778 réponses à ce sujet

[Uccio]

BobSmith101 wrote...

There is no other straight forward solution. If you want multiple personalities that is three ways of saying the same thing.

Those three "choises" are not normal. No one is only "****", "douchebag" or "moron". Its so simplified discussion method that it makes me downright sad.

[AkiKishi]

Ukki wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

There is no other straight forward solution. If you want multiple personalities that is three ways of saying the same thing.

Those three "choises" are not normal. No one is only "****", "douchebag" or "moron". Its so simplified discussion method that it makes me downright sad.

I agree competely. A big part of that being the actors voice direction. Mixing the three options can sound downright deranged at times.

Adams intent words in HR were much better. But that could be because everything was written for the specific character in that case. I still think intent is much better than tone, if only to avoid the over acting.

[Fast Jimmy]

Imrahil_ wrote...

Sylvius, I admire your perseverence.  I agree with 99% of your points.  I just don't have it in me to keep protesting.  I gave up long, long ago.  I appaud you, & bEVEthsda, & Jimmy, & others who I should also mention, but it's just not going to happen.

They're going to make DA:2.2.

They've said as much.  We're not getting racial choices.  We're getting the dialogue wheel.  We're getting iconic companions.  We're getting a Voiced Protagonist.  We're getting moar cinematics.  We're getting auto-diologue.  We're getting less player-agency,  They're making a game they want to make, which tells the story they want to tell.  Not our story we get to adventure in.  It's. just. not. going. to. happen.

by Dylan Thomas
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay, 
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

selling less than "Chuck: The Complete Fifth Season" at 15,347.

Chuck was an amazing show. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 07 juillet 2012 - 04:22 .

[Uccio]

BobSmith101 wrote...

I agree competely. A big part of that being the actors voice direction. Mixing the three options can sound downright deranged at times.

Adams intent words in HR were much better. But that could be because everything was written for the specific character in that case. I still think intent is much better than tone, if only to avoid the over acting.

Hah hah! At times it felt like my character had bipolar disorder when I tried to use different answers in the same discussion. But you are right, Deus Ex:HR did thing better though.

[Cimeas]

Imrahil_ wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But given BioWare's insistence on cinematic presentation and a voiced protagonist, at least in the short term, the only alternative to offering constructive suggestions to be pushed aside as someone who siomply won't like the game.

It's much easier for them to dismiss us if we don't even try to work within their constraints.

Sylvius, I admire your perseverence.  I agree with 99% of your points.  I just don't have it in me to keep protesting.  I gave up long, long ago.  I appaud you, & bEVEthsda, & Jimmy, & others who I should also mention, but it's just not going to happen.

They're going to make DA:2.2.

They've said as much.  We're not getting racial choices.  We're getting the dialogue wheel.  We're getting iconic companions.  We're getting a Voiced Protagonist.  We're getting moar cinematics.  We're getting auto-diologue.  We're getting less player-agency,  They're making a game they want to make, which tells the story they want to tell.  Not our story we get to adventure in.  It's. just. not. going. to. happen.

DA:2 failed, supplanting MOO3 as the goto meme for "and then they failed". SWTOR is a joke on every forum but their own.  ME3 is now the icon for bad endings that destroyed a franchise.  Dawn of the Seeker didn't crack the Top 30 the week it was released, selling less than "Chuck: The Complete Fifth Season" at 15,347.

But they insist the fans are wrong.  And they persist with their "artistic vision" excuse.

They're not going to turn it around. I am amazed & somewhat impressed by your persistence to tell them what they are doing wrong, but, honestly, all you're going to get out of it is the chance to bump 500+ threads where you're like "told you so" once DA2.2, errr, I mean DA3 is released.

Basically, I wanted to just applaud you for fiighting the good fight, because you deseve that, but also to tell you you've already lost.  They won't be making a good game.  They won't be making the game you want.

Keep going, & I applaud you.  Stop now, & I understand.

So why are you on these forums?   Why do you even care anymore?  Not trying to be mean, just honestly asking?

[Cimeas]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

Fair call.

However, Skyrim is roleplaying game about a setting, not a story, and I'd say that's fairly true for all TES games.

False dichotomy.  The story to which you refer is itself part of the setting.  TES and DA simply use different means to flesh out their settings - and not even very different: DA's "story" and TES's exploration are both discoverable content.  Both games allow the player to learn about the setting through his character's choices, either by finding locations (TES) or by finding events (DA).

The only story that matters as narrative in a roleplaying game is the story created by the player through his character's decisions.  The game merely provides the setting for that story, and both Bethesda and BioWare games have traditionally offered up terrific settings for that.

Besides, obviously DA:O didn't provide sufficient payback to get that style of game continued.

Or, alternately, EA's internal greenlighting system is biased agaist games their marketing department doesn't understand.

There are more reasons that just profitability why a game doesn't get made - not good reasons, but reasons.

No.    Why would Gaider and co., who obviously love the franchise, try their best to ruin it?  I just don't understand it. The fact is that EA, despite being greedy, would never walk into the Biwoare office and tell the DA team to have a voiced protagonist.  They just wouldn't, and its ridiculous to suggest they would.   They might have said 'try and get a bigger audience', but that's it.    How they do that is up to the DA and Bioware team, and most of it is marketing, because as people have said, Skyrim had no VO and it did fine. 


As storytellers, it is better and vastly more enjoyable to have a voiced protagonist.  It is vastly more enjoyable to have control.   Of course it's great to be able to choose *which* path you take, but once on it, developers can build better stories with control.   

The Bioware you know and 'love' isn't coming back in that form.   So, if you want them to, why stay?  You yourself say all hope is lost.  People don't inform themselves whether a game is good on the Bioware FAN FORUMS (you'd think this place would be a bit biased...no?).   

I like the new Bioware, the storytelling Bioware.  For most people the issues with ME3, DA2 and SW:TOR WERE NOT complexity or voice acting.   They were other things that BW may or may not correct.    

You know what, I think they have learnt their lesson and DA3 will be great.  If it isn't, oh well.   I don't see Bioware closing any time soon, ME series alone has sold 10 million, DA 6 million, even SW:TOR will probably end up turning a profit with 2 million launch sales and a few hundred thousand subs for a couple years. 

Modifié par Cimeas, 07 juillet 2012 - 05:16 .

[Fast Jimmy]

^
Mass Effect is over, TOR is on the decline and if DA3 does what DA2 did commercially, the IP will likely be extinct.

And in answer to your other question, I stay here on these forums because they are fun and they are full of people who have similar game tastes and often pretty interesting ideas for game concepts, even if the company that gathered these types of gamers in the first place doesn't think those same gamers are worth making games for anymore.

I'm also here to fight against people like you, who don't just accept mediocrity, but relish in it. Because after all, it's not like it's a gaming company that's been making great games for the past decade and a half, one of the few who have been doing so consistently? Oh wait... it is.

[Cimeas]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^
Mass Effect is over, TOR is on the decline and if DA3 does what DA2 did commercially, the IP will likely be extinct.

And in answer to your other question, I stay here on these forums because they are fun and they are full of people who have similar game tastes and often pretty interesting ideas for game concepts, even if the company that gathered these types of gamers in the first place doesn't think those same gamers are worth making games for anymore.

I'm also here to fight against people like you, who don't just accept mediocrity, but relish in it. Because after all, it's not like it's a gaming company that's been making great games for the past decade and a half, one of the few who have been doing so consistently? Oh wait... it is.

But I loved Baldurs Gate and KOTOR and NWN.   Honestly I did.   My favourite Bioware game though was Jade Empire, I loved the universe, combat, story.   But I also enjoy the classic D&D combat and gameplay style.   Maybe I don't think DA is mediocre, maybe I.....enjoyed it?     Can you not accept that some players will like the new Bioware.   Maybe those who bought the extremely simplified Mass Effect 2 and made it one of the highest rated and most revered games of all time?

[Fast Jimmy]

I do accept that players do like the new Bioware. I just lament the fact.

DA2 was mediocre. Commercially, critically and fan-reviews all were average. Origins was extraordinary, by all these same measures.

Yet I'm the one who is illogical arguing for things to be more like Origins?

[Cimeas]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I do accept that players do like the new Bioware. I just lament the fact.

DA2 was mediocre. Commercially, critically and fan-reviews all were average. Origins was extraordinary, by all these same measures.

Yet I'm the one who is illogical arguing for things to be more like Origins?

I preffered Origins too.  But more for the size of world and depth of story.  I can see good things in DA2 as well, I for one preffered combat (though I miss the Arcane Warrior).   However I want the coercion skill back for DA3.

[Meris]

Cimeas wrote...

As storytellers, it is better and vastly more enjoyable to have a voiced protagonist.  It is vastly more enjoyable to have control.   Of course it's great to be able to choose *which* path you take, but once on it, developers can build better stories with control.  

Actually, the cinematic focus takes away the writer's control. For obvious reasons: focusing on cinematics mean portraying the entire story through cutscenes. And for that to be possible A) The writers and the actors must have finished their job much before everyone else and The story must be as linear as possible.

Why you ask? Isn't it obvious? Cutscenes are expensive, you can't make many of them even if you're BioWare. Therefore you can't provide the player with satisfactory (as in DA:O's or more) levels of C&C (Choice / Consequence).

And then you may ask, why is that a bad thing? There are lots of RPGs without choices and consequences, just look at Japan! Or even half of the western market. To which I myself would ask: how else do you intend to express your personal version of the protagonist? A RPG is at its best when you are allowed to create and develop a character over the course of the game (both statistically and storywise *CHOICES*) AND when the Game World reacts to that (*CONSEQUENCES*).

Finally, all this was simply the practical argument that justifies why BioWare promises us choices and consequences but never really pushes the envelope: they are spending money somewhere else. But there's also the imagination argument - a lot of people like to read and imagine things, such as the voice of their protagonist. Hell, many people would go as far as to say, understandably, that when the Developer (acting as the Game Master) voices his PC's characters, then the character is the GM's and not the Player's.

You could, then, read my post and say that it was full of rubbish: understandable but let me point out to some more credible sources for all arguments.

Obsidian's Chris Avellone:http://www.joystiq.com/2012/07/06/voice-acting-in-rpgs-may-be-more-trouble-than-its-worth/

"Often, conversations where the
player is voice-acted detracts from my experience (I want to imagine
what my character sounds like, not what a voice actor puts in my
mouth)."

This is MCA voicing the imagination argument, but he and another developer also talk about the practical side of things on Rowan Kaiser's article. Which, might be worth a read.

Furthermore, Mr. Avellone claims that BioWare does have it good when it comes to structuring their cinematic focus, which I do not deny. What I cannot fail to observe however, is that their potential for choice and consequence, for roleplaying, is being squandered by a variety of reasons. Look no further than the many, many scrapped import consequences and the bleak future the Dark Ritual choice no doubt has.

BioWare's David Gaider:http://www.fantasy-m...batich/#respond

David Gaider: I think the medium is quickly moving toward being far more cinematic than it was—which is both good and bad, I think. It’s good in that we can show as much as we tell, now. Bad because we suddenly have to show, and less can be left to the imagination … something which, in many ways, we will never be able to compete with. Far be it from me to be a Luddite, however. This is the direction the technology is moving, and hopefully we’ll
reach a point where creating the cinematics is inexpensive enough that
we can branch out as much as we did when it was primarily text we were
working with. 

I disagree with Mr. Gaider that technological development leads to the inevitable option for the cinematic focus, I believe that focusing on game-conditioned cinematics and not are two perfectly viable and respectable styles. And I too wish that the cinematic focus was capable of a tenth of what a competent team of developers can accomplish on the realm of C&C - but that's not reality.

Furthermore, Mr. Gaider seems to agree that in some ways, you can't compete with people's own imagination, no matter how shiny the graphical experience.

[Pasquale1234]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Or, alternately, EA's internal greenlighting system is biased agaist games their marketing department doesn't understand.

There are more reasons that just profitability why a game doesn't get made - not good reasons, but reasons.

Honestly - I've wondered if staffing might also have something to do with the shift in DA presentation.

If ME is truly over, the people who worked on it need to be shifted to a different project.  Unless they have another IP ready to start production... well, an ME style of game requires a somewhat different distribution of skill sets than a DAO style of game.

A lot of software companies (BioWare included, as I understand it) have core teams that stay with their respective products year-round, and resource pools who are assigned to projects as they are needed.  I guess what I'm suggesting is the possibility that they are homogenizing their franchises to better leverage their existing staff.

[wsandista]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Only within the parameters set.

I haven't claimed otherwise. 

This is the problem with having multiple things leading to the same result.

1. I go out of my front door - you step in a dog turd
2. I climb out of my window - you step in a dog turd.
3. I go out of the patio doors - you step in a dog turd .

You don't control the world, you control the PC.

Here's an example of choice in DAO

1. Kill your brother-take the blame for his death and get exiled.
2. Refuse to kill your brother- take the blame for his death and get exiled.

Both end up leading to the same place, but the PC made an important decision.

The Witcher 2 worls the same way

1. Side with Roche- have to kill a super wraith in ACT 2
2. Side with Ioverth- have to kill same super wraith in ACT 2

What the choices from both games have in common are the side effects. DAO either you are innocent or guilty of the crime, and TW2 leads to a vastly different ACT2

Here's an example of DA2 choice

1. Say "yes" happily
2. Say "yes" sarcastically
3. Say "yes" angrily

No real choice other than the tone. No real side effect, PC still says yes.

Modifié par wsandista, 08 juillet 2012 - 02:34 .

[Imrahil_]

Cimeas wrote...

Imrahil_ wrote...
[my post, applauding Sylvius, et al]

So why are you on these forums?   Why do you even care anymore?  Not trying to be mean, just honestly asking?

Well, I'm not.  I don't.  I haven't visited these forums for months.  I just stopped in, read a few threads, & noticed the same people still fighting the good fight, & felt like addressing them.  I'm not going to buy DA3.  They've already said they're making DA2.2.  That sounds... well, terrible.  I just wanted to voice my support for Sylvius, et al.  I looked this place up today in the interest of seeing replies to my post.  Done.  Now I'll go away again.  It's not a mystery.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Imrahil_ wrote...
selling less than "Chuck: The Complete Fifth Season" at 15,347.

Chuck was an amazing show.

"Chuck: The Complete Fifth Season" had sold 116,792 by that point, which is a decent feat. It was in its 4th week of release the week Dawn of the Seeker came out. It's just that in particular week, it sold 15,347 copies, coming in at #30 in that week, while Dawn of the Seeker sold less than that in its initial release week, so it didn't crack the Top 30 in DVD sales. It was... to put it nicely, an abysmal bomb.

"Rizolloli & Isles: The Complete Second Season", in its 2nd week of release, beat it in sales. "Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked", in its 10th week of sales, beat it. Thor, in its 38th week of release, more than doubled it. It was a failure on an epic level.  Probably the fans fault.

[Zanallen]

Imrahil_ wrote...

"Chuck: The Complete Fifth Season" had sold 116,792 by that point, which is a decent feat. It was in its 4th week of release the week Dawn of the Seeker came out. It's just that in particular week, it sold 15,347 copies, coming in at #30 in that week, while Dawn of the Seeker sold less than that in its initial release week, so it didn't crack the Top 30 in DVD sales. It was... to put it nicely, an abysmal bomb.

"Rizolloli & Isles: The Complete Second Season", in its 2nd week of release, beat it in sales. "Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked", in its 10th week of sales, beat it. Thor, in its 38th week of release, more than doubled it. It was a failure on an epic level.  Probably the fans fault.

You say this as though anyone really expected a direct to DVD anime based on a video game series to sell amazingly well. Animes based on video games, much like traditional movies based on video games, don't do terribly well. At least not outside of Japan.

[Imrahil_]

Oh, gosh no. That was not my intention. You've misinterpreted me. "Amazingly well"? Heavens no. I said all that as if it would sell more than 15,000 copies.

EDIT: And, really, my whole point was that the fans clearly have horrible tastes.  Stupid fans.

Modifié par Imrahil_, 08 juillet 2012 - 06:05 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Cimeas wrote...

No.    Why would Gaider and co., who obviously love the franchise, try their best to ruin it?

I didn't suggest they would.

I just don't understand it. The fact is that EA, despite being greedy, would never walk into the Biwoare office and tell the DA team to have a voiced protagonist.  They just wouldn't, and its ridiculous to suggest they would.   They might have said 'try and get a bigger audience', but that's it.

But they might say, "Sell x number of units, bnut spend no more than y dollars doing it," and then BioWare presents a pitch to EA to do just that and EA's marketing department says, "No, that won't sell x units."  But the problem isn't that the game won't sell x units, it's that EA's marketing department doesn't know how to sell that kind of game such that it will sell x units.

I'm not claiming BioWare's doing anything wrong here.

How they do that is up to the DA and Bioware team, and most of it is marketing, because as people have said, Skyrim had no VO and it did fine.

But EA's marketing department probably wouldn't have greenlit Skyrim.  That's my point.

[Cimeas]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

No.    Why would Gaider and co., who obviously love the franchise, try their best to ruin it?

I didn't suggest they would.

I just don't understand it. The fact is that EA, despite being greedy, would never walk into the Biwoare office and tell the DA team to have a voiced protagonist.  They just wouldn't, and its ridiculous to suggest they would.   They might have said 'try and get a bigger audience', but that's it.

But they might say, "Sell x number of units, bnut spend no more than y dollars doing it," and then BioWare presents a pitch to EA to do just that and EA's marketing department says, "No, that won't sell x units."  But the problem isn't that the game won't sell x units, it's that EA's marketing department doesn't know how to sell that kind of game such that it will sell x units.

I'm not claiming BioWare's doing anything wrong here.

How they do that is up to the DA and Bioware team, and most of it is marketing, because as people have said, Skyrim had no VO and it did fine.

But EA's marketing department probably wouldn't have greenlit Skyrim.  That's my point.

Honestly if I was Gaider or Hepler or another writer, I think I would enjoy writing more for a voiced protagonist.  I don't know if you played Mark of The Assassin (I just started a thread on it actually), but Hawke had some genuinely funny dialogue in it, and I hope that in the future we might even be able to choose how we respond to party banter.  

When Hawke tries to bluff his way into the Chateau because he's having a fashion 'DISASTER' the acting is so perfect, the look on his face is priceless and I just don't think it would be the same without VO.  

Anyway, in answer to your question, DA:O sold very well, even by EA's standards, for a new IP.   They say that Dead Space 3 needs 5 million sales to survive as a new IP with the marketing money they put into it, and Dead Space is aimed at a much larger audience, so the cost of advertising will be a lot more.   The issue I think is twofold.

Firstly, I do not think that EA went to Bioware and said that they need to make a DA sequel in a year.   They didn't do it with ME2/ME3 (2 years) nor with Battlefield (2 years), or with Dead Space's sequel (2.5 years).  

The answer to why DA2 was released and developed so soon is probably because DA2 was originally Origins' second expansion.   However Awakening didn't sell well at retail, with apparently only 660,000 copies sold compared to over 4 million for the base game (according to VGchartz, so take it with a pinch of salt).   Then the team got more ambitious, changing up the companions, skill system and perhaps it was at this stage that they decided to take a voiced protagonist.   With all these changes and the fact that Awakening sold poorly, EA and Bioware probably decided to spend an extra 7 months on the project and make a sequel. 

[bEVEsthda]

Cimeas wrote...
Anyway, in answer to your question, DA:O sold very well, even by EA's standards, for a new IP.   They say that Dead Space 3 needs 5 million sales to survive as a new IP with the marketing money they put into it, and Dead Space is aimed at a much larger audience, so the cost of advertising will be a lot more.   The issue I think is twofold.

Firstly, I do not think that EA went to Bioware and said that they need to make a DA sequel in a year.   They didn't do it with ME2/ME3 (2 years) nor with Battlefield (2 years), or with Dead Space's sequel (2.5 years).  

The answer to why DA2 was released and developed so soon is probably because DA2 was originally Origins' second expansion.   However Awakening didn't sell well at retail, with apparently only 660,000 copies sold compared to over 4 million for the base game (according to VGchartz, so take it with a pinch of salt).   Then the team got more ambitious, changing up the companions, skill system and perhaps it was at this stage that they decided to take a voiced protagonist.   With all these changes and the fact that Awakening sold poorly, EA and Bioware probably decided to spend an extra 7 months on the project and make a sequel. 

But just like us others, you're guessing.
ME, DA:O and good deal of ME2 were developed without EA. ME wasn't even published by EA, but by MS.

DA:O was finished but delayed for a year by EA. God only knows what changes they demanded. Hopefully it was only changes for being able to publish it on consoles too.
The plans for a restyling of DA to DA2 were decided upon before Awakening was ready. And probably a reason why the the end of Awakening was rather rushed, as well as Witch Hunt. Bioware's focus had already left these old and boring games. They were already on their ways to do something quite different. Something they believed people would think was much more fun, more exciting and kewler.
If you're right that DA2 was supposed to be another DA:O expansion (which doesn't quite fit in with anything the developers had said about how the DA2 story concept came about), then it must have been just early ideas.

Poor EA, they spend a lot more money on marketing than development, and at the end of the day that marketing ain't worth much, just because they're still EA. But that's all internal politics. Gotta get a lion share of the budget, otherways things might shift about what's important.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 08 juillet 2012 - 08:36 .

[Cimeas]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Cimeas wrote...
Anyway, in answer to your question, DA:O sold very well, even by EA's standards, for a new IP.   They say that Dead Space 3 needs 5 million sales to survive as a new IP with the marketing money they put into it, and Dead Space is aimed at a much larger audience, so the cost of advertising will be a lot more.   The issue I think is twofold.

Firstly, I do not think that EA went to Bioware and said that they need to make a DA sequel in a year.   They didn't do it with ME2/ME3 (2 years) nor with Battlefield (2 years), or with Dead Space's sequel (2.5 years).  

The answer to why DA2 was released and developed so soon is probably because DA2 was originally Origins' second expansion.   However Awakening didn't sell well at retail, with apparently only 660,000 copies sold compared to over 4 million for the base game (according to VGchartz, so take it with a pinch of salt).   Then the team got more ambitious, changing up the companions, skill system and perhaps it was at this stage that they decided to take a voiced protagonist.   With all these changes and the fact that Awakening sold poorly, EA and Bioware probably decided to spend an extra 7 months on the project and make a sequel. 

But just like us others, you're guessing.
ME, DA:O and good deal of ME2 were developed without EA. ME wasn't even published by EA, but by MS.

DA:O was finished but delayed for a year by EA. God only knows what changes they demanded. Hopefully it was only changes for being able to publish it on consoles too.
The plans for a restyling of DA to DA2 were decided upon before Awakening was ready. And probably a reason why the the end of Awakening was rather rushed, as well as Witch Hunt. Bioware's focus had already left these old and boring games. They were already on their ways to do something quite different. Something they believed people would think was much more fun, more exciting and kewler.
If you're right that DA2 was supposed to be another DA:O expansion (which doesn't quite fit in with anything the developers had said about how the DA2 story concept came about), then it must have been just early ideas.

Poor EA, they spend a lot more money on marketing than development, and at the end of the day that marketing ain't worth much, just because they're still EA. But that's all internal politics. Gotta get a lion share of the budget, otherways things might shift about what's important.

Oh absolutely, I'm guessing like everyone else.   However, firstly Bioware said they had plans to support DA for two years after launch, so one presumes there would be multiple expansions.  Secondly a 1 year development timetable is extremely rare in an

AAA game, even COD has multiple teams that each take 2 years, so I find it hard to believe it was all EA's doing.   I think it was really just a series of unfortunate events that led to DA2, and that it's not really anyone's fault.  They just bit off more than they could chew as it were, and decided they could better themselves with a quick sequel rather than continue work on a game they felt could be better (DA:O).    It ended up backfiring, but I don't blame anyone really. 

[jackofalltrades456]

Imrahil_ wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But given BioWare's insistence on cinematic presentation and a voiced protagonist, at least in the short term, the only alternative to offering constructive suggestions to be pushed aside as someone who siomply won't like the game.

It's much easier for them to dismiss us if we don't even try to work within their constraints.

Sylvius, I admire your perseverence.  I agree with 99% of your points.  I just don't have it in me to keep protesting.  I gave up long, long ago.  I appaud you, & bEVEthsda, & Jimmy, & others who I should also mention, but it's just not going to happen.

They're going to make DA:2.2.

They've said as much.  We're not getting racial choices.  We're getting the dialogue wheel.  We're getting iconic companions.  We're getting a Voiced Protagonist.  We're getting moar cinematics.  We're getting auto-diologue.  We're getting less player-agency,  They're making a game they want to make, which tells the story they want to tell.  Not our story we get to adventure in.  It's. just. not. going. to. happen.

DA:2 failed, supplanting MOO3 as the goto meme for "and then they failed". SWTOR is a joke on every forum but their own.  ME3 is now the icon for bad endings that destroyed a franchise.  Dawn of the Seeker didn't crack the Top 30 the week it was released, selling less than "Chuck: The Complete Fifth Season" at 15,347.

But they insist the fans are wrong.  And they persist with their "artistic vision" excuse.

They're not going to turn it around. I am amazed & somewhat impressed by your persistence to tell them what they are doing wrong, but, honestly, all you're going to get out of it is the chance to bump 500+ threads where you're like "told you so" once DA2.2, errr, I mean DA3 is released.

Basically, I wanted to just applaud you for fiighting the good fight, because you deseve that, but also to tell you you've already lost.  They won't be making a good game.  They won't be making the game you want.

Keep going, & I applaud you.  Stop now, & I understand.

I hate to say you're right, but....

Yeah, it seem like their just going to do the same exact thing for the third game.  I'm imagining DA3's reaction to be like the opening of the Ark scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark.

This also includes EA examining Bioware with "top" men..

Modifié par jackofalltrades456, 09 juillet 2012 - 01:12 .

[Mark of the Dragon]

While I like the cinematics I have ot agree with the OP here. While I like watching them the game shouldnt be so focused on them. Bioware's real focus I hope would lay in making deep stories with loving characters. They should also put more focus on the world and cultures. They claim that the world is what DA is all about yet the attention to detail in DA2 didnt really allude to that. It is a game so focus on makeing the gameplay, world, and story top notch then focus on cinematics.

[Fast Jimmy]

jackofalltrades456 wrote...

I hate to say you're right, but....

Yeah, it seem like their just going to do the same exact thing for the third game.  I'm imagining DA3's reaction to be like the opening of the Ark scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark.

This also includes EA examining Bioware with "top" men..

TOP... MEN...! 

[AkiKishi]

bEVEsthda wrote...
Poor EA, they spend a lot more money on marketing than development, and at the end of the day that marketing ain't worth much, just because they're still EA. But that's all internal politics. Gotta get a lion share of the budget, otherways things might shift about what's important.

Never underestimate marketing. Plenty of good games have sunk like a rock because they were unknown in wider circles. Plenty of bad games have sold because they were marketed to the n'th degree.