626 réponses à ce sujet

[ianvillan]

TelvanniWarlord wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

I'm saying that no one was asking for those changes to be made. When they presented Dragon Age 2 and all the changes they made it was under the premise that they were fixing what was wrong with Origins. Watch the "Developer Diary" videos and you'll see what I mean.

I don't see what you mean.  Never did they say that every change that they made was to fix a specific problem with Origins.  They wanted to tell a more personal story: explains the forced human protagonist.  The wanted more responsive, faster combat: explains the change in combat.  If you're implying that their entire reason for the changes can be found within the phrase of "roughing out the edges of Dragon Age: Origins," (which I believe was just used as a metaphor for changing the combat) then I fear you just may just not prefer the type of rhetoric they used.  All of these changes are for better or worse of course, but I'm definitely not on the same page as "everything they did was to fix a non existant problem in Origins."  I think they just simply wanted to do something different.

Now I am not saying the problems were non existent or that changes were to fix every problem but when you have Bioware criticising Origins and saying that the changes in DA2 were for the better.

Like:

Origins combat shuffle changed to button awesome style.

Art of Origins being too generic changed to Hot Rod Samaurai style so people can reconise it.

Saying Origins area were too detailed and people dont pay attention to them, (circle tower).

Saying how all the different ares in Origins like the forest, redcliff, deeproads, denerim etc all looked like different places, so the places in DA2 were made to look the same.

Saying how the classes were not distinct enought, stripping of features from classes.

Saying how in Origins you had to pick talents you might not use just to get the next,changed to DA2 web type talent tree which you still have to take talents you wont use to pick another.

Changing companion armour system because you couldn't reconise your companion on the battle field and they all look the same, Changed too one non changeable look fo the whole game.

Saying how in Origins you could talk to your companions all at once and run out of things to say, Changed to having your companions at fixed locations with conversations spread out.

Saying how out of combat skills in Origins could be put on a follower who is then left in camp and never taken out, so in DA2 they cut out non-combat skills.

All of these have been said in different interviews or articles, and if you think these changes were necessary or not it seems that Bioware acted more on perceved compaints and to appeal to a new fan base then on a vision to make a better game.

It just gets to me an Origins fan to hear in interviews how the game I liked was filled with such bad quality systems and ideas and that if I dont like DA2 the clearly better game in every way then I must be stuck in the past.

Modifié par ianvillan, 12 septembre 2012 - 09:35 .

[R2s Muse]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

Let's agree to disagree here.  As far as I'm concerned Bioware can make whatever games they like, if they decide to change direction then they are free to do so, and they don't owe me anything.  If I don't like the direction they are going in I won't buy the game.

^This. The level of entitlement in this thread is rather astonishing. It was $60 for a game. We're not all shareholders in the company now.

[Terror_K]

R2s Muse wrote...

^This. The level of entitlement in this thread is rather astonishing. It was $60 for a game. We're not all shareholders in the company now.

Again, it's not entitlement at all. How is it entitlement to want the game to stick to its core values and style and stay true to the original source material?

If people were complaining because DA2 wasn't a game for them and they wanted it to be when Dragon Age was never intended to be that way, then yes... it would be entitlement. It's not though: people are complaining because DA2 strayed from the formula of the original so intentionally. That's not entitlement at all, it's just common sense and completely natural.

People became fans of Dragon Age: Origins for being what it was and for what it wasn't. It only makes sense for fans of Dragon Age to be annoyed when the sequel goes out of it's way to not be this and be something else entirely, especially when its largely not because of any efforts to actually improve the game for fans, but to merely broaden the appeal of the series to potential fans. Old fans should never have to be shoved aside and alienated for the sake of getting new ones by gutting the IP and changing it into something almost completely different just to possibly appeal to this potential new market. As much as I hated the immature, over-the-top "THIS IS THE NEW SH***!!!1" marketing of DAO leading up to its release, I'd rather see broad-appeal marketing to bring more people in than harming the game itself in order to do it.

That's why I can't trust BioWare any more. I can't trust a company that welcomes fans and players with one hand, then stabs them in the back with the other. A company that pulls baits and switches by starting off a gaming IP one way to hook you in, then tosses most of the original concepts and factors that made these games appeal to you away the next just as you were getting really invested for the sake of mass appeal.

[Heimdall]

Seeing DA2 as a malicious betrayal is amongst the most ludicrous things I've ever heard. Like it or not, there were a lot of complaints about DA:O, perhaps more in the mainstream reviews than on these boards, but there were complaints about the clunkiness of the combat. There were also complaints about how impassive and stupid the unvoiced PC looked during conversations. Bioware listened to these complaints and, in true Mass Effect 2 style, over corrected. They also attempted a narrative that was atypical of them (If anything it was a less mainstream narrative than their typical Save-the-world story). Combine all that with a short development cycle, and you get Dragon Age 2.

[Terror_K]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Seeing DA2 as a malicious betrayal is amongst the most ludicrous things I've ever heard. Like it or not, there were a lot of complaints about DA:O, perhaps more in the mainstream reviews than on these boards, but there were complaints about the clunkiness of the combat. There were also complaints about how impassive and stupid the unvoiced PC looked during conversations. Bioware listened to these complaints and, in true Mass Effect 2 style, over corrected. They also attempted a narrative that was atypical of them (If anything it was a less mainstream narrative than their typical Save-the-world story). Combine all that with a short development cycle, and you get Dragon Age 2.

It was a betrayal though. Again, DA2 went against the grain of almost everything that DAO was and everything that Dragon Age set out to to and be. The changes made to the series via DA2 weren't about improving the game, they were about making it appeal to a broader audience. Combat was only "clunky" on the console versions, and of course a silent PC is going to look fairly impassive, because giving them expressions and reactions outside of player control is taking away player control. It's up to players using their... *gasp* ...imagination to fill in the gaps, and not have the game take over and tell your character who they are for you.

Most of the complaints that were leveled DAO were clearly from people not looking for the type of game Dragon Age was supposed to be. They were used to voiced characters because of all the story-driven action games flooding the market at the time and because Mass Effect had come along and done a voiced PC. That's all very well, but Dragon Age wasn't supposed to be an action game or even an Action RPG-Lite affair like Mass Effect. Dragon Age was a proper roleplaying game, and thus about full player control and freedom. You can't judge Dragon Age: Origins by the same standards as games that aren't the same type as it when it's not trying to be these type of games. It was supposed to be a throwback and a proper RPG. The same goes for the combat: it was supposed to be slower and more tactical, but it put off people expecting the more action-oriented combat of more modern titles. The original art design also put off only those who didn't really become fans of it anyway, and those who did pretty much universally enjoyed it from what I can tell.

But who does BioWare listen to? The fans? Nooooo... of course not. They listen to the complaints from people who wanted a story-driven action game and didn't get one, and those who the game wasn't even designed for. They listen to the non-fans who gave it a go and were unsatisfied and put off because it wasn't for them, rather than listen to the people who actually loved the game for what it was.

Dragon Age 2 wasn't born out of trying to improve upon Dragon Age's original formula and make a game for its fans; it was born out of BioWare's attempt to broaden the appeal of Dragon Age and pander to a bunch of non-fans in hopes they would become fans. The whole thing was intentionally turned on its head for this. BioWare weren't asking, "that's best for Dragon Age?" or "what's the natural place to take Dragon Age?" at all. They were just asking, "how can we get more gamers to play Dragon Age?" and "What's the most profitable place to take Dragon Age?"

Actually, you know what Dragon Age 2 was? Dragon Age 2 was like switching sides in the middle of a war despite the fact that your allies have done you well the entire time and got you were you are, simply because you see the other side has far greater numbers and is more likely to win. It's abandoning your principles and everything that you once stood for just to be on "the winning side" so to speak.

If DA2 had actually been a product of BioWare trying to fix some of DAO's issues and failing, then it wouldn't have been an issue. But it wasn't... it was just about mainstream pandering and growing their audience, and to hell with the original fanbase from the consequences of that.

Modifié par Terror_K, 12 septembre 2012 - 01:03 .

[LinksOcarina]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Seeing DA2 as a malicious betrayal is amongst the most ludicrous things I've ever heard. Like it or not, there were a lot of complaints about DA:O, perhaps more in the mainstream reviews than on these boards, but there were complaints about the clunkiness of the combat. There were also complaints about how impassive and stupid the unvoiced PC looked during conversations. Bioware listened to these complaints and, in true Mass Effect 2 style, over corrected. They also attempted a narrative that was atypical of them (If anything it was a less mainstream narrative than their typical Save-the-world story). Combine all that with a short development cycle, and you get Dragon Age 2.

Don't attempt to put reason into this one-sided conversation. Irregardless of how one feels about either game, in the end there will always be a group vehemently against what one company does, and a group that is indifferent to the entire ordeal because it doesn't matter insomuch as to what happens.

Although you are right that BioWare over-corrected. They tend to do that a lot to appease their fans don't they...

[Rylor Tormtor]

... Irregardless ...

This isn't a word. 

[ElitePinecone]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Seeing DA2 as a malicious betrayal is amongst the most ludicrous things I've ever heard.

Agreed. It's also incredibly unhelpful, if the idea is to work out how to do things better in the future. Being completely unreasonable is not a good starting point for useful discussion. 

[LinksOcarina]

Rylor Tormtor wrote...

... Irregardless ...

This isn't a word. 

Neither is allright, utilize, or thusly, but whose counting except the grammar ****'s who follow the book front and back?

[sangy]

FaWa wrote...

 Because I KNOW I'm not hearing any rumblings of DA3 having multiplayer. Nope. Its definitely not true. I mean it can't be true...

Right BioWare???

Like seriously, if this is true I've lost all hope.

Dragon Age 1 and 2 didn't have multiplayer options.  The games were awesome.  Why is it such a big deal if they didn't add it to DA3?  "lost all hope"....c'mon man.  You expect something from a game that hasn't offered it in the past? 

I don't mind if they put multiplayer in or not.  I'd actually prefer no multiplayer.  I'd suggest you find an online MMORPG.  There are tons.  Pay to play and free.

Modifié par sangy, 12 septembre 2012 - 01:44 .

[Nomen Mendax]

Rylor Tormtor wrote...

Off Topic - FE is definately worth it. I have had to take a break from it this beta as I don't want to burn out on the game before release, but it is a completely different game, and one that truly fills the MoM gap. 

Also off topic - Thanks, I'll check it out.

[Darth Death]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

They didn't make the game they wanted.

This statement is ambiguous. Though the way I read it I don't know if I like where it was going....

I'll clarify. Dragon Age is more like Mass Effect 2 than Dragon Age:Origins. You took the "streamline everything" approach that ME2 employed, the voiced human PC, the dialogue wheel and the personality system and applied them to a game that was supposed to be a deep, classic RPG for hard-core RPG players. Dragon Age was sold to us as the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, not Mass Effect in the dark ages. I think you guys forgot what game you were making and if you could have seen Dragon Age 2 coming you would have done something very different.

Yes, this is where the problem manifested. BioWare lost sight of what DA was originally suppose to be & as a result, pleased one group of people while abandoning those longing for the spiritual successor to baldur's gate. That's why there's two factions in the fanbase: Those who acknowledged what DA is suppose to live up to & those who liked the new direction, not caring (or even hating) DA's true intent. BioWare, you have to ask yourself what's more important. Is it the "wider audience" or is it the essence of what your predecessors had awesomely established.  

[ianvillan]

Some of the changes to the direction of DA2 were started on before Origins was even released. So it shows that Bioware had no faith in Origins to be succesfull and decided to create a new game for the mass market, how can you change a game to correct the faults of the older one, when the older game hasn't been released yet.

[Darth Death]

ianvillan wrote...

Some of the changes to the direction of DA2 were started on before Origins was even released. So it shows that Bioware had no faith in Origins to be succesfull and decided to create a new game for the mass market, how can you change a game to correct the faults of the older one, when the older game hasn't been released yet.

If this is true, they seem to have reached a hasty conclusion & payed the price for it.   

[LinksOcarina]

Darth Death wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

Some of the changes to the direction of DA2 were started on before Origins was even released. So it shows that Bioware had no faith in Origins to be succesfull and decided to create a new game for the mass market, how can you change a game to correct the faults of the older one, when the older game hasn't been released yet.

If this is true, they seem to have reached a hasty conclusion & payed the price for it.   

It's true they were looking at changing up Dragon Age before the release, but its pure supposition on the part of them having "no faith in Origins." Even if that was the case, people need to remember that was a game six years in the making and went through a LOT of changes in the end to what it was. The bill as a spiritual successor to Baldurs Gate applied to it because it was mechanically.

But I believe the team said they wanted to change up the game to follow what was done in Mass Effect and Hudson's team. So BioWare is basically trying to stay cutting edge in a sense, by doing what they have done since 2007 from now on.

I guess you don't have to like it, but I would doubt that it has anything to do with them to assume their game will flop. If they did assume that, then Awakening wouldn't have been completed so quickly, nor would the title be launched by EA due to their own negative outlook, they would simply focus on Mass Effect or treat Dragon Age II as game one of the franchise. Of course thats the logical thing to do...

[Darth Death]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

Some of the changes to the direction of DA2 were started on before Origins was even released. So it shows that Bioware had no faith in Origins to be succesfull and decided to create a new game for the mass market, how can you change a game to correct the faults of the older one, when the older game hasn't been released yet.

If this is true, they seem to have reached a hasty conclusion & payed the price for it.   

It's true they were looking at changing up Dragon Age before the release, but its pure supposition on the part of them having "no faith in Origins." Even if that was the case, people need to remember that was a game six years in the making and went through a LOT of changes in the end to what it was. The bill as a spiritual successor to Baldurs Gate applied to it because it was mechanically.

But I believe the team said they wanted to change up the game to follow what was done in Mass Effect and Hudson's team. So BioWare is basically trying to stay cutting edge in a sense, by doing what they have done since 2007 from now on.

I guess you don't have to like it, but I would doubt that it has anything to do with them to assume their game will flop. If they did assume that, then Awakening wouldn't have been completed so quickly, nor would the title be launched by EA due to their own negative outlook, they would simply focus on Mass Effect or treat Dragon Age II as game one of the franchise. Of course thats the logical thing to do...

Well, this explains everything now doesn't it? Their shortcomings were inevitable. Nothing could have saved them from their own demise. 

[ianvillan]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

Some of the changes to the direction of DA2 were started on before Origins was even released. So it shows that Bioware had no faith in Origins to be succesfull and decided to create a new game for the mass market, how can you change a game to correct the faults of the older one, when the older game hasn't been released yet.

If this is true, they seem to have reached a hasty conclusion & payed the price for it.   

It's true they were looking at changing up Dragon Age before the release, but its pure supposition on the part of them having "no faith in Origins." Even if that was the case, people need to remember that was a game six years in the making and went through a LOT of changes in the end to what it was. The bill as a spiritual successor to Baldurs Gate applied to it because it was mechanically.

But I believe the team said they wanted to change up the game to follow what was done in Mass Effect and Hudson's team. So BioWare is basically trying to stay cutting edge in a sense, by doing what they have done since 2007 from now on.

I guess you don't have to like it, but I would doubt that it has anything to do with them to assume their game will flop. If they did assume that, then Awakening wouldn't have been completed so quickly, nor would the title be launched by EA due to their own negative outlook, they would simply focus on Mass Effect or treat Dragon Age II as game one of the franchise. Of course thats the logical thing to do...

On one of the dev diaries for DA2 they said about when Origins came out it beat all there expectations getting perfect scores, getting VGA awards.

Awakening was released to because Origins had done so well.

[LinksOcarina]

ianvillan wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

Some of the changes to the direction of DA2 were started on before Origins was even released. So it shows that Bioware had no faith in Origins to be succesfull and decided to create a new game for the mass market, how can you change a game to correct the faults of the older one, when the older game hasn't been released yet.

If this is true, they seem to have reached a hasty conclusion & payed the price for it.   

It's true they were looking at changing up Dragon Age before the release, but its pure supposition on the part of them having "no faith in Origins." Even if that was the case, people need to remember that was a game six years in the making and went through a LOT of changes in the end to what it was. The bill as a spiritual successor to Baldurs Gate applied to it because it was mechanically.

But I believe the team said they wanted to change up the game to follow what was done in Mass Effect and Hudson's team. So BioWare is basically trying to stay cutting edge in a sense, by doing what they have done since 2007 from now on.

I guess you don't have to like it, but I would doubt that it has anything to do with them to assume their game will flop. If they did assume that, then Awakening wouldn't have been completed so quickly, nor would the title be launched by EA due to their own negative outlook, they would simply focus on Mass Effect or treat Dragon Age II as game one of the franchise. Of course thats the logical thing to do...

On one of the dev diaries for DA2 they said about when Origins came out it beat all there expectations getting perfect scores, getting VGA awards.

Awakening was released to because Origins had done so well.

Beating expectations does not mean they have no faith in it. If you originally said that it beat their expectations then you would be right. Saying they had no faith in their product is putting words in their mouth. 

[ElitePinecone]

ianvillan wrote...

On one of the dev diaries for DA2 they said about when Origins came out it beat all there expectations getting perfect scores, getting VGA awards.

Awakening was released to because Origins had done so well.

It certainly looked like it exceeded sales expectations, especially as word of mouth spread around - they stayed consistently quite high weeks and weeks after release. 

Edit: Having particular expectations about sales or review scores does NOT equal a lack of faith. That's an absurd bit of supposition. 

Modifié par ElitePinecone, 12 septembre 2012 - 03:03 .

[ianvillan]

LinksOcarina wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

Some of the changes to the direction of DA2 were started on before Origins was even released. So it shows that Bioware had no faith in Origins to be succesfull and decided to create a new game for the mass market, how can you change a game to correct the faults of the older one, when the older game hasn't been released yet.

If this is true, they seem to have reached a hasty conclusion & payed the price for it.   

It's true they were looking at changing up Dragon Age before the release, but its pure supposition on the part of them having "no faith in Origins." Even if that was the case, people need to remember that was a game six years in the making and went through a LOT of changes in the end to what it was. The bill as a spiritual successor to Baldurs Gate applied to it because it was mechanically.

But I believe the team said they wanted to change up the game to follow what was done in Mass Effect and Hudson's team. So BioWare is basically trying to stay cutting edge in a sense, by doing what they have done since 2007 from now on.

I guess you don't have to like it, but I would doubt that it has anything to do with them to assume their game will flop. If they did assume that, then Awakening wouldn't have been completed so quickly, nor would the title be launched by EA due to their own negative outlook, they would simply focus on Mass Effect or treat Dragon Age II as game one of the franchise. Of course thats the logical thing to do...

On one of the dev diaries for DA2 they said about when Origins came out it beat all there expectations getting perfect scores, getting VGA awards.

Awakening was released to because Origins had done so well.

Beating expectations does not mean they have no faith in it. If you originally said that it beat their expectations then you would be right. Saying they had no faith in their product is putting words in their mouth. 

But if they had faith in the game why before Origins was released go about changing DA2 to a totally different style with features from mass effect, and stripping out of RPG features, changing gameplay mechanics.

Surely if you spend 5 years and lots of money on game and you had faith it could deliver what you set out to do and had faith it will make a profit you would not make such a drastic change to the next game and try to appeal to the mainstream market before your first game was even out yet.

[Heimdall]

Terror_K wrote...

-snip-

Oh please.  Spare me your melodrama and sarcasm.  Has it occurred to you that expecting a company to cater to you alone instead of trying to expand its consumer base, precisely what any sane company trying to be succesful does, and taking it as an affront when they don't is exactly what people are talking about when they refer to a sense of entitlement?

I don't agree with many of the changes Bioware implemented, and I don't think they were successful in expanding their audience much, but I know why they did them, part experimenting with new ideas and part over correction of perceived flaws to appeal to those who previously told them "The game was great, BUT...". And to appeal to their own Mass Effect fan base to lure them into buying Dragon Age products.  None of it was a betrayal of fans of the first game.  A betrayal would require a broken promise.  Dragon Age: Origins was marketed as the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, the Dragon Age series was not and Dragon Age 2 was certainly not.  I'm also not sure where you draw the notion that "Improvement" and "expanding the audience" are opposing ideas.  I'm dead certain that Bioware saw altering features that were criticized in the previous instalment as improvement.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 12 septembre 2012 - 03:26 .

[ianvillan]

scyphozoa wrote...

ianvillan wrote...
But if they had faith in the game why before Origins was released go about changing DA2 to a totally different style with features from mass effect, and stripping out of RPG features, changing gameplay mechanics.

Surely if you spend 5 years and lots of money on game and you had faith it could deliver what you set out to do and had faith it will make a profit you would not make such a drastic change to the next game and try to appeal to the mainstream market before your first game was even out yet.

Dev teams always do internal post-mortems after a game is finished. You have to remember, DAO was finished months before it launched, because of delays with publisher changes and launching simultaniously on multiple platforms. Instead of assuming that things were changed because they "had no faith in DAO" it is probably a lot more reasonable to think that during their 5 year development cycle, they had lots of new ideas that were impossible to retroactively implement in DAO, but they were eager and excited to add into future titles. 

You could take that to mean that Origins had systems and ideas that they thought were not going to perform to the best they could and the only reason they kept them in was because it was impossible to retroactively implement them in the game they were releasing.

If after you have made a game you do some internal post-mortems and find that there is things you believe need changing doesn't that mean that you had a lack of faith that those systems and that you think the game will not perform as you want it to.

[ianvillan]

scyphozoa wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

If after you have made a game you do some internal post-mortems and find that there is things you believe need changing doesn't that mean that you had a lack of faith that those systems and that you think the game will not perform as you want it to.

I think you are just viewing this through a very cynical lense. Do you really expect professional developers not to change or improve designs over the span of 5+ years? Does improving suggest that you "have no faith" in previous works? I think you are looking for reasons to assume the worst, which are pretty unreasonable. 

Yes I expect developers to change and improve the games, just not to fundamentally alter the game before you have released the first one to get actual feedback about what might need changing and whether it is worth going in a different direction to the one you are currently heading in.

It is also debatable among fans that the dialogue wheel, voiced main character, faster combat, new art style,iconic armours, or any other change was an improvement or even needed improving in the first place.