82 réponses à ce sujet

[hussey 92]

Bioware didn't really re-invent anything, they just turned Dragon Age into Mass Effect

[haroldhardluck]

Bonanza16 wrote...
they could have had so much time if they kept the original combat mechanics, darkspawn, qunari race designs etc (updating it a little) and focus on a new story and origins!!!

The default was for DAO to upload play information to Bioware's server so the developers could see how people played the game. The information they got indicated that most people quit playing the game shortly after they started. The problem was the game mechanics and especially the character development was too complicated. There was much confusion about the classes. You could develop a warrior rogue and other mixed classes.  That is the main reason the class development and game mechanics were simplified, based on fan feedback that they did not know they were providing.

As for the new and improved artwork, that is basically a necessity nowadays or the game reviewers ding you big time. The art in DA2 is so much better, especially the landscapes. Given the improved art creation tools it would have been criminally negligent if Bioware had not upgraded the art work.

Harold

[Bonanza16]

^ Any links for such a claim? No... Come to think of it... I think I've heard the developer confirm it but it just sounds like an excuse to me. An excuse to change the game.

I find it hard to believe that the majority of gamers who had bought DA:O stopped playing because of the supposed complexity, because weren't the vast majority of those who bought it hardcore RPG fans in the first place?

Also, if such were indeed the case, why did they assume that the gameplay was to blame??? Why not assume that the game weren't meant for these gamers?

[eroeru]

Ukki wrote...

DAO 2, I would have bought it in a heart beat.

This.

Yet it is a given that I enjoy innovation  - but the thought of calling DA2 innovating is a tad sickening.

Yes, given they had the short time-frame to make the game, I would much rather they've gone the easy way with mechanics and such. That would of made a very good game, even if a bit less mesmerizing in its originality than Origins.

The analogy with Fallout 2 and Baldur's Gate 2 is a swell one.

[eroeru]

haroldhardluck wrote...

snip
Harold

1. Then their interpretation of the data was off.
I for one vastly enjoy complex systems, but often cut my playing after a brief introduction to a game. This is due to other reasons than me not being able to get into it. Time restraints for one.

I'm personally insulted by DA2 - and one reason for this is that I got the feeling the developers were thinking me to be stupid when playing the game. The game WAS more simple, hence the "dumbing"-down. And even if most paying customers would want simpler games than the already very accessible DA:O, then still I would not forgive a direction for LESS CONTENT and more SIMPLICITY.

Really, who wants a stupid game? (aside degenerants and decadents)
And
that's not to say anyone who enjoyed DA][ was dumb - I'm talking about
the general direction of the GAME, and of the tendency of making games
simpler - and the notion that practically no-one wants to feel unengaged
and be thought as less intelligent.

Origins showed its popularity not in obscure numbers, but in actual love for the game - this was due to the game being ACTUALLY better. It showed in reality, not in some stupidly irrelevant numbers.

That's the thing with statistics - they always want some simple interpretation, but that NEVER qualifies well to reality.

2. The art-work in DA2 was for the worse. Design elements like the huge swords (and over-the-top other designs), saturated colory-colory colors, and a mess of different stylistics (not to mention awful and bland faces - as with Zevran and Alistair - and all other problems which were probably due to time restraints) do the game no good.


EDIT: grammar and clarity - I'm a non-native speaker :P

Modifié par eroeru, 01 mai 2012 - 04:51 .

[Das Tentakel]

eroeru wrote...

1. Then their interpretation of the data was off.

That's were usually the problem lies...how to interpret data, how to think up the right solutions, and then implementing those properly and competently.
I would be interested in whether there is a difference between the data they got from consoles and from the PC. I seem to remember you could turn the sending of the data off on the PC, and that is what a lot of PC gamers - on average more Internet and tech-savvy than consoleros - probably did.
There probably was a big difference in how PC players and consoleros played DA:O anyway, I suspect, and not just because of the real diffences in UI and graphics between the two versions.

Having said that, a lot of people stop playing a game - any game - after a short period of time. Large games like DA:O are rarely played to finish, and when the tutorial/starting areas fail to 'sing', people WILL drop out quickly.
Personally, I though the starting areas in DA:O okay, but not particularly great - I can well imagine many players were turned off by them, especially if they are more used to action games and even MMO's rather than more traditional CRPG's. It sure took its time, the pacing in early DA:O may have been too slow and uneven for many.

Unfortunately, DA2's approach, while more direct and faster-paced, was even worse in its sugar-induced hyperactive blood explosions and all approach <_<

[bEVEsthda]

eroeru wrote...

I'm personally insulted by DA2 -

Indeed. I was too. That's probably still one element that is fueling my anger about this affair.
I don't know if it's grounded in what Will Wright told of, many long meetings with EA marketing people to ensure that Spore came out "right". But I think we can conclude that EA considers gamers in a certain light. It's all over. Their marketing and what they do to the franchises they purchase. And it's killing EA, at least their PC and console games business. And of course it would. They're making games for what is in reality a very small market segment. 'Cinematic' and Ninjutsu combat may look like "quality" to EA managers but it has very little to do with the actual gaming experience most gamers are looking for.

[Das Tentakel]

bEVEsthda wrote...

eroeru wrote...

I'm personally insulted by DA2 -

Indeed. I was too. That's probably still one element that is fueling my anger about this affair.
I don't know if it's grounded in what Will Wright told of, many long meetings with EA marketing people to ensure that Spore came out "right". But I think we can conclude that EA considers gamers in a certain light. It's all over. Their marketing and what they do to the franchises they purchase. And it's killing EA, at least their PC and console games business. And of course it would. They're making games for what is in reality a very small market segment. 'Cinematic' and Ninjutsu combat may look like "quality" to EA managers but it has very little to do with the actual gaming experience most gamers are looking for.

Isn't it more that 'conventional market wisdom' about what sells (sex, violence, over the top visuals) and the actual composition of the target audience of RPG's (generally older, more experienced, better educated gamers, relatively high proportion of women) have become increasingly at odds with each other?

DA2 itself feels and looks oddly shizophrenic in some ways. On the one hand you have some serious themes and frequently good writing and characterization, on the other hand ridiculous and sometimes even cartoonish visuals, sexual pandering (mostly in the form of character design and exploited in PR, it's not so bad in terms of in-game characterization) and silly over the top splatter combat.
It's as if they decided on combining two essentially incompatible approaches (one for the older, serious gamer, the other for the youngsters who love their sex and cartoony over the top violence and costumes) and combined them in one unsatisfactory package.
Unfortunately, younger gamers are still mainly action-oriented, and older gamers often prefer their sex and violence a bit more refined and realistic.

Modifié par Das Tentakel, 01 mai 2012 - 01:43 .

[jsadalia]

haroldhardluck wrote...

The default was for DAO to upload play information to Bioware's server so the developers could see how people played the game. The information they got indicated that most people quit playing the game shortly after they started. The problem was the game mechanics and especially the character development was too complicated. There was much confusion about the classes. You could develop a warrior rogue and other mixed classes.  That is the main reason the class development and game mechanics were simplified, based on fan feedback that they did not know they were providing.

As for the new and improved artwork, that is basically a necessity nowadays or the game reviewers ding you big time. The art in DA2 is so much better, especially the landscapes. Given the improved art creation tools it would have been criminally negligent if Bioware had not upgraded the art work.

Harold

I do wonder about how they interpreted that data.  I quit the game shortly after starting quite a lot of times, because I wanted to have a look at a different origin, or because I changed my mind about the appearance or class of my character.  Doesn't mean I had any problem with the game.

[haroldhardluck]

Bonanza16 wrote...

^ Any links for such a claim? No... Come to think of it... I think I've heard the developer confirm it but it just sounds like an excuse to me. An excuse to change the game.

I find it hard to believe that the majority of gamers who had bought DA:O stopped playing because of the supposed complexity, because weren't the vast majority of those who bought it hardcore RPG fans in the first place?

Also, if such were indeed the case, why did they assume that the gameplay was to blame??? Why not assume that the game weren't meant for these gamers?

Sales of DAO would have been a whole lot less if it appealed only to hard core RPG'ers. You get the really big sales by appealing to casual RPG'ers. As I recall from postings here, Bioware did more than just look at the server data. They actually surveyed some players who totally quit and the biggest cited reason was confusion over the complexity of the RPG system.

I have been playing RPGs since D&D came in mimeograph manuals. I am as hardcore as they come. The system in DAO was way too complex and not well thought out. For example, a rogue had all the weapon skills available to a warrior.  This meant that there was no need for a warrior in the game as you could make any rogue into a good warrior. Then there was all the spells for a mage, half of which I found to be quite useless. Even on a PC with all its quick slots, by the end of the game you had more spells than slots and casting a spell without using a quick slot was very cumbersome.

In DA2 the system is much simplier and better. You cannot make a rogue into a warrior as most of the weapon skills of a warrior are no longer available to rogues.  As a result there is a difference between playing a warrior and melee rogue. Rogues had a unique archery skill set which was actually powerful unlike DAO where bows were only suitable as secondary weapons. The spells in DA2 were fewer but more useful. As a result the classes in DA2 were different and had unique characteristics. If you want a two hander swordsman, it had to be a wrrior and could no longer be a rogue.

Harold

[haroldhardluck]

jsadalia wrote...
I do wonder about how they interpreted that data.  I quit the game shortly after starting quite a lot of times, because I wanted to have a look at a different origin, or because I changed my mind about the appearance or class of my character.  Doesn't mean I had any problem with the game.

You would show up as someone who repeatedly come back but eventually completed the game which is also recorded. However when you never see that player again after several months, the only interpretation is the player has totally quit. Every player who totally quits is a plyer who not likely to buy the sequel in addition to not recommending the game to a friend.

Harold

[eroeru]

Why serve less quality (when compared to the original game) - even if it would bring more paying customers? The obvious reason is money, but even then we cannot be sure about the gains - the negative feedback will be enough for a setback (we all know how "hardcore" gamers have a hand on the PR-making machine of the internet, and have a sort of "holy quest", or at least a good involving reason to make use of it ), though I'd personally vouch for the principle that making something of less content (=less worth) is bad in itself.


It's bad if a franchise makes a turn on this scale (complex-simple). But it's awful if a by-definition complexity-friendly genre just waters down all it stands for - just for the money. If anything, casual games should be eradicated, not the opposite (though I'm not promoting that, it would indeed be for the better of the two - in relation to the actual depth of enjoyment and investment of interest people get from the two, and I'd very personally argue that casual games are actually bad for many people, or at least worse than "smart" ones).


All that aside, Origins for one was not overly complex. The complexity if any was in the stuff that can be modified by options, like the purely optional lore, the non-mandatory weighing the benefits of different gear, the possibly automatic or random levelling up, and the modified-by-difficulty combat.


But if it turns one off that the game actually HAS a specific type of (optionally payed-attention-to) story or (thought-requiring) mechanics, then one SHOULD NOT PLAY RPG's. The casual players don't. In fact.


So they should really make a game for those who do play and enjoy RPG's, and identify themselves with those. It's the only crowd to align to, if one doesn't want to make a game from a in principle WHOLLY DIFFERENT genre.

Modifié par eroeru, 01 mai 2012 - 06:45 .

[bEVEsthda]

Das Tentakel wrote...
DA2 itself feels and looks oddly shizophrenic in some ways. On the one hand you have some serious themes and frequently good writing and characterization, on the other hand ridiculous and sometimes even cartoonish visuals, sexual pandering (mostly in the form of character design and exploited in PR, it's not so bad in terms of in-game characterization) and silly over the top splatter combat.
It's as if they decided on combining two essentially incompatible approaches (one for the older, serious gamer, the other for the youngsters who love their sex and cartoony over the top violence and costumes) and combined them in one unsatisfactory package.

Well,  they still have an awesome writing team, don't they?

[Bonanza16]

haroldhardluck wrote...

Bonanza16 wrote...

^ Any links for such a claim? No... Come to think of it... I think I've heard the developer confirm it but it just sounds like an excuse to me. An excuse to change the game.

I find it hard to believe that the majority of gamers who had bought DA:O stopped playing because of the supposed complexity, because weren't the vast majority of those who bought it hardcore RPG fans in the first place?

Also, if such were indeed the case, why did they assume that the gameplay was to blame??? Why not assume that the game weren't meant for these gamers?

Sales of DAO would have been a whole lot less if it appealed only to hard core RPG'ers. You get the really big sales by appealing to casual RPG'ers. As I recall from postings here, Bioware did more than just look at the server data. They actually surveyed some players who totally quit and the biggest cited reason was confusion over the complexity of the RPG system.

I have been playing RPGs since D&D came in mimeograph manuals. I am as hardcore as they come. The system in DAO was way too complex and not well thought out. For example, a rogue had all the weapon skills available to a warrior.  This meant that there was no need for a warrior in the game as you could make any rogue into a good warrior. Then there was all the spells for a mage, half of which I found to be quite useless. Even on a PC with all its quick slots, by the end of the game you had more spells than slots and casting a spell without using a quick slot was very cumbersome.

In DA2 the system is much simplier and better. You cannot make a rogue into a warrior as most of the weapon skills of a warrior are no longer available to rogues.  As a result there is a difference between playing a warrior and melee rogue. Rogues had a unique archery skill set which was actually powerful unlike DAO where bows were only suitable as secondary weapons. The spells in DA2 were fewer but more useful. As a result the classes in DA2 were different and had unique characteristics. If you want a two hander swordsman, it had to be a wrrior and could no longer be a rogue.

Harold

That's not true at all. What you're essentially saying is that DA:O had much variety in terms of gameplay but had some issues relating to balance. How is that complexity? One can easily pick any class, develop it without much thought and beat the game with ease (on Casual and that's the intended difficulty for newcomers). I can't see how that would put off some gamers.

And you know how DAII fixes those few issues? It completely removes the freedom that was present in DA:O instead of doing refining overpowered and underpowered abilities and skills (not even present in DAII). It forces gamers in a linear path so of course balance no longer becomes a problem (since you've basically narrowed down all possibilities).It's very easy to see why DAII does not suffer from the occasional balancing issues that DA:O (and DA:O was pretty good considering the scope of the game) had...  

Also you did not answer my initial question? How did they know that this "complexity" was the reason so many gamers quit? Why not the entire game? Why not the storyline? They did a lot of assumptions if this whole "data gathering" thing is at all true and not an excuse to change the game and make it more appealing to another action-oriented fanbase

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Bonanza16 wrote...

haroldhardluck wrote...

Bonanza16 wrote...

^ Any links for such a claim? No... Come to think of it... I think I've heard the developer confirm it but it just sounds like an excuse to me. An excuse to change the game.

I find it hard to believe that the majority of gamers who had bought DA:O stopped playing because of the supposed complexity, because weren't the vast majority of those who bought it hardcore RPG fans in the first place?

Also, if such were indeed the case, why did they assume that the gameplay was to blame??? Why not assume that the game weren't meant for these gamers?

Sales of DAO would have been a whole lot less if it appealed only to hard core RPG'ers. You get the really big sales by appealing to casual RPG'ers. As I recall from postings here, Bioware did more than just look at the server data. They actually surveyed some players who totally quit and the biggest cited reason was confusion over the complexity of the RPG system.

I have been playing RPGs since D&D came in mimeograph manuals. I am as hardcore as they come. The system in DAO was way too complex and not well thought out. For example, a rogue had all the weapon skills available to a warrior.  This meant that there was no need for a warrior in the game as you could make any rogue into a good warrior. Then there was all the spells for a mage, half of which I found to be quite useless. Even on a PC with all its quick slots, by the end of the game you had more spells than slots and casting a spell without using a quick slot was very cumbersome.

In DA2 the system is much simplier and better. You cannot make a rogue into a warrior as most of the weapon skills of a warrior are no longer available to rogues.  As a result there is a difference between playing a warrior and melee rogue. Rogues had a unique archery skill set which was actually powerful unlike DAO where bows were only suitable as secondary weapons. The spells in DA2 were fewer but more useful. As a result the classes in DA2 were different and had unique characteristics. If you want a two hander swordsman, it had to be a wrrior and could no longer be a rogue.

Harold

That's not true at all. What you're essentially saying is that DA:O had much variety in terms of gameplay but had some issues relating to balance. How is that complexity? One can easily pick any class, develop it without much thought and beat the game with ease (on Casual and that's the intended difficulty for newcomers). I can't see how that would put off some gamers.

And you know how DAII fixes those few issues? It completely removes the freedom that was present in DA:O instead of doing refining overpowered and underpowered abilities and skills (not even present in DAII). It forces gamers in a linear path so of course balance no longer becomes a problem (since you've basically narrowed down all possibilities).It's very easy to see why DAII does not suffer from the occasional balancing issues that DA:O (and DA:O was pretty good considering the scope of the game) had...  

Also you did not answer my initial question? How did they know that this "complexity" was the reason so many gamers quit? Why not the entire game? Why not the storyline? They did a lot of assumptions if this whole "data gathering" thing is at all true and not an excuse to change the game and make it more appealing to another action-oriented fanbase

I guess it depends on how define "complex".  

[Jitter]

haroldhardluck wrote...

Bonanza16 wrote...
they could have had so much time if they kept the original combat mechanics, darkspawn, qunari race designs etc (updating it a little) and focus on a new story and origins!!!

The default was for DAO to upload play information to Bioware's server so the developers could see how people played the game. The information they got indicated that most people quit playing the game shortly after they started. The problem was the game mechanics and especially the character development was too complicated. There was much confusion about the classes. You could develop a warrior rogue and other mixed classes.  That is the main reason the class development and game mechanics were simplified, based on fan feedback that they did not know they were providing.

As for the new and improved artwork, that is basically a necessity nowadays or the game reviewers ding you big time. The art in DA2 is so much better, especially the landscapes. Given the improved art creation tools it would have been criminally negligent if Bioware had not upgraded the art work.

Harold

well there are more stupid people in the world ....
marketing decision .... more 10 year olds in the world than there are 28 year olds .... 
ooooh look boobies ... 

the next dlc should come with ritalin ... 

Modifié par Jitter, 01 mai 2012 - 10:23 .

[StElmo]

The game is a lot more improved then fans say it is. I only just started DA2 and I LOVE IT. tactical, yet accessible.

[Bizantura]

The DA2 game mechanics are so improved that it is impossible to bungle up. Just choose a class and press the auto update. A bit more dumbing down and a 3 year old can play since it will play itself.
I never understood why this game was rated 18+, it was an awfull kiddie game.
I have no illusions DA:O style games will ever come back but at least I hope it will be more gamemechanics from both DA:O / DA2 and at least with caracters for adults.
I have no problem if they want to cater to 12-14 year olds but they should clearly say so.

[Realmzmaster]

I do not get where gamers are saying Bioware wants to cater to 12-14 year olds since they cannot buy the game. It is rated M 18+. Most stores did not sell it to 12-14 year olds. Also most 10 year olds are not interested in boobies. I do believe the 20+ crowd is far more interested in romance, sex and boobies than 10 year olds.
Everyone I know is stupid or ignorant to some extent. A lot of gamers buy and start games that they never finish. it does not take a stupid person to do that. If the game does not appeal to you you stop playing the game.
That is information that a game company wants to know. They want to know why their game did not appeal to that gamer. Bioware uses their games to collect demographics.

I like DAO and DA2. I am nowhere near 10 or 12-14. I and some others on this forum have been gaming longer than many of the gamers on this forum have lived. I am neither stupid nor young. There are gamers on this forum that liked DA2.

I applaud Bioware for trying something different. Unfortunately it did not work out as they envisioned.

As far as DAO is concerned it was the compromise from early cRPGs. DAO is streamlined from what BG1 and BG2, NWN, TOEE, Pool of Radiance: Myth Drannor and other earlier cRPGs that had a lot more (IMHO) going for them. The last two mentioned are true tactical cRPGs.

Why did they re-invent everything given the limited development time, because the development team thought they could pull it off. They were wrong. It is a lesson they had to learn. The same way anyone who bites off more than they can chew.

[haroldhardluck]

Bonanza16 wrote...
That's not true at all. What you're essentially saying is that DA:O had much variety in terms of gameplay but had some issues relating to balance. How is that complexity?

This is so far from what I wrote that this reply is meaningless and so I am not even bothering to reply to it beyond this posting.

Harold

[haroldhardluck]

Jitter wrote...
well there are more stupid people in the world ....
marketing decision .... more 10 year olds in the world than there are 28 year olds .... 
ooooh look boobies ... 

the next dlc should come with ritalin ... 

EA was one of the early game producers and is still around while its competitors such as Sierra Online and Interplay are long gone. The reason is EA is a top notch marketing company. They know who buys their games and why. They started producing console games when they first came out and caught rhe explosion of PS, Xbox, etc. games from day one. EA has ridden the ups and downs of the game industry to become one of the largest producer of games today.

One of the things that makes EA so very successful is knowing when fan feedback is infantile whining and when it is making a genuine point.\\.

Harold

[hussey 92]

It's actually not as hard as you think for a Jr High kid to buy an M rated game.

Modifié par hussey 92, 02 mai 2012 - 04:20 .

[Realmzmaster]

hussey 92 wrote...

It's actually not as hard as you think for a Jr High kid to buy an M rated game.

Could be , but in my area they card hard. You would think you were buying liquor. The other point is how many 10  to 14 year olds play western cRPGs or P & P RPGs? I doubt those Jr High School kids are running out to buy Dragon Age.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 02 mai 2012 - 05:50 .

[hussey 92]

Realmzmaster wrote...

hussey 92 wrote...

It's actually not as hard as you think for a Jr High kid to buy an M rated game.

Could be , but in my area they card hard. You would think you were buying liquor. The other point is how many 10  to 14 year olds play western cRPGs or P & P RPGs? I doubt those Jr High School kids are running out to buy Dragon Age.

I think the point was that they are dumbing the RPG's down for the Jr high kids.  It might not mean anything, but I'm guessing more 14 year olds played DA2 than Origins


Note:  the cardings mixed where ever you go.  When I was 15 there was an fye near me that would never check IDs.  Now I'm 20 and a gamestop wouldn't let me buy G of W 2 the other day cause I didn't have an ID on me

Modifié par hussey 92, 02 mai 2012 - 04:47 .

[LeBurns]

The OP is one of the things I kept asking myself over and over again when DA2 first came out. It begged the age old question of "Why fix something that isn't broken?". Granted there are times when you should but I don't believe that DA2 was one of those times.

They could have easily (much easier than remaking everything) just bumped up the graphics of DAO, made some changes to make it more console friendly, add another epic story, etc. IMO that was doable in 11 months.

But in 11 months they change the style, the combat, they go after a new crowd! Why the heck would you do that! I really like my sig.