106 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Nyoka wrote...

"If Mass Effect 3 is going to teach something, it shouldn't be "You
can't end on a downer" or "Only give people what they think you want",
but the more generally applicable "Make sure your ending is appropriate
for your story" and "Don't rush something fans have been waiting five
years to see." With a polite but firm "Duh..." on the end of the second
one.


One thing's for sure, though. After this and the Dragon Age 2 debacle,
BioWare is officially facing its third strike with whatever comes next.
For its own sake and ours, whatever that is really needs to knock it out
of the park. Forgiving is not forgetting, and fans have been asked to
do far too much of it recently. BioWare shouldn't give up its creative
control, or its willingness to do courageous things with its stories -
but it does need to take a cold, hard look at how it slipped to the
point where this kind of patching was required and make sure that its
next epic RPG knows how to finish what it started on the very first try."

We know the next game is going to be Dragon Age 3. SWTOR and that other tanks game don't count. Do you think the situation for Dragon Age 3 is this dire? Is Bioware facing the loss of something more besides their fans' money or is it all exaggeration?

The real object I have to that line of thinking is this:

Even if you feel Bioware screwed up in both games, did they screw up in the same way?

Repeating the same mistakes is what happens when you're in a rut. Making different mistakes is the nature of a group that tries to change things up, which obviously has risks (when you do something unpopular) but is also intrensic for some pretty basic good things (compensating for errors, developing new ideas).

Dragon Age got hit hard for recycling so many in-door environments: ME3 had a huge diversity of environments across the game. DA2's parachuting waves of absurd means were gradually replaced with more appropirate-means of reinforcements in ME3. A fantastical boss fight for the sake of a bossfight (Orisino and Meredith) were replaced with a verbal conflict and no boss fight.

There's more, of course, but as far as the 'huge' flaws that earned the most grief and issue with the games, Bioware really isn't in the habbit of treading old ground once you move past generalities and start looking at specific issues. Bioware's teams do a good deal to try and compensate... and if anything, one of their consistent problems is over-compensating.

(But please, don't over-compensate for that: in the long run I prefer you to try too hard rather than not try at all.)

[David Gaider]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
There's more, of course, but as far as the 'huge' flaws that earned the most grief and issue with the games, Bioware really isn't in the habbit of treading old ground once you move past generalities and start looking at specific issues. Bioware's teams do a good deal to try and compensate... and if anything, one of their consistent problems is over-compensating.

Just because you said that, I decree we shall over-compensate by doing everything exactly the same.

Heh... just kidding.

I do find it funny when people act as if what we do in one game is clearly our intention for all games to come-- when that's rarely been the case. There's some elements that stay the same (our trademark elements, so to speak), but everything else pretty much depends on what we feel we need to work on... or how we must react to conditions at the time, such as engine changes or economic conditions, which rarely makes things static. Inevitably, some things work, some things really don't.

For all that some people seem to think we should do exactly the same things that they like, there'd be just as many (if not the exact same people) who'd be upset if we did and that it'd be too similar an experience. But that's the fun we get to contend with as developers.

[Mark of the Dragon]

I think the situation is dire for the Dragon Age series as I feel this game will make or reak the series. This is just a hunch of course. I enjoyed DA2 but it was definitly a couple step back from DAO. I think as long as Bioware can make a deep cohesive story (I feel DA@ story was a bit muddled) then that would go a lond way for the game. Of course with DA3 hopefully we get some kind of conclusion for our hero the other two were lacking.
As long as Bioware truly listens to the fan criticism and execute changes based off said criticism then I think that they can really give the company the boost it needs. I personally feel Bioware was humbled after the ME# incident so im looking forward to what is to come.

[Imrahil_]

David Gaider wrote...
For all that some people seem to think we should do exactly the same things that they like, there'd be just as many (if not the exact same people) who'd be upset if we did and that it'd be too similar an experience.

I doubt that would happen. That sounds like the kind of thing that sounds like common sense but has never actually happened.

"They turned it into a FPS!" "They removed base construction!" "They dumbed it down!" "They removed [Option X]!" "They became obsessed with cinematics!" - Those are the reasons franchises die.  I've never heard anyone say: "They kept all the features people liked! I'm not buying it!"

[Icesong]

Imrahil_ wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
For all that some people seem to think we should do exactly the same things that they like, there'd be just as many (if not the exact same people) who'd be upset if we did and that it'd be too similar an experience.

I doubt that would happen. That sounds like the kind of thing that sounds like common sense but has never actually happened.

"They turned it into a FPS!" "They removed base construction!" "They dumbed it down!" "They removed [Option X]!" "They became obsessed with cinematics!" - Those are the reasons franchises die.  I've never heard anyone say: "They kept all the features people liked! I'm not buying it!"

Well, it happens when developers churn out the sequels to milk the formula. And you kinda see it happen with something like StarCraft 2 -- got a little bit of criticism for not deviating much from the original. Didn't stop it from turning into what it has. Plus yeah, has gotten more criticism for deviating too much from the original.

Modifié par Icesong, 10 juillet 2012 - 02:59 .

[Nyaore]

 I think the direness of the situations depends on your perspective. There's always going to be a subset of core gamers out there who will love whatever Bioware puts out, no matter what. Also, let's face it, in spite of their recent failures Bioware to my knowledge has never put out a truly BAD game. Disappointing games? Oh most definitely, I still can't get the bad taste of NWN1 - sans expansions, which were awesome - out of my mouth. But games that were so fundamentally broken that they were unplayable? Not that I've seen. Even DA2, which is their most recent disappointment, was merely an average to slightly below-average game - not nearly close to being ET or licensed movie video game levels. That of course works to their disadvantage, because it means that we expect more from them as a developer, which is why the fan backlash was so immense over both the DA2 and ME3 debacles. Had any other developer done those things, I don't think people would have been quite as upset.

That said though, even though I'm not at the point where I'll refuse to buy another one of their games, I'm definitely at the point where Bioware is once again regulated to my standard 'wait and see' approach - as opposed to being a 'day one buy'. If DA3 is rushed just as badly as DA2, which I liked but felt it needed at least another year in development, then I might consider pushing them even further on my buying schedule. I want to give Bioware more chances, because I love their games so much. However if the next game ends up being that prophetic 'bad game', I'm not too sure how I'll end up reacting.

[seraphymon]

David Gaider wrote...
Heh... just kidding.

I do find it funny when people act as if what we do in one game is clearly our intention for all games to come-- when that's rarely been the case. There's some elements that stay the same (our trademark elements, so to speak), but everything else pretty much depends on what we feel we need to work on... or how we must react to conditions at the time, such as engine changes or economic conditions, which rarely makes things static. Inevitably, some things work, some things really don't.

For all that some people seem to think we should do exactly the same things that they like, there'd be just as many (if not the exact same people) who'd be upset if we did and that it'd be too similar an experience. But that's the fun we get to contend with as developers.

But isnt that exactly what is happening with DA3 in some areas? Ive seen this happen before, in which case the first game  of a series does faantastic and the 2nd changes soo many things around in certain areas and then they remain static mostly from the 2nd game onward, even though people dont care for it, or rather be more like the 1st

Your choosing to keep the stupid dialogue wheel reguardless of the controversy behind it and the dumb paraphrase system. This is totally aside from having a main character VA.

[hussey 92]

I used to buy games just cause they were bioware. Not anymore though.

[Jerrybnsn]

[quote]Cimeas wrote...

[quote]Jerrybnsn wrote...

[quote]SirGladiator wrote...

For all the negatives of DA2, none were present during the DLCs, so clearly there's no reason to expect anything less in DA3. [/quote]

Besides a completely different area to explore, what exactly did the dlc do to offset the negatives heaped on DA2? Or do you believe that reuse maps was DA2's only negative?
 
[/quote]


uhh they had interesting bossfights, [/quote]

I'll admit, that boss fight was pretty tough.  Especially if you had the bug where towards the end of the fight, no matter how many times you click on a griffon statue it wasn't going to turn of the boss's power source and he remain untouchable ad infinitum.  But, I don't see how that was any different from the two boss fights at the end of DA2.



[quote] new mobs,[/quote]
 
Instead of just carta mobs, we have carta mobs hired by the Grey Wardens?  And the addition of an ape-like darkspawn that has a thousand hitpoints?


[quote]new areas, [/quote]

I said besides these, mainly because a gamer should expect new areas throughout the game.

[quote] new gameplay system (weren't great, but at least an attempt), [/quote]

I'm not sure what this means.  It still looked like the same engine, with the same menu. dialogue wheel and combat system.


[quote]more puzzles, [/quote]

I can only remember one puzzle in the dlc, and if you sided with the Grey Warden lady, instead of the tainted creature, you didn't have to do it.


[quote] better story, [/quote]

Granted, it was the first quest of the DA2 game that felt like an actual quest rather than another disjointed fetch quest.  A three hour quest?!  Isn't that what critics of Origins complained about with the Fade and Deep Roads quests?  However, this was a dlc not added to the original game.  What's stopping Bioware from sticking with the same formula of only giving you larger quests in dlc format instead of in the original game?


[quote]higher story: [/quote]

Isn't this the same as 'better story'?


[quote]fighting ratio,[/quote]

I'm not sure what you mean on this one either.  The combat was exactly the same as the main game.  In fact, I was a little surprise that, even at level 23 and upgraded with the highest accesories, it still took me fifteen to twenty wacks with my sword just to kill one carta member as it did the first time I wandered down Lowtown for the first time at night. 


[quote]and Hawke had personality. [/quote]

I can't see how the dlc gave Hawke any more personality than he/she had before.  Which was a major complaint about DA2 was that Hawke had too much personality and took control away from the player.

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 10 juillet 2012 - 09:26 .

[Dean_the_Young]

David Gaider wrote...

Just because you said that, I decree we shall over-compensate by doing everything exactly the same.

Heh... just kidding.

I do find it funny when people act as if what we do in one game is clearly our intention for all games to come-- when that's rarely been the case. There's some elements that stay the same (our trademark elements, so to speak), but everything else pretty much depends on what we feel we need to work on... or how we must react to conditions at the time, such as engine changes or economic conditions, which rarely makes things static. Inevitably, some things work, some things really don't.

Out of curiosity, how were the mechanics of Jade Empire received? I personally enjoyed that style of running around and combat, even without jumping, but I struggle to think of another game that's used it. Was it poorly received, or just not viable to repeat?

For all that some people seem to think we should do exactly the same things that they like, there'd be just as many (if not the exact same people) who'd be upset if we did and that it'd be too similar an experience. But that's the fun we get to contend with as developers.

Maybe you should give them a faster horse. That would be something people wanted but don't expect to get, according to Henry Ford.

[Jerrybnsn]

David Gaider wrote...

For all that some people seem to think we should do exactly the same things that they like, there'd be just as many (if not the exact same people) who'd be upset if we did and that it'd be too similar an experience. But that's the fun we get to contend with as developers.

I see the danger of doing exactly the same thing becoming too similar an experience from the previous game, in the sense if you are playing out the game in the same fashion.

Look at Assassin's Creed Revelations.  No one complained that they used the same graphics, game mechanics, combat or inventory like the previous games.  The complaint was that it was very similar to Brotherhood in going into a city and liberating it from Templars, recruiting assassins from people you save and sending them on non-descript missions, while at the same time upgrading the city as you go.  Worse, Constantinople turned out to be a boring looking city compared to Rome.  Speaking for myself, I would have rather just replayed Brotherhood when it game to the gameplay.

So the trap for making DA2 to be a too similar an experience would have been following the same story pattern of being saved by a Duncan type Grey Warden, trying to stop an archdemon and having to collect allies in the same genre of the Origins' plot.  Sort of like all Stephen King novels start to read the same after the first five or so.  I don't see bringing back the same graphics, game mechanics, combat or inventory as being a fault.

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 10 juillet 2012 - 11:51 .

[mopotter]

shadow7warlord wrote...

Well, after Bioware's latest games everyone is going to be more cautious and will think more before buying DA3.
So the only way for DA3 to sell much is if it's a GREAT game not just an OK one.

SO if it receives scores like 9-9.5 by the critics but most importantly by gamers then that's gonna count.

The most important thing for most however is that Bioware shows the game before launch and details all it's features without relying on hype and previous games...

I don't go by critics.  I do consider what other gamers say on sites I trust.  

DA3 will be the first BW game I won't pre-order.  It's also the first BW game I'll be checking out how it ends, what's involved (MP like neverwinter night where I didn't even know it was there for a long time, or required),  and how your choices affect those endings before I buy it.

I LOVED KOTOR, still play it.  Loved JE, still play it.  ME1 and 2 still play them.  ME3, the EC helped me play 4 games and have now put it up, may or may not play it in the future, depends on my mood.   I liked DA2 and DA:O, I have one started now.   

If the story is good and at least one endings sees the hero and LI with some of the group surviving and celebrating their survival I'll pick it up.  If there is no chance for this I won't.
One thing ME3 did do for me, I no long hate with capitals, the dark ritual.  Still don't like it but don't hate it.   

I don't think it's the end of BW, it may be they are going in a different direction and I won't always go with them, but I'll just have to wait and see.  I certainly won't say I'll never buy their games. If it's good and satisfies my  gameing interest I'll pick it up.  If not I won't.

[Fauxnormal]

I think the melodrama from Bioware's pathetically bad fans makes me want to puke.

That one siggy is right; they deserve better 'fans' then half of you.

[Cimeas]

[quote]Jerrybnsn wrote...

[quote]Cimeas wrote...

[quote]Jerrybnsn wrote...

[quote]SirGladiator wrote...

For all the negatives of DA2, none were present during the DLCs, so clearly there's no reason to expect anything less in DA3. [/quote]

Besides a completely different area to explore, what exactly did the dlc do to offset the negatives heaped on DA2? Or do you believe that reuse maps was DA2's only negative?
 
[/quote]


uhh they had interesting bossfights, [/quote]

I'll admit, that boss fight was pretty tough.  Especially if you had the bug where towards the end of the fight, no matter how many times you click on a griffon statue it wasn't going to turn of the boss's power source and he remain untouchable ad infinitum.  But, I don't see how that was any different from the two boss fights at the end of DA2.



[quote] new mobs,[/quote]
 
Instead of just carta mobs, we have carta mobs hired by the Grey Wardens?  And the addition of an ape-like darkspawn that has a thousand hitpoints?


[quote]new areas, [/quote]

I said besides these, mainly because a gamer should expect new areas throughout the game.

[quote] new gameplay system (weren't great, but at least an attempt), [/quote]

I'm not sure what this means.  It still looked like the same engine, with the same menu. dialogue wheel and combat system.


[quote]more puzzles, [/quote]

I can only remember one puzzle in the dlc, and if you sided with the Grey Warden lady, instead of the tainted creature, you didn't have to do it.


[quote] better story, [/quote]

Granted, it was the first quest of the DA2 game that felt like an actual quest rather than another disjointed fetch quest.  A three hour quest?!  Isn't that what critics of Origins complained about with the Fade and Deep Roads quests?  However, this was a dlc not added to the original game.  What's stopping Bioware from sticking with the same formula of only giving you larger quests in dlc format instead of in the original game?


[quote]higher story: [/quote]

Isn't this the same as 'better story'?


[quote]fighting ratio,[/quote]

I'm not sure what you mean on this one either.  The combat was exactly the same as the main game.  In fact, I was a little surprise that, even at level 23 and upgraded with the highest accesories, it still took me fifteen to twenty wacks with my sword just to kill one carta member as it did the first time I wandered down Lowtown for the first time at night. 


[quote]and Hawke had personality. [/quote]

I can't see how the dlc gave Hawke any more personality than he/she had before.  Which was a major complaint about DA2 was that Hawke had too much personality and took control away from the player.


[/quote]




I'm talking about Mark of The Assassin, not Legacy, which was mediocre.

[Jerrybnsn]

Oh, Mark of the Assassin. I'm still debating if I want to pay $10 to play. I really don't want to have to play DA2 a fourth time considering I'm still trying to finish the third play through. It seems too out of place to play a game add-on. All the equipment that you pick up is no where near as good as the iconic "Hawke" outfit you're saddled with at the end of the game. Plus there is no point in picking up loot because you can't use it because you've finished the game.

Yeah, game add-on dlc sometimes doesn't make sense. DLC should be more content AFTER the game. So I'm not buying anymore add-on dlc.

[philippe willaume]

Well but intent does not matter as much as what is on the CD does for us.

If it is true that some will loath what some will like, it was interesting for me to see that a fair number of people that like DA:2 over DA:0 did dislike DA:0 for the same reason that I find DA:2 lacking compared to DA:0.

Combat were a bit lack lustre and tedious. It is not so much DA:0 vs DA:2 combat style of philosophy. It is more how it gels together.
Sure there are parts that some will glorify and some will loath but those parts usually become the vector for the expression of displeasure rather than being the real cause of the problem.

@Jerry, IMNSHO MotA is actually quite enjoyable so it is worth having.
phil

[ScotGaymer]

As much as Mr Gaider and other DA devs would like to believe that it doesn't matter, how the other franchises does story wise, with gameplay, financially, & critically does affect the perception of Dragon Age and of Bioware in general and vise versa. It absolutely does, I am sorry to disagree Mr Gaider, to say that it doesn't and that people aren't or shouldn't draw conclusions from what ME does to how DA is going to go is naive frankly.

Yeh you guys have different teams but there is clear evidence of cross pollination in the franchises, and you can not argue that there isn't.

So yes DA3 is under a lot of pressure.

For myself Dragon Age 2 was an overall decent game (but not brilliant) that had a horrifically bad ending.
By contrast Mass Effect 3 was a game that was in places brilliant, and in places terrible, and had the most Bat**** Insane Ending in a Video Game ever.

That is why I rate Dragon Age 2 higher than Mass Effect 3.

And A LOT of people, and reviewers, feel exactly the same way; or similar enough to have it make no difference.

Word of mouth is what sold Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age 2 in that the majority of sales for both games (ME3 especially) comes from Pre-Orders; and Word of Mouth is what destroyed the sales of BOTH games post release and ensured that neither game reached the potential goal that bioware was aiming for.
So most definately, DA3 is under A LOT of pressure to deliver. And for many it WILL be taken as a 3rd strike and we are out situation; as much as you might think that a dramatic overreaction.

The very fact that ME3 engendered the reaction it did, and spawned a Gamer Advocacy group in the form of HoldTheLine.com proves that it is a serious problem that Bioware are facing.

I get why BW, and the DA dev team are keen to play all that down as nothing more than an extreme reaction by their "most loyal fans" but you guys really musn't blind yourselves with that and refuse to take the lessons that DA2 and ME3 presented to you guys.
If you do ignore it, or downplay it, or worse dismiss it; then Dragon Age 3 WILL flop. And will kick off the final desertion of the long term core fanbase. And if that happens BW will either need to go in a completely new direction to try and earn a new fanbase or end up folded into EA like Westwood was before it.

I know that has been said before - "oh this is the end of bioware!" - and it hasn't been true before. But things haven't been quite this grave before either, and those folks were mostly melodramtic hardliners grumbling for attention. This time the people saying that really aren't those type of fans, this time it is the more "ordinary" fanbase that is saying that.
This situation has happened with other Developers in the past, many times in the past actually, and they thought it wouldn't happen. Until it did. And now they are gone.

Origin, Westwood, Maxis, Bullfrog. All gone.

Lionhead is in the process of dissapearring into Microsoft Game Studios. In a few years it too will be gone.

And Bioware is teetering on the edge.

Again it sounds melodramatic, and over the top. But its absolutely true.

Dragon Age 3 will decide if Bioware remains a top flight triple A title Developer, or if it slides into mediocrity. And then in a few years into the oblivion of EA.

Modifié par FitScotGaymer, 10 juillet 2012 - 06:44 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Fauxnormal wrote...

I think the melodrama from Bioware's pathetically bad fans makes me want to puke.

That one siggy is right; they deserve better 'fans' then half of you.

We're the fans Bioware deserves, but not the ones it needs right now... and so they'll hunt us, because we can take it. Because we're not fans. We're lifelong gamers, RPG enthusiasts... we're the Shark Kite. 







What? Nothing rhymes with Dark Knight that makes any sense whatsoever. 

[ianvillan]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Fauxnormal wrote...

I think the melodrama from Bioware's pathetically bad fans makes me want to puke.

That one siggy is right; they deserve better 'fans' then half of you.

We're the fans Bioware deserves, but not the ones it needs right now... and so they'll hunt us, because we can take it. Because we're not fans. We're lifelong gamers, RPG enthusiasts... we're the Shark Kite. 







What? Nothing rhymes with Dark Knight that makes any sense whatsoever. 

We're the park light

[Fast Jimmy]

Bark Fight!

[Fast Jimmy]

Imrahil_ wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
For all that some people seem to think we should do exactly the same things that they like, there'd be just as many (if not the exact same people) who'd be upset if we did and that it'd be too similar an experience.

I doubt that would happen. That sounds like the kind of thing that sounds like common sense but has never actually happened.

"They turned it into a FPS!" "They removed base construction!" "They dumbed it down!" "They removed [Option X]!" "They became obsessed with cinematics!" - Those are the reasons franchises die.  I've never heard anyone say: "They kept all the features people liked! I'm not buying it!"

Agreed. Let's not forget the vast number of franchises that make tons of money and expand their fanbase with every release, despite keeping the exact same type of gameplay - every spots franchise essentially, most shooters, and as much as people like to complain that Skyrim doesn't have the same control or plot in the main quest as Oblivion, it's a LOT of the same mechanisms and even a lot of the same game type as Morrowind. 

You know who rarely preorders a game? People who are new to an already established franchise. No one buys a game on the midnight release that hasn't played the earlier games of an established series. And, with ME3 and DA2, where did the majority of sales come from? Pre-orders. So the number of people who are buying Bioware games are people who liked the original style. Sure, it could use some tweaks, but tweaks do not equal complete overhaul. 

[Saintthanksgiving]

I'm sure Bioware will be fine. If Dragon Age 3 flops, it might be the end of the Dragon Age franchise, but Bioware and EA are far from failed companies.

I am curious to see what happens with preorders this time around. If DA2's problems are going to have an effect, it will show first in the preorder numbers.

[astreqwerty]

they really need a good game this time around...and i dont mean a game the likes of mass effect 3 or da2...you know an actually exeptional rpg game..anything less will break it for most of us

[Massakkolia]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

This situation has happened with other Developers in the past, many times in the past actually, and they thought it wouldn't happen. Until it did. And now they are gone.

Origin, Westwood, Maxis, Bullfrog. All gone.

Lionhead is in the process of dissapearring into Microsoft Game Studios. In a few years it too will be gone.

And Bioware is teetering on the edge.

Again it sounds melodramatic, and over the top. But its absolutely true.

Glad to see you've studied Bioware's balance sheet with such enthusiasm. I didn't find any detailed data on divisions of EA online. If you have a link, please provide it. I'd love to see it.

The fact is you can't predict the future of a company based on fan feedback. Or you can, but your prediction won't hold much water. Of course feedback matters and, on a long run, a consumer product company needs to be liked by a good number of people. At the very least, their products need to be liked.

As a whole though, there are two things that really mean something for a company when they launch a new product: financial success and critical success. The first one ensures the company can make more products and invest in improving the company. The second one boosts the brand.

I don't remember Bioware lately having any catastrophical occurances on either financial or review front. Setbacks sure, but catastrophes? SWTOR may be one financially but we don't know that yet. 

Your point about game industry being a precarious field is absolutely correct. Many companies, good and bad, have fallen or been devoured by bigger companies. Hell, even Bioware became part of EA. It's also a young high risk industry that's changing constantly with new technology. You can't just throw around some fallen companies and compare them to Bioware which has its own unique problems.

As long as we don't have free access to Bioware's accounting, there's no sense to spit out doomsday statements as facts. (But you are free to provide feedback and complain to your heart's content. I do that too.)

[Fredward]

^ I approve of this post as I have of few other posts (except that one in Switzerland) in my 18 year existence. Bravo.