329 réponses à ce sujet

[Sabriana]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Whether they "get it" will depend on if they can get the fan base that they lost back with DA3. From what I've heard so far, they won't. Multiplayer? Kinect and move capabilities? Iconic armor? It just might be worse than DA2 was.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. I wish they would build on the great game that is DAO, but it seems that is not going to happen.

Oh well, I'll always have DAO, I love it, keep on buying it for presents, recommend it to everyone, etc. The last great breath of greatness that was Bioware, imo. Luckily there are other games that fullfil my RPG needs. But I am sad, nonetheless. I hate goodbyes. I'll still be watching, just in case a miracle happens, and the old Bioware comes back, but I've lost hope and faith. Unfortunately.

[HanErlik]

Cimeas wrote...

RPGs should have worlds that feel real (not realistic, they can be set in fantasy/sci-fi/have dragons/whatever) and real life has voice. You hear yourself speak. You don't in an RPG.
 

In real life, you have unlimited options for speaking in a conversation.
In real life, you have unlimited options of tone and attitude to pick.
In real life, you cannot persuade everybody by picking the blue option.
In real life, your friends don't try to jump on you no matter who you are.
In real life, enemies don't spown out of thin air.

Yes, DAII was so realistic that at first I thought it was a simulation.

Modifié par HanErlik, 20 juillet 2012 - 08:55 .

[Maclimes]

HanErlik wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

RPGs should have worlds that feel real (not realistic, they can be set in fantasy/sci-fi/have dragons/whatever) and real life has voice. You hear yourself speak. You don't in an RPG.
 

In real life, you have unlimited options for speaking in a conversation.
In real life, you have unlimited options of tone and attitude to pick.
In real life, you cannot persuade everybody by picking the blue option.
In real life, your friends don't try to jump on you no matter who you are.
In real life, enemies don't spown out of thin air.

Yes, DAII was so realistic that at first I thought it was a simulation.

Has any RPG, or any game at all, EVER offered "unlimited" options for speaking in conversation? Sort of an unfair comparison.

[HanErlik]

Maclimes wrote...

HanErlik wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

RPGs should have worlds that feel real (not realistic, they can be set in fantasy/sci-fi/have dragons/whatever) and real life has voice. You hear yourself speak. You don't in an RPG.
 

In real life, you have unlimited options for speaking in a conversation.
In real life, you have unlimited options of tone and attitude to pick.
In real life, you cannot persuade everybody by picking the blue option.
In real life, your friends don't try to jump on you no matter who you are.
In real life, enemies don't spown out of thin air.

Yes, DAII was so realistic that at first I thought it was a simulation.

Has any RPG, or any game at all, EVER offered "unlimited" options for speaking in conversation? Sort of an unfair comparison.

No game offered "unlimited" options for speaking in a conversation. Bu it is obivous that some RPGs offered a lot more than "blue, purple, red" buttons. It means these games (most of them didn't have a voiced protagonist) were closer to the real world than DAII.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

HanErlik wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

RPGs should have worlds that feel real (not realistic, they can be set in fantasy/sci-fi/have dragons/whatever) and real life has voice. You hear yourself speak. You don't in an RPG.
 

In real life, you have unlimited options for speaking in a conversation.
In real life, you have unlimited options of tone and attitude to pick.
In real life, you cannot persuade everybody by picking the blue option.
In real life, your friends don't try to jump on you no matter who you are.
In real life, enemies don't spown out of thin air.

Yes, DAII was so realistic that at first I thought it was a simulation.

[Cultist]

Here's a good example how things work:
"We were hearing feedback that they love the thriller game, but it was pretty scary, and the obvious next step was that they wanted to play with someone. So we introduced co-op into [Dead Space 3]."
That's EA Games' marketing exec Laura Miele explaining the move to co-op in the series' third entry.
Now imagine what we'll get with Dragon Age 3.
A were hearing feedback that they love the RPG, but it required more than 5 minutes to understand, and the obvious next step was that they wanted less story and more action and awesome buttons! So we removed long phrases and  dialogues, level advancement, introduced autodialogues and replaced quests with battles!
Future is bright and clear!

Modifié par Cultist, 20 juillet 2012 - 10:19 .

[Realmzmaster]

Maclimes wrote...

HanErlik wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

RPGs should have worlds that feel real (not realistic, they can be set in fantasy/sci-fi/have dragons/whatever) and real life has voice. You hear yourself speak. You don't in an RPG.
 

In real life, you have unlimited options for speaking in a conversation.
In real life, you have unlimited options of tone and attitude to pick.
In real life, you cannot persuade everybody by picking the blue option.
In real life, your friends don't try to jump on you no matter who you are.
In real life, enemies don't spown out of thin air.

Yes, DAII was so realistic that at first I thought it was a simulation.

Has any RPG, or any game at all, EVER offered "unlimited" options for speaking in conversation? Sort of an unfair comparison.

In real life you do not have unlimited options for speaking in conversation. You limited by the situation you find yourself in. The same with tone and atitude.  In real life people censor themselves by the situation they are in. Yes theorectically  you have unlimited options but not in practicality. That only happens in your headcanon.

By the same token you cannot persuade people by using the persuasion option or the cunning option.

Your friends will jump on you if you push a button or pick a topic you know that they are sensitive about.
You are right enemies do not appear out of thin air at times it just appears like they do becuase you are not paying attention.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Sabriana wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Whether they "get it" will depend on if they can get the fan base that they lost back with DA3. From what I've heard so far, they won't. Multiplayer? Kinect and move capabilities? Iconic armor? It just might be worse than DA2 was.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. I wish they would build on the great game that is DAO, but it seems that is not going to happen.

Oh well, I'll always have DAO, I love it, keep on buying it for presents, recommend it to everyone, etc. The last great breath of greatness that was Bioware, imo. Luckily there are other games that fullfil my RPG needs. But I am sad, nonetheless. I hate goodbyes. I'll still be watching, just in case a miracle happens, and the old Bioware comes back, but I've lost hope and faith. Unfortunately.

But the unanswered question is: Why?

Why do they feel the need to scrap DA:O when it's one of their most successful games in their history? Everything they're doing just doesn't make sense, even from a business perspective. WTF is going on at BioWare?

[EpicBoot2daFace]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

harkness72 wrote...

You know, from reading some of your past posts I'd like to ask why you never really form real arguments but just resort to petty insults and always come back to calling people who disagree with you "whiners"?

You haven't read many of my posts, then.  I have plenty of people on my friends list I disagree with.  

This thread though, is a whine.  The clear message behind threads like this is "make more DAO" but...  blech.  Those games died out for a reason.  DA2 wasn't a perfect game, but it was a better game than DAO.  DA3 will be even better than DA2.  Some of the trope can creep back in, I'll roll my eyes buy still buy it....  but the more of the old world game mechnics that are carved out of new games, the happier I'll be. 

 

DA:O is one of the most commercially successful games BioWare has ever made. Is that your definition of "dying out"?

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 21 juillet 2012 - 02:27 .

[Ash Wind]

Cultist wrote...

Here's a good example how things work:
"We were hearing feedback that they love the thriller game, but it was pretty scary, and the obvious next step was that they wanted to play with someone. So we introduced co-op into [Dead Space 3]."
That's EA Games' marketing exec Laura Miele explaining the move to co-op in the series' third entry.
Now imagine what we'll get with Dragon Age 3.
A were hearing feedback that they love the RPG, but it required more than 5 minutes to understand, and the obvious next step was that they wanted less story and more action and awesome buttons! So we removed long phrases and  dialogues, level advancement, introduced autodialogues and replaced quests with battles!
Future is bright and clear!

So this.

I would love to know what data BW is looking at to think that a bland, uninteresting story, as long as it has pointless cinematic after pointless cinematic, somehow equates appealing to a wider audience. DA2 should have taught them that it appeals to a smaller audience. Yet, they seem determined to try to prove they were correct with their bad choices.

I consider myself to be a casual gamer, and I am not interested in watching a weak, uninteresting quasi-interactive bad movie with little choice and having little knowledge about what my character is going to say (horrendous paraphrases)... aka DA2.

Why 'Tone' trumps 'Content' with respect to dialogue in the new BW's world befuddles me. I want to play a game, and know what I am saying. If I want to be railroaded into one particular story, if I want to be surprised by what the Main Character might say, I'll watch a movie or read a book.

I've never seen this mass outcry for less choice; more dumbed-down mechanics; more pointless cinematics and more horrific paraphrases, but BW seems determined to corner that market.You'd have to pay me to buy DA3 on day 1, or even day 90. 

Modifié par Ash Wind, 21 juillet 2012 - 06:23 .

[ianvillan]

Ash Wind wrote...

Cultist wrote...

Here's a good example how things work:
"We were hearing feedback that they love the thriller game, but it was pretty scary, and the obvious next step was that they wanted to play with someone. So we introduced co-op into [Dead Space 3]."
That's EA Games' marketing exec Laura Miele explaining the move to co-op in the series' third entry.
Now imagine what we'll get with Dragon Age 3.
A were hearing feedback that they love the RPG, but it required more than 5 minutes to understand, and the obvious next step was that they wanted less story and more action and awesome buttons! So we removed long phrases and  dialogues, level advancement, introduced autodialogues and replaced quests with battles!
Future is bright and clear!

So this.

I would love to know what data BW is looking at to think that a bland, uninteresting story, as long as it has pointless cinematic after pointless cinematic, somehow equates appealing to a wider audience. DA2 should have taught them that it appeals to a smaller audience. Yet, they seem determined to try to prove they were correct with their bad choices.

I consider myself to be a casual gamer, and I am not interested in watching a weak, uninteresting quasi-interactive bad movie with little choice and having little knowledge about what my character is going to say (horrendous paraphrases)... aka DA2.

Why 'Tone' trumps 'Content' with respect to dialogue in the new BW's world befuddles me. I want to play a game, and know what I am saying. If I want to be railroaded into one particular story, if I want to be surprised by what the Main Character might say, I'll watch a movie or read a book.

I've never seen this mass outcry for less choice; more dumbed-down mechanics; more pointless cinematics and more horrific paraphrases, but BW seems determined to corner that market.You'd have to pay me to buy DA3 on day 1, or even day 90. 

This is what I dont understand, Bioware started on DA2 before DAO was even released and before they had any feedback data to go on.

So they changed most of the game with no feedback of how anyone rated the first just so they can make it like Mass Effect, The reasons that the devs come out with about having data about who played what race, who couldn't tell companions apart if they are in armour and even the shuffle all ring hollow to me.

If Bioware magically had feedback about a game that wasnt even released then I would like to see it because with the amount of changes they did to DA2 it seems that everyone hated Origins and the game didn't sell any copies and was slated by fans and critics.

[Imrahil_]

Ash Wind wrote...
I would love to know what data BW is looking at to think that a bland, uninteresting story, as long as it has pointless cinematic after pointless cinematic, somehow equates appealing to a wider audience.

They've shared that data with us, sort of.  It's just that they have done an absolutely terrible job of interpreting it.

They've shared that, what was it, like 80% of people played the Human Noble origin.  And, something like 8% played as a Dwarf.  And only 50% of games were completed.

But they are godawful at interpreting that data,

I mean, I played as a Human Noble.  And a Dwarf Commoner.  And Dwarf Noble.  And a Dalish.  And a City Elf.  And an Elven Mage.  And a Human Mage.  So I count in the 80% Human Noble bucket.  And that's all they see.  It's completely lost on them that one of the reasons I bought DA:O was that I *could* play as all those different races/origins.  All they see in their statistics is that I was one of many who played as a Human Noble.

Several of my playthroughs I never completed.  So I contributed to the "only 50% of players complete the game" stat.  But I completed many characters.  Doesn't matter to them.  They don't understand statistics.  I ran a few characters just through Ostagar & then abandoned them, deciding to start over, but that feeds into their "many players stopped after Ostagar" stat.  They are clueless.

They have no idea how to interpret their data.  They decide on a conclusion they want, then interpret the data to fit their pre-conceived notion.  Then they like to lecture us on confirmation bias, which is the really funny part.

[AkiKishi]

Imrahil_ wrote...

Ash Wind wrote...
I would love to know what data BW is looking at to think that a bland, uninteresting story, as long as it has pointless cinematic after pointless cinematic, somehow equates appealing to a wider audience.

They've shared that data with us, sort of.  It's just that they have done an absolutely terrible job of interpreting it.

They've shared that, what was it, like 80% of people played the Human Noble origin.  And, something like 8% played as a Dwarf.  And only 50% of games were completed.

But they are godawful at interpreting that data,

I mean, I played as a Human Noble.  And a Dwarf Commoner.  And Dwarf Noble.  And a Dalish.  And a City Elf.  And an Elven Mage.  And a Human Mage.  So I count in the 80% Human Noble bucket.  And that's all they see.  It's completely lost on them that one of the reasons I bought DA:O was that I *could* play as all those different races/origins.  All they see in their statistics is that I was one of many who played as a Human Noble.

Several of my playthroughs I never completed.  So I contributed to the "only 50% of players complete the game" stat.  But I completed many characters.  Doesn't matter to them.  They don't understand statistics.  I ran a few characters just through Ostagar & then abandoned them, deciding to start over, but that feeds into their "many players stopped after Ostagar" stat.  They are clueless.

They have no idea how to interpret their data.  They decide on a conclusion they want, then interpret the data to fit their pre-conceived notion.  Then they like to lecture us on confirmation bias, which is the really funny part.

Statistics don't care about reasons or the individual. While you played all those Origins it's clear that statistically the Human Noble was the popular choice.

Also if I recall the 50% stat is for any completion so while my starting DA online and then shutting off the sharing and never switching it on would show incomplete. Your trial runs would not.

The biggest flaw with Human Noble and Soldier Shepard is that both are the default options and this is where beginers/lazy people tend to go.

[Imrahil_]

BobSmith101 wrote...
Statistics don't care about reasons or the individual. While you played all those Origins it's clear that statistically the Human Noble was the popular choice.

No. That's my point. I played it, because I played all of them. I played Dalish Elf more than any other Origin, but *because I played Human Noble even once I counted in that stat* is my point, Casuals played Human Noble. Hard-cores played Human Noble. Completists played Human Noble.

It's not a valid stat because anyone who liked the game played Human Noble because they played several origins & anyone who just played it casual played Human Noble because it was the default option. You're capturing literally everyone who bought the game. I'm a little surprised it wasn't 100%. If the default was Dwarf Commoner, you'd see skewed statistics towards Dwarf Commoner. Basically you're counting everyone towards the default, because even those who *prefer* Dalish/Mage/Dwarf Noble have also *played* Human Noble, at least once, & thus count towards that stat.

The biggest flaw with Human Noble and Soldier Shepard is that both are the default options and this is where beginers/lazy people tend to go.

Yes.  So... after all that, you agree with me?

Modifié par Imrahil_, 21 juillet 2012 - 09:06 .

[AkiKishi]

Imrahil_ wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
Statistics don't care about reasons or the individual. While you played all those Origins it's clear that statistically the Human Noble was the popular choice.

No. That's my point. I played it, because I played all of them. I played Dalish Elf more than any other Origin, but *because I played Human Noble even once I counted in that stat* is my point, Casuals played Human Noble. Hard-cores played Human Noble. Completists played Human Noble.

It's not a valid stat because anyone who liked the game played Human Noble because they played several origins & anyone who just played it casual played Human Noble because it was the default option. You're capturing literally everyone who bought the game. I'm a little surprised it wasn't 100%. If the default was Dwarf Commoner, you'd see skewed statistics towards Dwarf Commoner. Basically you're counting everyone towards the default, because even those who *prefer* Dalish/Mage/Dwarf Noble have also *played* Human Noble, at least once, & thus count towards that stat.

The biggest flaw with Human Noble and Soldier Shepard is that both are the default options and this is where beginers/lazy people tend to go.

Yes.  So... after all that, you agree with me?

I agree with your conclusion but I see your methodology as flawed. Some gamers can't identify whith non humans so if you have to pick one, then the human is a safe option.

Personally since I play human every day I'd rather play anything else, but that's just me.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 21 juillet 2012 - 09:13 .

[Imrahil_]

BobSmith101 wrote...
I agree with your conclusion but I see your methodology as flawed. Some gamers can't identify whith non humans so if you have to pick one, then the human is a safe option.

Personally since I play human every day I'd rather play anything else, but that's just me.

No offense, but you're one data point.  If DA:O's default was a Dwarf Commoner, I'd be willing to bet that roughly 60-70% of players would have played as a Dwarf Commoner.  You might have switched to Human Noble, but most people wouldn't, is all I'm saying.

EDIT: & even then you might have played one initial play-through as the default before switching to something you liked better, & so you would have contributed to the default.

Modifié par Imrahil_, 21 juillet 2012 - 09:18 .

[AkiKishi]

Imrahil_ wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
I agree with your conclusion but I see your methodology as flawed. Some gamers can't identify whith non humans so if you have to pick one, then the human is a safe option.

Personally since I play human every day I'd rather play anything else, but that's just me.

No offense, but you're one data point.  If DA:O's default was a Dwarf Commoner, I'd be willing to bet that roughly 60-70% of players would have played as a Dwarf Commoner.  You might have switched to Human Noble, but most people wouldn't, is all I'm saying

There is no way to prove that though since in every case I can think of the default is human. I asked Bioware to switch the options around for DA but it never happened.

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that a section of RPG players won't play anything other than human. Just as some won't play anything other mages. But that is as far as it goes.

My first character was the Dwarf Commoner. I think you missread. I like to play anything other than human. But if human is the only choice , it's not something that bothers me greatly.

[Imrahil_]

BobSmith101 wrote...
There is no way to prove that though since in every case I can think of the default is human. I asked Bioware to switch the options around for DA but it never happened.

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that a section of RPG players won't play anything other than human. Just as some won't play anything other mages. But that is as far as it goes.

But what I'm saying is that these two points are related.  The default is human so most people play human.  I can't think of an example in WRPG's where the default is not human (in games where you are given a choice, of course).  I believe most people play the default, not that most people play human.  It's just that the default is human almost always.

My first character was the Dwarf Commoner. I think you missread. I like to play anything other than human. But if human is the only choice , it's not something that bothers me greatly.

I did misread.  I share your like of playing anything other than human.  I almost always play an Elf (but as, I mentioned, I tend to always go back & play the default eventually).  I differ in that it bothers me when I can't play anything other than human, though, but that's just a personal preference, of course.

Modifié par Imrahil_, 21 juillet 2012 - 09:29 .

[AkiKishi]

Imrahil_ wrote...

But what I'm saying is that these two points are related.  The default is human so most people play human.  I can't think of an example in WRPG's where the default is not human (in games where you are given a choice, of course).  I believe most people play the default, not that most people play human.  It's just that the default is human almost always.

I did misread.  I share your like of playing anything other than human.  I almost always play an Elf (but as, I mentioned, I tend to always go back & play the default eventually).  I differ in that it bothers me when I can't play anything other than human, though, but that's just a personal preference, of course.

If you were to make a poll that said "would you buy DA3 if you had to play a dwarf" I don't think you would get very good results. Of course I could be wrong. But anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise.

That's why if you are going to only include one race it's going to human.

[Imrahil_]

BobSmith101 wrote...
If you were to make a poll that said "would you buy DA3 if you had to play a dwarf" I don't think you would get very good results. Of course I could be wrong. But anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise.

That's why if you are going to only include one race it's going to human.

I don't dispute that at all.  Such a shame that they are taking away racial choices.  *sigh*

[Uccio]

Cultist wrote...

Here's a good example how things work:
"We were hearing feedback that they love the thriller game, but it was pretty scary, and the obvious next step was that they wanted to play with someone. So we introduced co-op into [Dead Space 3]."
That's EA Games' marketing exec Laura Miele explaining the move to co-op in the series' third entry.
Now imagine what we'll get with Dragon Age 3.
A were hearing feedback that they love the RPG, but it required more than 5 minutes to understand, and the obvious next step was that they wanted less story and more action and awesome buttons! So we removed long phrases and  dialogues, level advancement, introduced autodialogues and replaced quests with battles!
Future is bright and clear!

Good thing that CDProject is working on new rpg though. Atleast someone gets what customers want.

[Killjoy Cutter]

addiction21 wrote...

So then BIoWare should force themselves into a more mainstreams audience?

That's already what they're trying to do, and failing miserably at doing it while keeping what made DA or ME any good.

[Killjoy Cutter]

addiction21 wrote...

You're entire post is about how BioWare failed becaue it did not compete with more main stream media. Every exaple you provided is comparing their equilvient to a mainstream item and how they failed because they did not surpass it.

Then compare DA:O sales with DA2 sales.

[Killjoy Cutter]

NKKKK wrote...

If DA2 would have had a three year development, it would have been a good game.

I'm not so sure about that.  Some of the fundamental choices and assumptions made by EAware were just bad.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

What about the people who genuinely like to play as the Human Noble? I've played as all races and origins, but I do like the Human Noble origins, and playing as a warrior shouldn't be looked down upon. I used to make that same mistake of insulting those who prefered these classes and origins before realizing how closed minded it was.

I like the heavy armor sets in DA:O. So, I tend to play the warrior class. I do prefer the rouge class in most RPG's, especially Skyrim with it's amazing bow/arrow mechanics, but not so much in DA. It also gives me an excuse to have Leliana in my party.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 21 juillet 2012 - 11:31 .