942 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

After reading this thread, I'm sure BioWare knows exactly what we want and will be able to provide it to us in the future.

[Restraint]

DA2 was in development for 18 months(?) and sold more than 2 million copies. Origins was in development for at least 5 years and sold what, 3.5 million? You can interpret the data in various ways to suit your own purposes but DA2 was likely more profitable than Origins. I don't see any reason to claim it was a flop (at least commercially).

[Sylvianus]

Restraint wrote...

DA2 was in development for 18 months(?) and sold more than 2 million copies. Origins was in development for at least 5 years and sold what, 3.5 million? You can interpret the data in various ways to suit your own purposes but DA2 was likely more profitable than Origins. I don't see any reason to claim it was a flop (at least commercially).

I agree. ( DA2, I thought it was more 2.6 million copies  )

DAO has certainly been expensive to do. And so the gains might have not been that much compared to DA2 ( maybe even less ) despite an undoubted success.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 27 mars 2012 - 04:13 .

[Pasquale1234]

staindgrey wrote...

Agreed, on the polite aspect. Though I do feel the need to clarify one thing:

How should we label an "RPG"? Call me a casual fan if you will, but I very much dislike the older RPGs, or classic style. I dislike having it all be about numbers and grinding and item micromanagement like it's a part time job. I never liked them before. Then I was introduced to this generation's Bioware games, and fell in love with the concept of playing a role. I play Shepard/Warden/Hawke in the story-- and the story is what's important to me.

I fully understand the appeal of the classic elements, the grinding, the tactics, etc. of RPGs in the classic sense. But I also feel that "RPG" isn't the proper term for just that. RPG is more of a blanket term that encompasses the old and the new. In my mind, DAII is most definitely an RPG, because I'm playing the role of the refugee-turned-champion and making decisions about that person's personality, relationships, etc. throughout. How can that not be called an RPG?

Numbers, grinding, inventory micro-management I can live without.  Those sorts of mechanics are not, in and of themselves, the things that make an RPG for me.

What does make an RPG for me is the ability to role-play.  My ideal is for the developer to provide an interactive world and setting, using a story as a backdrop and allow me to inject a character able to react to the world in ways that are in-character and have the world react to the character's behaviors.

Consider, if you will, an actor on a stage or movie set playing a role.  That actor interprets the character, gives voice to the character, animates the character, conveys the character's motives and emotions.  That, to me, is role-playing.  And it's something that I cannot do when a VO and cinematic avatar are doing it for me.  The result, for me, is the frustration of an understudy wanting nothing more than to get out there and play that role while having to wait in the wings and watch some other actor doing it.

So the only role-playing I was able to do in DA2 was to take the role of director.  Please understand that when I say that my experience of DA2 was that of the director of an interactive movie, there is no intent on my part to degrade or demean anyone else's playstyle in any way.  My only intention here is to try to explain how different the experience is in the best way I know how.

DAO was not nearly as cinematic and provided quite a few over-the-shoulder shots, it had no PC VO, and provided enough more choice and latitude that I am able to successfully (and very happily) role-play it.  DA2 failed to give the opportunity to role-play per that playstyle.

In order for me to learn to enjoy games like DA2, the ME series, Witcher series, etc., I'm going to have to develop a different playstyle consistent with the gameplay they present - and either learn to like it, or simply discontinue gaming.  I am willing to continue to try to adapt, but how successful I will ultimately be remains to be seen.

[CarlSpackler]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

DAO was not nearly as cinematic and provided quite a few over-the-shoulder shots, it had no PC VO, and provided enough more choice and latitude that I am able to successfully (and very happily) role-play it.  DA2 failed to give the opportunity to role-play per that playstyle.

In order for me to learn to enjoy games like DA2, the ME series, Witcher series, etc., I'm going to have to develop a different playstyle consistent with the gameplay they present - and either learn to like it, or simply discontinue gaming.  I am willing to continue to try to adapt, but how successful I will ultimately be remains to be seen.

Yeah I don't typically roleplay like a lot of folks on here do (Sylvius comes to mind) but I definitley have a more intimate connection to the character and game with a silent protagonist.  My fondness for DAO ranks up there with my most enjoyable of all gaming experiences.

As for the other games you mentioned the ME games, witcher, etc I do enjoy those games for what they are and still derive greater gaming pleasure from them than most of other games on the market but it is a lesser experience than I had with DAO to be sure.  Ironically with DA2 I actually connected a little more with Hawke than I did Shep or Geralt, I say ironically because as a whole DA2 was a more disapointing game than the ME or witcher games.  I still can't help but wonder how all the changes in DA2 would have been accepted had the game had a longer gestation period and implementing those changes to a better effect.

Modifié par CarlSpackler, 27 mars 2012 - 04:10 .

[Jerrybnsn]

Sylvianus wrote...

Restraint wrote...

DA2 was in development for 18 months(?) and sold more than 2 million copies. Origins was in development for at least 5 years and sold what, 3.5 million? You can interpret the data in various ways to suit your own purposes but DA2 was likely more profitable than Origins. I don't see any reason to claim it was a flop (at least commercially).

I agree. ( DA2, I thought it was more 2.6 million copies  )

DAO has certainly been expensive to do. And so the gains might have not been that much compared to DA2 ( maybe even less ) despite an undoubted success.

According to Vgchartz DAII sold 1.8 million on all three platforms as of to date and that was having 700,000 preorders.  Origins sold 4.5 million in a same one year period.  DAII certainly wasn't a flop sales wise, but if failed compared to its predecessor.

[LobselVith8]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Bioware is still telling the stories that make its crpgs desirable. As for citing Todd Howard he also mentions that Elder Scroll games have always been action oriented and are never party based. And Morrowind wind fans are pissed off at Bethesda for the below average stories in Oblivion and Skyrim.

Some fans of Daggerfall were upset with Morrowind, and some fans of Morrowind were upset with Oblivion. That's nothing new. A lot of fans were happy with the Morrowind style elements that were found in Skyrim - from the overhauled character creation to the Dunmer looking much more reminiscent of their Morrowind counterparts. Fans also seemed to be pleased that the 5+5+5 leveling system from Oblivion was replaced with a less migrane inducing leveling system.

Realmzmaster wrote...

Elder Scroll as never been known for great stories except for Morrowind. The stories in Oblivion and Skyrim are average in my opinion . Since there is no party there is no interaction with companions. In fact Skyrim is the first time that you have actual companions and marriage, both are done badly. The fact that is also tied to Steam to me limits my choice.

Marriage and the companions were, for the most part, new - but the developers clearly listen to fans when previous issues came up (like they did about the complaints over the leveling system that was implemented in Oblivion), so I think it will be rectified. That said, I thought the narrative in Skyrim was great. I liked the stories, and even the factions. The protagonist could be proactive, he wasn't forced to be passive, he could investigate a serial killer, he could stop a murder attempt, and he could rise to power. The dichotomy between the Stormcloaks and the Legion was handled well, with neither side or leader being villified.

I would hope that the developers of Dragon Age III made a similar attempt to provide some three-dimensional characters for the templar and mage factions, as well as providing a protagonist who could be proactive, rather than passive.

[Sylvianus]

According to EA, DA2 has sold over 2 million copies. But whatever, Yes DA2 failed compared to its predecessor.

[the_one_54321]

Restraint wrote...
DA2 was in development for 18 months(?) and sold more than 2 million copies. Origins was in development for at least 5 years and sold what, 3.5 million? You can interpret the data in various ways to suit your own purposes but DA2 was likely more profitable than Origins. I don't see any reason to claim it was a flop (at least commercially).

Long term brand name damage.I can guarantee that there is a group of former fans of BioWare that have stopped buying BioWare games because of DAII. Maybe there aren't enough of us to matter. Maybe there are. I can't claim to know which.

[Thor Rand Al]

CarlSpackler wrote...
Yeah I don't typically roleplay like a lot of folks on here do (Sylvius comes to mind) but I definitley have a more intimate connection to the character and game with a silent protagonist.  My fondness for DAO ranks up there with my most enjoyable of all gaming experiences.
 

See and that's the oppisite for me, I felt more connected and drawn to Hawke partially because of voice. That and the story.  I've tried going back to my Warden and I can't because of lack of voice and emotion, I don't feel the connection.  It feels bland and boring.  Hawke's story was more centered around Hawke, the Wardens story was more open, not necessarily centered around the PC but more around Ferelden and the blight.  Don't get me wrong, I loved DA:O but when DA2 came out and I played it I can't go back to Origins.  There's something missing and to try and put that into words isn't that simple, I can say because the Warden has no emotion and no voice but that's wrong too.  I didn't feel connected to my Warden as I do to Hawke for so many reasons, and on so many levels.

Modifié par Thor Rand Al, 27 mars 2012 - 05:15 .

[the_one_54321]

I pity the players that can't draw out the emotion of text based dialog. I am at the point where I firmly believe that voice acting has done as much good as it can do for gaming and is now only harming games by significantly driving up the cost and time of production, leaving you with less content all across the board.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 27 mars 2012 - 05:22 .

[AkiKishi]

Sylvianus wrote...

According to EA, DA2 has sold over 2 million copies. But whatever, Yes DA2 failed compared to its predecessor.

EA love the old smoke and mirrors of shipped vs sold. Or even better sold in and sold through.

There are probably a couple of 100,000 DA2's gathering dust in warehouses and on shelves around the world.

[eyesofastorm]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I pity the players that can't draw out the emotion of text based dialog. I am at the point where I firmly believe that voice acting has done as much good as it can do for gaming and is not only harming games by significantly driving up the cost and time of production, leaving you with less content all across the board.

I think voice acting has it's place for sure.  I just don't think it's place is... EVERYWHERE!!!... *echo, echo, echo*.

[the_one_54321]

eyesofastorm wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
I pity the players that can't draw out the emotion of text based dialog. I am at the point where I firmly believe that voice acting has done as much good as it can do for gaming and is now only harming games by significantly driving up the cost and time of production, leaving you with less content all across the board.

I think voice acting has it's place for sure.  I just don't think it's place is... EVERYWHERE!!!... *echo, echo, echo*.

I actually enjoy the voice acting. I'm mostly speaking about the logistics of of giveing everyone a voice for every line.

[AkiKishi]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I pity the players that can't draw out the emotion of text based dialog. I am at the point where I firmly believe that voice acting has done as much good as it can do for gaming and is not only harming games by significantly driving up the cost and time of production, leaving you with less content all across the board.

It depends what you are used too. In games like Fallout/New Vegas never missed the voices, nor in KOA (well in certain scenes) but the more cinematic you make something the more it feels like something is missing. Deus Ex:HR without Jensens voice would feel hollow.

[AkiKishi]

the_one_54321 wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
I pity the players that can't draw out the emotion of text based dialog. I am at the point where I firmly believe that voice acting has done as much good as it can do for gaming and is now only harming games by significantly driving up the cost and time of production, leaving you with less content all across the board.

I think voice acting has it's place for sure.  I just don't think it's place is... EVERYWHERE!!!... *echo, echo, echo*.

I actually enjoy the voice acting. I'm mostly speaking about the logistics of of giveing everyone a voice for every line.

Less well funded JRPGs deal with it by going part voiced. The cinematics and dramatic moments are voiced. The regular stuff is text only. Works quite well as you can easily "imagine" in the voice in places where there is normal conversation.

[the_one_54321]

BobSmith101 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
I pity the players that can't draw out the emotion of text based dialog. I am at the point where I firmly believe that voice acting has done as much good as it can do for gaming and is now only harming games by significantly driving up the cost and time of production, leaving you with less content all across the board.

I think voice acting has it's place for sure.  I just don't think it's place is... EVERYWHERE!!!... *echo, echo, echo*.

I actually enjoy the voice acting. I'm mostly speaking about the logistics of of giveing everyone a voice for every line.

Less well funded JRPGs deal with it by going part voiced. The cinematics and dramatic moments are voiced. The regular stuff is text only. Works quite well as you can easily "imagine" in the voice in places where there is normal conversation.

And I don't see why there is a hangup with taking this approach. If all you have to do is type out text to get dialog, there's could be soooooooooooo much more dialog in the games.

[Restraint]

 

Jerrybnsn wrote...



According to Vgchartz DAII sold 1.8 million on all three platforms as of to date and that was having 700,000 preorders.  Origins sold 4.5 million in a same one year period.  DAII certainly wasn't a flop sales wise, but if failed compared to its predecessor.

VGchartz is proverbial in its inaccuracy. The Q1 FY12 financial report from EA said Dragon Age 2 sold over 2 million copies, so that's what I went with. I also don't have a solid idea of how many copies of origins were sold, I just used 3.5 million because that's what I've seen bandied about here on the forums. Either way, Origins took four times as long to make and probably cost a ton of money. A side by side comparison of units sold doesn't mean origins was more profitable than DA2.

the_one_54321 wrote...

Long term brand name damage.I can guarantee that there is a group of former fans of BioWare that have stopped buying BioWare games because of DAII. Maybe there aren't enough of us to matter. Maybe there are. I can't claim to know which. 

 
That may be true, or it may be that the disgruntled fans are balanced out by new faces who like the more cinematic experience and lesser reliance on old crpg mechanics like inventory management. I really have no way to tell. I was only saying there's no real evidence backing up people who like to say "DA2 was a flop. Therefore they should go back to the way origins did everything."

Modifié par Restraint, 27 mars 2012 - 05:42 .

[Thor Rand Al]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I pity the players that can't draw out the emotion of text based dialog. I am at the point where I firmly believe that voice acting has done as much good as it can do for gaming and is not only harming games by significantly driving up the cost and time of production, leaving you with less content all across the board.

How is it leaving less content, there was just as much content with DA2 and with DA:O.  It was just done in a different way.  You still got the options to explore questions regarding the quest you were doing.  Was it the fact that you had to do it differently then DA:O, that it wasn't put out for you to read word for word like DA:O?  I'm not tryin to start an arguement, I'm just trying to figure out what was so different that it's causing issues.  The only difference I saw was yes it was voiced (imo I like better) and that you couldn't see exactly what the PC said.  To me that is not an issue, I like that personally. 

As far as pity well I do draw out emotional text based dialog, one thing I love to do is read and even with a voiced protag I still read.  But now that I've had a taste of a voiced protag I'd prefer to play that way.  I'm not saying anything about not wanting to read but I'm also saying that the voiced protag can draw me into the world much more then reading.  When Hawke was angry, you could see it in his eye's, the way his face would get those sad or angry lines, the way he glared at Tallis in MotA told a lot of how Hawke was feeling and then hearing the emotions in his voice, (I played an aggro Hawke more then snarky, diplo I never touched, just didn't fit for me) just drew me closer because of these extra things.  I felt more drawn to the story litereally.  And personally for myself I don't see what's wrong with adding more.  It didn't take anything away, it added.

EDIT: Because of these extra things, I'm more drawn to my protag, more drawn into the story itself.

Modifié par Thor Rand Al, 27 mars 2012 - 05:42 .

[CarlSpackler]

Thor Rand Al wrote...

See and that's the oppisite for me, I felt more connected and drawn to Hawke partially because of voice. That and the story.  I've tried going back to my Warden and I can't because of lack of voice and emotion, I don't feel the connection.  It feels bland and boring.  Hawke's story was more centered around Hawke, the Wardens story was more open, not necessarily centered around the PC but more around Ferelden and the blight.  Don't get me wrong, I loved DA:O but when DA2 came out and I played it I can't go back to Origins.  There's something missing and to try and put that into words isn't that simple, I can say because the Warden has no emotion and no voice but that's wrong too.  I didn't feel connected to my Warden as I do to Hawke for so many reasons, and on so many levels.

Yeah I've seen a lot folks on here express a similar sentiment.  The fans of DA seem fairly split (at least the fans represented here on the BSN) , fortunately for me I still enjoy a voiced prot so the next DA game won't be unplayable for me.  It just makes me a little sad that there's not really anyone else out there doing a Bioware style game with a silent prot.  TES games just don't do it for me.  Regardless I am looking forward to the next DA game, the world/lore/characters created for this universe I think are fantastic. 

[the_one_54321]

Thor Rand Al wrote...
How is it leaving less content, there was just as much content with DA2 and with DA:O.  It was just done in a different way. 

Someone provided examples a while back. One, empty city. You go to the same place to access single open doors without any exploration, in order to open quests. Reused areas that are hardly reskined at all should be an obvious one.

Also there's just the simple math of it. In writing dialog, it's already written. All it needs to do is get placed in the text box. In having voiced dialog, after it's written, it needs to be recorded, then imported, then synced with animation, and the animation itself needs to have the detail to be synced with voiced dialog. How much text dialog could you produce with the same level of effort that goes into properly including a voice? 

[Zzulu2]

Text-based dialogue does nothing for me. I might as well be reading an in-game codex. Writing is also so very poor in the gaming industry that often times situations just lose all gravitas unless you have a decent voice actor helping the situation

[AkiKishi]

the_one_54321 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
I pity the players that can't draw out the emotion of text based dialog. I am at the point where I firmly believe that voice acting has done as much good as it can do for gaming and is now only harming games by significantly driving up the cost and time of production, leaving you with less content all across the board.

I think voice acting has it's place for sure.  I just don't think it's place is... EVERYWHERE!!!... *echo, echo, echo*.

I actually enjoy the voice acting. I'm mostly speaking about the logistics of of giveing everyone a voice for every line.

Less well funded JRPGs deal with it by going part voiced. The cinematics and dramatic moments are voiced. The regular stuff is text only. Works quite well as you can easily "imagine" in the voice in places where there is normal conversation.

And I don't see why there is a hangup with taking this approach. If all you have to do is type out text to get dialog, there's could be soooooooooooo much more dialog in the games.

This is pretty good example. 

 

[Thor Rand Al]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Thor Rand Al wrote...
How is it leaving less content, there was just as much content with DA2 and with DA:O.  It was just done in a different way. 

Someone provided examples a while back. One, empty city. You go to the same place to access single open doors without any exploration, in order to open quests. Reused areas that are hardly reskined at all should be an obvious one.

You seriously believe that them putting in a voiced protag caused that?? Did you even play the DLC's?  They not only had the voiced protag but they heard the community about the reusable areas and the way the enemies respawned and fixed it in the DLC's.  The reason for the reusable area's was because of time, shortcuts where taken because a deadline was set.  There are plot-holes in DA2 that I wish could've been filled but I had to rp a way around those holes.  But it had nothing to do with them adding in a voiced protag.  That was just because it was rushed and the time that could've made this game just as equal to DA:O wasn't given.

[CarlSpackler]

Thor Rand Al wrote...

How is it leaving less content, there was just as much content with DA2 and with DA:O.  It was just done in a different way. 

snip

EDIT: Because of these extra things, I'm more drawn to my protag, more drawn into the story itself.

Just to be clear many of the devs said that the absense of a voiced prot for DAO allowed for more content.  I understand the argument you're making in terms of being more drawn to the vp which is fine, that's personal preference.  But the devs explained that by having the prot be silent it did allow for quite a bit more content as the amount of recording time for the prot is extensive as he/she will by far have more dialogue than any other character in the game.  Not to mention it require two voice actos if you allow gender selection.  A voiced prot is an expense added to the game.  If I understand you correctly you would say regardless you enjoy the vp better than the sp and if the reverse were true I'd still prefer the sp.  I wouldn't want to trade quality for quantity, bottom line though is the sp allows for more content.

Modifié par CarlSpackler, 27 mars 2012 - 06:13 .