a mage in a society dominated by Chantry. Anders and Fenris are also two different examples (extremes) of stories about mages in Thedas.

[seraphymon]

It didnt feel personal, but thats cause of how it went. I felt nothing for anyone cept for bethany. I didnteven have a chance with carver, and the truth about Malcolm is still mysterious a bit.

The story of DA2 in terms of affecting Thedas as a whole ifeel was a wasted effort, and the main thing could just easily be skipped and explained.

Sure you dont need a big bad enemy, but i felt for the most DA2 lacked a main villain, since the end boss is only really revealed near the end of the game. the arishok was cool ill give that, but it didnt get enough, since all DA2, was just 3 seperate stories trying to be melded into one.

[Adrian68b]

Of course DA2 has it's flaws, as DAO also. But name a game or a novel without flaws. Our role here is to offer Bioware and David Gaider in-depth and detailed information about what we like and what we don't in DAO and DA2. That is what they need, and be sure they will use it.

[Calbeb]

I think part of the reason that Dragon Age 2 suffes narratively comes from how they try to tell their story.

What was interesting about the decision to set the entirety of Dragon Age 2 in Kirkwall was the ability that the writers had to seed a whole bunch of conflicts at the start, as you were doing other things. Then the conflicts kind of bubble over until they explode into full on calamities, both at the end of Act 2 and 3.

That's a really cool idea, and provides a really narrow view of the key conflicts, but it also has the issue of leaving players feeling a little powerless. It's clear that the Mage situation will get out of control, and that the Qunari will eventually cause problems, it's just a question of when and why. Instead of feeling like you are the hero wandering into a impossible situation and being forced to come to some kind of decision about how to handle it, you are simply reacting.

[Adrian68b]

Maybe, seraphymon. Just think about this: the entire DA2 story was about religion and philosophy. The Chantry dogma and the mages, qunari vs human philosophy. Of course you could just explain it all before the next game. You will miss in that case the personal and emotional involvement (what it feels to lose a family member because he/she is a mage, or being made tranquil just because a Knight Commander don't like mages).

[Adrian68b]

Just right, Calbeb! In DAO the stage is very different. You are the leading WARDEN, you have the TREATIES, and it is a BLIGHT. So, simply by what he/she IS, the PC is the most important person in all Ferelden. In contrast, Hawke is nobody important in DA2. In Act 1 he/she is just a refugee, in Act 2 an upstart noble but still unimportant, and in Act 3 the CHAMPION (something like a living Paragon in the eyes of Free Marches and Kirkwall inhabitants), but still not a major actor in the eyes of mages and templars because he/she has no army or political power. It is like in the real world: just suppose you are a veteran commando fighter with a few commando friends. Do you think you could persuade Bush or Obama to cancel a full scale war and instead try to catch Saddam or Osama? NO, not because you couldn't but because they will never listen to you.

[nightscrawl]

David Gaider wrote...

And at that point, when we have something to show, we'll try to explain our thinking.

I'm pleased to see this.

I'm really hoping that even if you don't implement my <grand idea> or someone else's <awesome plan> for how something should work or any changes that should be done, that you well tell us why you made the changes (or didn't make any changes) so we can understand how the process works. When I make my own suggestions, I really try to not only think about how I want to play the game and what I want to see, but also think as a dev who has to be concerned with an overall audience, and realize that you all are working under your own constraints of time, budget, and manpower.

Geez is April 6 really 10 days away? I'm just dying for some info XD.

[Adrian68b]

Of course Bioware could have made a more heroic DA2, Hawke being the Hero who stopped the mage/templar conflict. But I suspect Bioware needed this outcome (Kirkwall Chantry destroyed, open mage/Chantry conflict in all Thedas) to stage the next DA3. It was obvious from the beginning (first Varric/Seeker dialogue).

[Adrian68b]

For the sake of an exquisite story, a subdued Hawke is acceptable. Because DA story so far has the potential to surpass everything Bioware has done before in a medieval RPG.

[Adrian68b]

Still, the feeling of being powerless in DA2 is real, in every acts (including Prologue). I suspect that was a major issue for many hardcore fans. Hawke is really powerless to save almost anybody important (except Bethany/Carver). One by one, his family dies out and the world around is turning in a nightmare. Bioware and David are playing with us emotionally, but it's really such a bad thing?

[esper]

nedpepper wrote...

Bioware wants to hear from from fans about what they would like for Dragon Age 3.  The problem with this is how do you get anything useful from a fractured fanbase? 

There seems to be three broad groups. 

First: The we want Origins back.  Silent protagonist.  classical story.  Modifications galore.  Scrolling dialogue.  They hated DA 2 and see nothing about it that is redeeming. My take.  I have zero interest in GOING BACK to this.  Games should evolve.  But do they have a point about keeping certain RPG elements?  Sure.  But  to what extent?

The second group:  This is a group that was disappointed by DA 2 and felt that there were elements about it that worked and some didn't.  They're fine with certain changes.  The want to see some things returned from Origins, like certain classes, more options for the progtagonist, but also are willing to keep someideas like the Voiced Protagonist, the cinematic approach blended with the cRPG style that keeps  both the role playing aspect and the story strong and visually interesting.   These are the nitpickers.  There's a lot of different ideas.  These are the people you may want to pay attention to, because I think they're still in love with this franchise and only want to see it get better.  And better yet, they may be wary, but they are still Bioware consumers.  What they don't want is Dragon Age 3 to turn into Mass Effect 3, and I'm not even talking about endings.  Dragon Age is a role playing game much more than Mass Effect.  It's the hook.

The third group:  The people who loved Dragon Age 2 and would be happy with more of the same.  I will be honest, I really like Dragon Age 2.  I love the personal touch, I love the companions, and I'm going to miss my Hawke tremendously.  I'm going to miss Merrill and Fenris and Isabella.  (Pretty sure we'll see Varric again). I love the idea that it was ballsy and, depsite the rushed flaws, created a real gray area character who wasn't a godly superhero like Shepard and the Warden.  I'd like to see Bioware get even MORE experimental.  Forget about the Darkspawn as this great evil horde. (Hell, I'd like to have a talking darkspawn as a companion.  I want to get to know them.)  Let's dive into some political intrigue.  I don't need to fight hordes of monsters.  Give me a great story, a flawed protagonist, and well written companions.  I DIG the idea that romances have no gender.  I don't need a roll of the dice, turn based fighting system.  Fighting just gets from one part of the story to the next.  I'm fine with how it worked in DA 2.  At least it wasn't as tedioius as Origins. Give me moral issues to deal with.  I don't need to dress my companions.  (Although having them change clothes every once in awhile would be nice as the story progresses.) Let the role playing and the story telling become hand in hand, streamlined just enough that you don't fall into the Skyrim and Origins issue of doing so many random non plot related side quests that I start to feel disconnected from the main story.  I want an interactive novel.  I know my group is the minority.  I get that.  I also know that we may be the ones who get the least fan service.  But, I also want this IP to be strong and, well, loved again.  I love the series, I love the writing, and I love the concept.  So, I'm on board, regardless.  I'm the easy consumer.  You've already sold me.  Again, and sadly, I'm the minority. 

But what I hope comes from all of this, is that no matter what group you're in, you'll keep in my mind that no one group is right.  And the truth is that Bioware is going to have to come up with a compromise for all three groups.

One last thing.  For the people who just want to bury this franchise and have nothing constructive to say...why?  What's the point?  Do you want to continue playing Dragon Age or not?  Ask yourself that question.  You may not want to give Bioware the benefit of the doubt.  I get that.  There's...trust issues.  But if you are so disillusioned with this company (and I believe you are the TRUE minority), maybe it's time to let it go.  Do something else.

So, what group do you fall In?  What's the soluton?  Can this fractured fanbase somehow help Bioware in deciding where to go with the Dragon Age franchise?

Count me among 3 too. So freaking much. 

There is no solution. 1 and 3 cannot be merged so what bioware have to do is something that will please 1 and 2 or 2 and 3, since Bioware has already stated that they won't go 1 and 2 (no more silent protagonist for example) they will go 2 and 3. Since 3 is an easy win. (I forexample is in as long as the imports is just a part of the background lore and I am not forced to play pro-chantry. And the last bit is just a testment of how invovled I am in the setting since there is an organization that I can absolutely not defend) they have to find some way to please 2 without alienating 3.

[Adrian68b]

I have some crazy ideas about DA plot, Seraphymon. Maybe it's just in my mind, but... First think about Flemeth involvement in DAO, DA2 and DA books. And she has some kind of prescience. What if she has some personal plot, and she needed Maric to encounter the Architect in order to unleash a Blight. Meantime she was preparing Morrigan to aquire a soul of an Old God. But she needed at least a living warden for that, so she saves Alistair and the PC in DAO. Then she needs an open conflict against the Chantry, and Hawke is just her tool (remember her dialogues with Hawke). In that view, the DA2 plot isn't just marketing.

[Adrian68b]

Just remember the dialogue between PC and Morrigan in Witch Hunt.

[Adrian68b]

"It is fate or chance? I can never decide." - Flemeth, DA2 prologue. Maybe the most important dialogue line in DA2.

[Adrian68b]

Also, remember Flemeth peculiar behavior in DA2 Prologue. She is ready to dismiss Hawke & Co, but when she learns that they plan to go to Kirkwall, she change her mind. And deliver her line...

[Adrian68b]

I'm not defending Bioware or David. I just really hope for a great story.

[nightscrawl]

Adrian68b wrote...

Of course Bioware could have made a more heroic DA2, Hawke being the Hero who stopped the mage/templar conflict. But I suspect Bioware needed this outcome (Kirkwall Chantry destroyed, open mage/Chantry conflict in all Thedas) to stage the next DA3. It was obvious from the beginning (first Varric/Seeker dialogue).

Well of course they needed the outcome. However, I think DA2 is presented that there are forces that are beyond our control. I honestly don't think that a more heroic Hawke could have stopped the conflict altogether. If it wasn't that specific incident, then something else would have happened that sent the pot boiling over, it was only a matter of time in that specific city. Additionally, Anders shows through his actions throughout all of the years that he is perfectly willing to go it alone, and even does so if you tell him to leave after the incident with Ser Alrik.

Not going to comment on this further, there are plenty of threads for this discussion about Hawke's heroism (or lack thereof)...

Btw, feel free to EDIT your post if you need to add something. Making several posts in a row is unnecessary spamming. =/