942 réponses à ce sujet

[Tsuga C]

*honest applause for Brockololly*  *thumbs up*

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Perhaps you need to establish a common ground from which to start, from a high-level perspective.

We have that.  We both want the player not to feel frustrated or stymied by the dialogue system.  We both want the player to feel like he's actually making dialogue decisions that make a whit of difference to how his character behaves.

I hope we both want the player to feel some level of ownership over his character, but I'm not sure anyone at BioWare shares this desire.

[Joy Divison]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Sequels often sell poorly when the original wasn't well received. Maybe a bunch of people bought Dragon Age: Origins on the strength of games like Knights of the Old Republic and Mass Effect, but didn't like it and so didn't buy the sequel. :innocent:

You know this isn't applicable to DA and yet you posted it anway .

[Tsuga C]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I was remembering the discussions of the languages (you hired that linguist - Wolf, I think was his name), and we had long conversations about game design in theory (with occasional scraps of meat, like the four playable races).  And then there was the concept art and the mockups in the NWN engine.

The linguist...  Ah, Beesechurger!  I remember his brief appearance on the old BioWare forum.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

The RPG element I value most is choice and consequences, particularly narrative ones. I want to make choices and see the world or story react to those choices.

That's not why I play BioWare games though. In fact, for that element, I find most cRPGs are highly lacking, but I understand why that is and I see it as forgivable.

I accept that the consequences side of your preference is not well served by CRPGs as you define consequences.

I play RPGs, and CRPGs in particular, for choice and consequences, but the choice here is the design of my character's personality, and the consequence is how he behaves in the world.  What choices does he make, and why.  That's the payoff.  That's what I want to see my character do.

Sadly, DA2 doesn't do this at all, as I'm not allowed to design the character myself.

Why do you play BioWare games?

[upsettingshorts]

Tsuga C wrote...

*honest applause for Brockololly*  *thumbs up*

I want to know when Brockolololololly thinks BioWare had good marketing.

He certainly didn't require it to buy Dragon Age: Origins, because that game didn't have it either, and he includes examples of it - though leaves out the egregiously bad Marilyn Manson nonsense - in his post.  It doesn't take much Googling to find a magazine ad for Neverwinter Nights with a seashell bikini babe, either.

Definitely good of him to bring up the camera quote by Mike Laidlaw though, that was definitely an example of a feature being described as having an explicit focus and benefit that generated a reasonable expectation that DA2 failed to deliver on.

Writing wise BioWare has, I believe - in cooperation with its more vocal fans, in a sort of self-sustaining cycle of frustration - backed itself into a corner in many ways.  It promises branching choice, and those it delivers are deemed unsatisfying.  It promises save import continuity, and is then criticized when references to previous decisions have little impact.  These two desires are ultimately incompatible, and I believe one of them is going to have to go.  In that sense, I think they do know what the fans want, but I don't think the fans understand how unrealistic those desires have become.

Gameplay wise, well, that topic has been covered so many times I'm sure everyone is already aware of the arguments out there.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Why do you play BioWare games?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 26 mars 2012 - 10:11 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Tsuga C wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I was remembering the discussions of the languages (you hired that linguist - Wolf, I think was his name), and we had long conversations about game design in theory (with occasional scraps of meat, like the four playable races).  And then there was the concept art and the mockups in the NWN engine.

The linguist...  Ah, Beesechurger!  I remember his brief appearance on the old BioWare forum.

FACT: Beesechurger's odd experiments with expression made for interesting reading.

I still hope they'll one day get the old boards back up and running.  Then we could actually look at the old Dragon Age forum (forum 84 on the BioBoards, not forum 135 - 135 was the one they created after the Origins name was announced) to see how the community behaved and how much information was revealed.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 26 mars 2012 - 10:13 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

I was thinking about BW's new "moving forward" catch phrase. You have to admire their urge to redefine the dictionary.

To me moving an RPG forward means that you find ways to enhance the experience. So far BW thinks that nihilism is the way to go. Stats are supposed to be a thing of the past, dialogue has to be cut down, dialogue needs to be voiced because in this age people cannot read anymore, real choices in the story have to be removed, customization has to be simplified, inventories have to be exterminated, quests need to be small snacks for the busy tweeter to eat, stories shouldn't have much depth, puzzles should be solved by brute force, etc.

So, their "moving forward" effectively means "moving backward" to me.

[mesmerizedish]

Joy Divison wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Sequels often sell poorly when the original wasn't well received. Maybe a bunch of people bought Dragon Age: Origins on the strength of games like Knights of the Old Republic and Mass Effect, but didn't like it and so didn't buy the sequel. :innocent:

You know this isn't applicable to DA and yet you posted it anway .

In what way is it not applicable to DA?

[upsettingshorts]

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Stats are supposed to be a thing of the past[/quote]

Strawman.

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote... 

dialogue has to be cut down[/quote]

Strawman.

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...  

dialogue needs to be voiced because in this age people cannot read anymore[/quote]

Strawman.

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...  

real choices in the story have to be removed[/quote]

Strawman.

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...   

customization has to be simplified[/quote]

Strawman.

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...    

inventories have to be exterminated[/quote]

Strawman.

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...  

quests need to be small snacks for the busy tweeter to eat[/quote]

Strawman.

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...   

stories shouldn't have much depth[/quote]

Strawman.

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...   

puzzles should be solved by brute force[/quote]

Strawman.

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...   

etc.[/quote]

Probably more strawmen.

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...    

So, their "moving forward" effectively means "moving backward" to me.[/quote]

That's no surprise, you've clearly internalized your own misrepresentations.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 26 mars 2012 - 10:17 .

[ReshyShira]

Meris wrote...

Because Dragon Age II was, at best, a spiritual successor to DA:O.

This is very much how I felt about Dragon Age II.  It really was like the sequal to Supreme Commander 2.

[Wulfram]

You want Bioware to stop stealing your bandwidth?

[upsettingshorts]

liesandpropaganda wrote...

Waht is strawman

It's when you misrepresent a position in order to attack the target you've constructed.

You use them to refute arguments you've invented yourself.  

It's easy for AngryFrozenWater to say voiceovers are dumb, for example, if the only reason they exist is because people don't like reading.

Trouble is it's self-serving nonsense.

[Joy Divison]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I want to know when Brockolololololly thinks BioWare had good marketing.

He certainly didn't require it to buy Dragon Age: Origins, because that game didn't have it either, and he includes examples of it - though leaves out the egregiously bad Marilyn Manson nonsense - in his post.  It doesn't take much Googling to find a magazine ad for Neverwinter Nights with a seashell bikini babe, either.

Whatcha talking about?  I'd totally buy this...

[Joy Divison]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Sequels often sell poorly when the original wasn't well received. Maybe a bunch of people bought Dragon Age: Origins on the strength of games like Knights of the Old Republic and Mass Effect, but didn't like it and so didn't buy the sequel. :innocent:

You know this isn't applicable to DA and yet you posted it anway .

In what way is it not applicable to DA?

Sequels often sell poorly when the original wasn't well received.

And see Brockololly's post.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 26 mars 2012 - 10:27 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Perhaps you need to establish a common ground from which to start, from a high-level perspective.

We have that.  We both want the player not to feel frustrated or stymied by the dialogue system.  We both want the player to feel like he's actually making dialogue decisions that make a whit of difference to how his character behaves.

I hope we both want the player to feel some level of ownership over his character, but I'm not sure anyone at BioWare shares this desire.

Your ideas of ownership clearly differ from others though. That's why it tends to be frustrating reading your posts for me; you tend to write in absolutes. As I understand it, player ownership is the most important quality of the game to you, and is worth sacrificing everything else for. That means you're willing to sacrifice things that Bioware is specifically not, such as a voiced protagonist, cinematic gameplay, a general sense of pacing, and character extrapolation.

You've made it clear that you want explicit control of your character. Nothing gets done without your say so. It doesn't matter if that means that the sense of time gets distorted, or that the whole world speaks but your character does not. These things are not jarring or immersion-breaking to you, though they are for others.

Bioware seems to wish to want implicit control of your character. Based on your decisions W, X, and Y that they've provide, your character will probably do Z in this situation. And rather than sacrifice the sense of pacing and flow, they have the character do Z, whether this is jumping a chasm, laughing and smiling, or stabbing someone. The amount of autonomy a player's character can comfortably have without the player's explicit influence varies from person to person. The point of soliciting feedback is the attempt to find the sweet spot to balance these things.

If you do not believe this to be possible, then perhaps you'd best move on. There's no need for Bioware to have to defend their decisions to you. They've already stated that if the decisions they make aren't for you, that they're sorry you feel that way, and hope you find what you're looking for elsewhere. They aren't going to change, so the best way to make the game better is to work within the given constraints rather than tell them to throw the constraints out. Arguing whether the constraints are good will kill time, but likely won't affect the game's direction in any meaningful way.

[Dejajeva]

Joy Divison wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I want to know when Brockolololololly thinks BioWare had good marketing.

He certainly didn't require it to buy Dragon Age: Origins, because that game didn't have it either, and he includes examples of it - though leaves out the egregiously bad Marilyn Manson nonsense - in his post.  It doesn't take much Googling to find a magazine ad for Neverwinter Nights with a seashell bikini babe, either.

Whatcha talking about?  I'd totally buy this...

OMg it looks like she has a roach or a spider attached to her...omg what I can't even deal with that picture.

[Brockololly]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I want to know when Brockolololololly thinks BioWare had good marketing.

This.

It establishes what the game is all about and uses in game assets.

Upsettingshorts wrote...
He certainly didn't require it to buy Dragon Age: Origins, because that game didn't have it either, and he includes examples of it - though leaves out the egregiously bad Marilyn Manson nonsense - in his post.  It doesn't take much Googling to find a magazine ad for Neverwinter Nights with a seashell bikini babe, either.

For what its worth, Origins did quite a few developer walkthroughs early on  that sold me on the game with actual gameplay before they went the Marilyn Manson route in 2009 after the delay. Or even  The Marilyn Manson rubbish almost made me cancel my preorder and wait on the whole thing.

As for NWN, I never bought that game cause back in the day I thought it looked lackluster coming off of Baldur's Gate.

Upsettingshorts wrote...
These two desires are ultimately incompatible, and I believe one of them is going to have to go.  In that sense, I think they do know what the fans want, but I don't think the fans understand how unrealistic those desires have become.

I don't think they're incompatible but something has to change if they're going to work- whether thats losing the voiced PC or going with a more fixed PC or having a longer dev time or sticking with one protagonist between titles or scaling back to Infinity engine style graphics that aren't as expensive or just having more established tech.

If BioWare can't deliver on either of those I wish they'd just say so instead of trying to act like they're all about choice and consequences in games when they're all about the illusion of choice in games. But that doesn't fly really when you have games like The Witcher 2 or Alpha Protocol or even New Vegas that can do unique content with genuine consequences. Granted, those don't do much with the save import, but I don't see how thats too terribly different  on a high level than creating any other kind of unique, gated content within a game based on prior choices.

[cJohnOne]

Joy Divison wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Sequels often sell poorly when the original wasn't well received. Maybe a bunch of people bought Dragon Age: Origins on the strength of games like Knights of the Old Republic and Mass Effect, but didn't like it and so didn't buy the sequel. :innocent:

You know this isn't applicable to DA and yet you posted it anway .

How do we know this isn't applicable to DA with respect to the reason sales went down in the Sequel.  As opposed to any other reason.

[Joy Divison]

cJohnOne wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Sequels often sell poorly when the original wasn't well received. Maybe a bunch of people bought Dragon Age: Origins on the strength of games like Knights of the Old Republic and Mass Effect, but didn't like it and so didn't buy the sequel. :innocent:

You know this isn't applicable to DA and yet you posted it anway .

How do we know this isn't applicable to DA with respect to the reason sales went down in the Sequel.  As opposed to any other reason.

Because Maria Caliban premised her assertion by stating "Sequels often sell poorly when the original wasn't well received."  While that is true, Dragon Age: Origins was well received.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 26 mars 2012 - 10:36 .

[Brockololly]

cJohnOne wrote...
How do we know this isn't applicable to DA with respect to the reason sales went down in the Sequel.  As opposed to any other reason.

Because as I posted, DA2 was selling faster than Origins in the first 2 weeks. It got to one million copies sold faster than DAO. In large part due to significant preorder numbers that made up a good chunk of those early one million copies. And yet, it didn't end up outselling Origins but rather Origins ended up significantly outselling DA2. DA2's sales tanked after a couple weeks probably in part due to the harsh word of mouth the title developed.

If people did not like Origins you would think DA2 would not have achieved good preorder numbers, but it did.

[Relshar]

kotaku.com/5896021/skyrim-is-the-wrong-place-to-look-for-dragon-age-iii-inspiration

Kind of says it all right here.