50 réponses à ce sujet

[Imrahil_]

After an extended absence from these forums, followed by reading a poop-ton of threads, I think I've pinpointed an essential problem. 

There is a phrase that people throw around indiscriminately & has different meanings to different people, including the Devs, or at least the ones who post on here.  That phrase is:

"You want DA:O:2"

Take a moment to think about what you, personally, mean by that, & hear me out.  Because it's important.

There's a group of people, & to be honest, I think most of the Devs are in this camp, who hear that phrase & think that people who say that mean:

[A game like DA:O, where, you get recruited by a Mentor, who dies, then you have to recruit 3 factions: A) You have to choose between two kings of the Gnomes, possibly enlisting their steam-punk automatons, & visit the Faeries, who are beseiged by Vampires who it turns out have been cursed by the leader of the Faeries, who you can kill to free them (or side with them to kill the Faeries), & C) some Enchanters who are oppressed by some Paladins]

That's not what the "we want DA:0:2" camp means.  We want the same gameplay as DA:O, but with a whole new story.  Much like how BG2 was the same gameplay as BG1 but with a whole new story.

This constant disdain for "you just want DA:O:2" is astounding to me.  The mental gymnastics it takes to put the DA:O crowd down just seems like a waste of effort.  If the audience wants it, give it to them.  No one is asking for a cinematic tour-de-force.  They're asking for DA:O:2.

I don't understand the insistence on failure in the face of an obviously successful road.

Modifié par Imrahil_, 14 juillet 2012 - 04:52 .

[Arthur Cousland]

I think that people wanted a game that felt like a sequel to Origins. That doesn't mean the same game with a "2" slapped on the logo, but a game that feels similar, but with enough changes/refinements that don't give me the feeling like I'm playing the same game. DA2 felt too much like a spinoff, or expansion, and aside from all of the cameo appearances and the few references to Origins, it felt like a completely different franchise than Origins.

[hussey 92]

Arthur Cousland wrote...

DA2 felt too much like a spinoff, or expansion, and aside from all of the cameo appearances and the few references to Origins, it felt like a completely different franchise than Origins.

^Exactly

[elfdwarf]

disagree with this thread

[Vormaerin]

Well, I don't want DAO 2. I want DA2 made with the resources that DAO had. I don't want to save the world from Sauron and the orcs again. I don't want to be part of a shadowy organization of "I win because" types that replaces who I am with what I am in nearly all interactions.

[Plaintiff]

Yeah, I was able to comprehend that well enough when people were tossing the phrase around the first time, so I don't see why you felt the need to explain it to us all like we're children.

DA2 changed extremely little in terms of gameplay, so it's not worth making a fuss about, but I still would not want any of those changes to be reversed.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 14 juillet 2012 - 10:58 .

[bEVEsthda]

Vormaerin wrote...

Well, I don't want DAO 2. I want DA2 made with the resources that DAO had. I don't want to save the world from Sauron and the orcs again. I don't want to be part of a shadowy organization of "I win because" types that replaces who I am with what I am in nearly all interactions.

To me and a lot of others, more resources to a DA2 style game won't improve a thing. I won't eat a turd of dog poop just because it's glazed and sprinkled with gold flakes.

Since we both kinda 'know each other', by now, it doesn't come as a surprise to see that we have diverse opinions.

I'm particularly convinced that your opinions of story is of no help to Bioware. First of all, the big cataclysmic conflict type of story, is really the only one that is truly interesting, the only one to make choices emotionally and morally interesting, the only one to make motives for a story-driven RPG comprehensive and natural.

As well written as DA2's story is, the plot is actually total boring, unengaging crap and turns every quest into a fedex-quest or worse. It also doesn't provide neither the player nor the player defined char with motives.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 14 juillet 2012 - 11:32 .

[bEVEsthda]

Plaintiff wrote...

Yeah, I was able to comprehend that well enough when people were tossing the phrase around the first time, so I don't see why you felt the need to explain it to us all like we're children.

DA2 changed extremely little in terms of gameplay, so it's not worth making a fuss about, but I still would not want any of those changes to be reversed.

You may feel they changed "extremely little", but to me and many others the changes were pretty dramatic and broke the game.

[bEVEsthda]

And frankly, what I really want is not DA:O2, but DA 0.1 - The Spiritual Successor to Baldur's Gate.
I suppose DA:O2 will do though, just as DA:O did.

[Plaintiff]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Yeah, I was able to comprehend that well enough when people were tossing the phrase around the first time, so I don't see why you felt the need to explain it to us all like we're children.

DA2 changed extremely little in terms of gameplay, so it's not worth making a fuss about, but I still would not want any of those changes to be reversed.

You may feel they changed "extremely little", but to me and many others the changes were pretty dramatic and broke the game.

Feel however you want. I'm looking at the facts, and the facts are that the number of changes made is small, and their nature is largely superficial, mostly to do with appearance and very little to do with function.

Clearly the game is not "broken". Nothing is preventing people from playing and completing it except their own dislike.

[bEVEsthda]

Plaintiff wrote...
Clearly the game is not "broken". Nothing is preventing people from playing and completing it except their own dislike.

It's broken, in the sense that it doesn't provide for the things we go playing RPG for, in the first place.

[Plaintiff]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
Clearly the game is not "broken". Nothing is preventing people from playing and completing it except their own dislike.

It's broken, in the sense that it doesn't provide for the things we go playing RPG for, in the first place.

You've demonstrated in the past that you have a very narrow and extremely rigid definition of 'RPG', so you'll forgive me if I take that with a pinch of salt.

[Cimeas]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

Well, I don't want DAO 2. I want DA2 made with the resources that DAO had. I don't want to save the world from Sauron and the orcs again. I don't want to be part of a shadowy organization of "I win because" types that replaces who I am with what I am in nearly all interactions.

To me and a lot of others, more resources to a DA2 style game won't improve a thing. I won't eat a turd of dog poop just because it's glazed and sprinkled with gold flakes.

Since we both kinda 'know each other', by now, it doesn't come as a surprise to see that we have diverse opinions.

I'm particularly convinced that your opinions of story is of no help to Bioware. First of all, the big cataclysmic conflict type of story, is really the only one that is truly interesting, the only one to make choices emotionally and morally interesting, the only one to make motives for a story-driven RPG comprehensive and natural.

As well written as DA2's story is, the plot is actually total boring, unengaging crap and turns every quest into a fedex-quest or worse. It also doesn't provide neither the player nor the player defined char with motives.

So in books, movies, games the ONLY plots that are ever interesting are the big conflict ones?   Really?

[Cimeas]

And exactly. How many times must it be mentioned, Baldurs Gate hardcore party based CRPG is NOT the only type of RPG! So many games can be RPGs and you have such a narrow definition of them, as Plaintiff said.

What if Bioware don't want to make another Baldurs Gate? What if they, as developers, do not want to do that game anymore. What if the combat designers are bored of the pause and play, semi-turn based combat and want to do something different?

Who knows, it might be fun? Every hardcore BW fan raged for hours when KOTOR was announced. They called it a dumbed down action-RPG.

Turned out to be one of the best RPGs on the last generation of consoles. Same with Jade Empire.

Every Bioware fan raged when they announced Mass Effect. The series (until the ending of ME3) turned out to be one of the greatest interactive stories ever told, a vast adventure that you could influence over the course of 3 games over 8 years in the making. And the angry fans, upon playing Mass Effect and ME2, promptly shut up.

So sure, DA2 was a disappointment. It was one for us action RPG and Mass Effect fans too. But the solution can never be to go backward, though of course one should see where you went wrong.


Fact is, Bioware didn't go wrong after Baldurs Gate, they went wrong after ME2.

[Fallstar]

Imrahil_ wrote...

That's not what the "we want DA:0:2" camp means.  We want the same gameplay as DA:O, but with a whole new story.  Much like how BG2 was the same gameplay as BG1 but with a whole new story.

This constant disdain for "you just want DA:O:2" is astounding to me.  The mental gymnastics it takes to put the DA:O crowd down just seems like a waste of effort.  If the audience wants it, give it to them.  No one is asking for a cinematic tour-de-force.  They're asking for DA:O:2.

I don't understand the insistence on failure in the face of an obviously successful road.

I couldn't agree more with this. If DAO didn't sell well, and wasn't critically acclaimed by the 'professional' critics and normal people playing the game, sure you can understand them making the drastic changes they did. But it was. I'll never understand why they made those changes, the only reason I can think of is that they were tired of making games like DAO. If that was the case, why not make a new IP, instead of messing with one you've just established.

Plaintiff wrote...

Yeah, I was able to comprehend that well enough when people were tossing the phrase around the first time, so I don't see why you felt the need to explain it to us all like we're children.

Some people assume everyone who wants to see a DAO2 want to see the "staple two archdemons together" thing a dev mentioned once. If you can see that's not the case, good for you, but not everyone can.

Modifié par DuskWarden, 14 juillet 2012 - 01:01 .

[AkiKishi]

DuskWarden wrote...

I couldn't agree more with this. If DAO didn't sell well, and wasn't critically acclaimed by the 'professional' critics and normal people playing the game, sure you can understand them making the drastic changes they did. But it was. I'll never understand why they made those changes, the only reason I can think of is that they were tired of making games like DAO. If that was the case, why not make a new IP, instead of messing with one you've just established.

It's probably down to Mass Effect and how much cinematically better it was.

[Cimeas]

DuskWarden wrote...

Imrahil_ wrote...

That's not what the "we want DA:0:2" camp means.  We want the same gameplay as DA:O, but with a whole new story.  Much like how BG2 was the same gameplay as BG1 but with a whole new story.

This constant disdain for "you just want DA:O:2" is astounding to me.  The mental gymnastics it takes to put the DA:O crowd down just seems like a waste of effort.  If the audience wants it, give it to them.  No one is asking for a cinematic tour-de-force.  They're asking for DA:O:2.

I don't understand the insistence on failure in the face of an obviously successful road.

I couldn't agree more with this. If DAO didn't sell well, and wasn't critically acclaimed by the 'professional' critics and normal people playing the game, sure you can understand them making the drastic changes they did. But it was. I'll never understand why they made those changes, the only reason I can think of is that they were tired of making games like DAO. If that was the case, why not make a new IP, instead of messing with one you've just established.

Plaintiff wrote...

Yeah, I was able to comprehend that well enough when people were tossing the phrase around the first time, so I don't see why you felt the need to explain it to us all like we're children.

Some people assume everyone who wants to see a DAO2 want to see the "staple two archdemons together" thing a dev mentioned once. If you can see that's not the case, good for you, but not everyone can.

You know many reviews including Eurogamer and Edge said that a big problem was the lack of voice acted main character, one called them an 'awkward mute' I recall. 

[bEVEsthda]

Cimeas wrote...

So in books, movies, games the ONLY plots that are ever interesting are the big conflict ones?   Really?

No. But a cRPG should not be a novel or movie, IMO. And that makes a lot of difference. I do not accept that a cRPG is the set story of a set character. On the contrary, I'm quite allergic to that.

The mundane stories in Skyrim are interesting to me, because they're my own. I've embarked on them for my own reasons.

The things Hawke elects to do in DA2 are not much interesting, because in many cases I'm not much motivated. It's just something Hawke does (and something I play along with because there is nothing else).

[Uccio]

I want Dragon Age game with Origins mechanics. Meaning different origins, stat based classes (dual wield etc)., free discussion with companions when ever, where ever plus full customization of companions. I also want full text discussion weather or not it is voiced or not (yes, one person CAN voice all origins). No WoW/anime weapons, armors or characters, seriously. Last but not least Choise & Consequence!!

I don´t necessarily want Origins story copy, thats not my requirement. DA2 would have been fine for me with aforementioned requirements (though the ending could have used seriously more variations).

Modifié par Ukki, 14 juillet 2012 - 02:20 .

[Cimeas]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

So in books, movies, games the ONLY plots that are ever interesting are the big conflict ones?   Really?

No. But a cRPG should not be a novel or movie, IMO. And that makes a lot of difference. I do not accept that a cRPG is the set story of a set character. On the contrary, I'm quite allergic to that.

The mundane stories in Skyrim are interesting to me, because they're my own. I've embarked on them for my own reasons.

The things Hawke elects to do in DA2 are not much interesting, because in many cases I'm not much motivated. It's just something Hawke does (and something I play along with because there is nothing else).

sure sure, like 'why do I care about helping Kirkwal' for example I totally agree.  But what I'm talking about is the fact that 'smaller' stories can still be exciting.  

Perhaps we start as a failed person, exiled from their homeland.   We seek the only relatives we know, somewhere in Tevinter. We arrive after months of travelling.  Our grandfather is missing, his house empty.   We find a hidden room.   Turns out he was working on some research, some way to get access to the black city.  His plans were to meet with an acquaintance in Val Royeaux.   We go there, it's an old family friend who we never knew was involved with this.   He suspects us of killing our family, reports us to the city guard.  We go to prison, have to work our way out.    Then, having regained the man's trust, he tells us that he had wanted to meet with our grandfather because he had found out about secret hidden in the Chantry archives for centuries.....



I don't know about you, but that's the start of a personal 'family' story, in which the world isn't in imminent danger, but I would play it.   Against a backdrop of a mages vs. templars war, with a wide variety of locations, a smaller story *CAN* work.  It's just that DA2 failed at it. 

[Dagr88]

By "DA:O2" I personally mean:

- Battle paсing (Anyone who has ever played DA:O dual wield Rogue know what I mean)

- Death animation (First time I saw how a Hurlock fell apart like a LEGO toy after being hit by lightning... that was... "anti-epic" all the way)

- A bit less Anime and glittery surfaces... I guess. Don't know how to correctly describe difference in graphics between DA:O and DA2. Tho Merrill's puppy eyes kind of works for me .

Modifié par Dagr88, 14 juillet 2012 - 03:07 .

[Arthur Cousland]

DuskWarden wrote...

I couldn't agree more with this. If DAO didn't sell well, and wasn't critically acclaimed by the 'professional' critics and normal people playing the game, sure you can understand them making the drastic changes they did. But it was. I'll never understand why they made those changes, the only reason I can think of is that they were tired of making games like DAO. If that was the case, why not make a new IP, instead of messing with one you've just established.

Basically, they wanted to do something different, but knew that the "Dragon Age" brand would sell the game.  That's why we got Dragon Age 2, instead of a new IP.

[AkiKishi]

Cimeas wrote...

sure sure, like 'why do I care about helping Kirkwal' for example I totally agree.  But what I'm talking about is the fact that 'smaller' stories can still be exciting.  

Perhaps we start as a failed person, exiled from their homeland.   We seek the only relatives we know, somewhere in Tevinter. We arrive after months of travelling.  Our grandfather is missing, his house empty.   We find a hidden room.   Turns out he was working on some research, some way to get access to the black city.  His plans were to meet with an acquaintance in Val Royeaux.   We go there, it's an old family friend who we never knew was involved with this.   He suspects us of killing our family, reports us to the city guard.  We go to prison, have to work our way out.    Then, having regained the man's trust, he tells us that he had wanted to meet with our grandfather because he had found out about secret hidden in the Chantry archives for centuries.....



I don't know about you, but that's the start of a personal 'family' story, in which the world isn't in imminent danger, but I would play it.   Against a backdrop of a mages vs. templars war, with a wide variety of locations, a smaller story *CAN* work.  It's just that DA2 failed at it. 

Epic stories mean that people "don't sweat the small stuff" so much. Both BG and DA:O got away with a lot because of this. As did ME.

Witcher 2 managed it DA2 did not. The reason being is that it's all in the details something DA2 lacks and something Bioware is really not very good at.

[Ash Wind]

I believe this weak excuse started with the Devs, and was only one of a number of clumsy attempts to excuse the changes made.

As I understand the time line… DAO was completed on the PC 6 to 9 months before it was released and this additional period was used to adapt the game to the PS and Xbox. It was also the period of time that, under EA’s ownership, DA2 quickly went into pre-production. The lead designer on DAO left that position some months before Origin’s release, at least in part, because he didn’t care for the direction that DA2 was going.

DA2’s radical changes were well into production before DAO was even released. They were making changes to systems before Origins sold copy 1. Though the Devs have repeatedly denied this, I think it’s a fair presumption that new owner EA influenced the direction of DA2. I don’t know what their expectations were, but it seems they didn’t think Origins was going to sell well, and new owner EA wanted something that would appeal to a wider audience.

But… Origins took off and carved out a very respectable market share.

It seems odd that they were so taken back by the backlash of the DA2 announcement and subsequent release. You almost feel sorry for the Devs and moderators stuck with the task of defending the mediocrity of DA2 after the quality of DAO. But, they had a job to do, as thankless as it might have been:  towing the company line. 

The excuses were many: The absurd You just wanted DAO:2 - Super Blight; The equally dumb People just fear change (people fear personal change, as consumers, they not only embrace it, they demand it); Confirmation Bias; The delusion that just because something is changed, it automatically means in was improved, etc. etc.

All attempts to rationalize or excuse a simple miscalculation on the part of the developers who began designing changes in line with the new Owners desires before they even knew what they had on their hands. It happens a lot in businesses of all types.

Modifié par Ash Wind, 14 juillet 2012 - 05:11 .

[Vormaerin]

bEVEsthda wrote...

As well written as DA2's story is, the plot is actually total boring, unengaging crap and turns every quest into a fedex-quest or worse. It also doesn't provide neither the player nor the player defined char with motives.

See, I don't actually think that DA2's story is well done.  I think the kind of story it tries to tell is excellent.   But the way it is written is problematic.  Hawke is too much a bystander and some of the threads, particularly those related to Act III, are too choppy and underdeveloped.

The quests seem like fedex quests because you never get the sense that you there is a plan or a goal that you are actually working on.  Plans and goals are mentioned, but they aren't attached to the story properly.

The only powerful moral choices in DAO had nothing to do with the darkspawn.   Redcliffe (until you found out there was a "right" decision), the elf vs werewolf thing (again, until you knew there was a "right" decision), etc.   Those could have been relevant decisions in  Hawke's story without any modification.  

Planescape Torment didn't have a story about world threatening bad guys.  Just you fixing a personal problem with interesting complications.

Modifié par Vormaerin, 14 juillet 2012 - 06:32 .