626 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

^

No, but bad mouthing your previous works prior to the launch of your new product which minimalists or guts many of the features your previous works were lauded for seems to indicate they have little faith in there previous methods and successes.

[LinksOcarina]

ianvillan wrote...

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.

Of course that part is debatale, just like its debatable if Dragon Age II is a good or bad game, like every game ever made.

[ianvillan]

scyphozoa wrote...

This is the last I'll comment on this specific topic, but it seems like this is really about perspective. Glass is half empty/half full sort of thing. I don't think any DAO devs thought "hey what we made in DAO is totally horse ****" I think it is more like "we like what we did, but we think there is room to improve and potential to make it even better." Recognizing that something can be made better doesn't mean that it is devoid of any value to begin with, only that it can be made better. I think this also applies to the advertisements about how DA2 is better than DAO. They weren't throwing DAO under a bus when they criticized their own designs, they were telling and showing people what they thought was the potential to make those designs even better.

How was limiting player agency an improvement, how was limiting companion customisation an improvement and how was reusing levels an improvement (notice how these all seem to limit what the player can do compared to Origins). These are just the ones that Bioware has said they got wrong, and with the reviews and some fan feedback there is probably a lot more of the changes that would be considered to of made the game worse than Origins.

So maybe the lesson to learn from all this is to wait for your game to be released and see how it fairs before changing whole systems blindly.

[Terror_K]

ElitePinecone wrote...

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. 

Tell that to BioWare and the Dragon Age team. They're the ones that simply refuse to budge on certain key issues and the ones with the big design philosophy issues at the moment that pretty much outright prevent Dragon Age 3 from being a proper, deep fantasy RPG again. BioWare have already been completely unreasonable with no signs of redepemption or acknowledging their problems, so there's little point in offering ideas and helping improve their future titles when they refuse to listen and their whole mindset and design philosophy isn't flexible or appropriate any more.

Lord Aesir wrote...

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?

Did you even really read what I said? At all?

It's not about catering to me specifically, it's about staying true to the source material and the original vision and style of the series.

If BioWare wants to broaden its overall appeal via a fresh IP, then I have no problems with that. My issues are with the fact that they seem to feel the need to warp, twist, retool and near-on reboot their existing IPs for the sake of mass appeal and broadening their audience, and that by doing so they are not only ruining these IPs by turning them into something they shouldn't be, but they're not even making the proper RPGs they once did at all.

I see no reason why BioWare couldn't have continued to stay true to the original games with Dragon Age and Mass Effect and did their experimenting and branching out with something completely new.

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.

Oh, pleeeeeease... <_<

That's the same load of tripe BioWare themselves tried to shovel down our throats with Dragon Age 2 to appease disappointed fans. And it's the biggest damn crock and cop-out at that. It's the exact kind of nonsense that proves that they betrayed the fans they reeled in with the original: a pathetic excuse to try and explain away why the sequel bares next to no resemblance to the original game.

Again, what's the point in creating an IP if you're not even consistent with it? What's the point in players becoming a fan of something when you spend years crafting it to their tastes, then just throw the whole formula away at the drop of a hat and exchange it with something completely different? Direct sequels to games (or anything) are supposed to be essentially be the same type of thing as its predecessor. I don't watch a show like, for example, Star Trek one season with hopes and acceptance of it becoming Desperate Housewives the second season and then suddenly becoming C.S.I. in the third.

To drive the point home: what's the point in spending six to seven years advertising this new IP called Dragon Age as the great new hope for PC RPG fans wanting to sink their teeth into something akin to Baldur's Gate, only to pull the rug out from under their feet with the very next title only a year afterwards?

Why is it so damn hard for you (and others who disagree) to simply understand that I (and others like me) simply want Dragon Age to BE Dragon Age? Why?!! It's not a complex or particularly deep concept here! You must be a fan of something... and there must be reasons why. Why is it so hard to grasp the concept that if those reasons why you are a fan of something go away and it still tries to claim to be that something you are a fan of, that you'll no longer be a fan of it or even consider it to even be what it claims?

Again... it's not about entitlement. It's about consistency. Entitlement is expecting something to be made a certain way just because you want it to be. This is about wanting something to be made a certain way because it was originally supposed to be.

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.

While these things aren't mutually exclusive, BioWare have proven that they can't do it. They can't broaden appeal and expand their audience without seeming to dumb their games down and make them shallow and turning their back on the principles of the original material. They can't do it without turning it into a shallow action game and limiting player agency and roleplaying.

But this isn't just a BioWare problem. Too many devs these days use terms like "streamlining" and "broadening appeal" and "we want to appeal to our old fans and bring in new ones" etc. but they all too often end up being nothing but marketing execu-speak of saying "dumbed down" in the end. That was the case for Dragon Age 2, and for Mass Effect 2 & 3. The games always end up suffering for it for anybody who wants any real depth or complexity and true control and roleplaying of their characters. Every BioWare game over the last few years has gotten steadily worse, and they show no signs of backtracking.

Modifié par Terror_K, 12 septembre 2012 - 04:22 .

[LinksOcarina]

Terror_K wrote...

Again, what's the point in creating an IP if you're not even consistent with it? What's the point in players becoming a fan of something when you spend years crafting it to their tastes, then just throw the whole formula away at the drop of a hat and exchange it with something completely different? Direct sequels to games (or anything) are supposed to be essentially be the same type of thing as its predecessor. I don't watch a show like, for example, Star Trek one season with hopes and acceptance of it becoming Desperate Housewives the second season and then suddenly becoming C.S.I. in the third.

Hmm..maybe to see it evolve instead of getting stuck in a rut? Like Tony Hawk, Dynasty Warriors, Final Fantasy, Guitar Hero, Call of Duty, Resistance, Uncharted, Madden,even Legend of Zelda and Mario come to mind as examples of this. Some are stable and successful, some are hurting for a major change. In the end, consistency is irrelevent because if it is the same game each time, there is no reason to get that game again.

I get what you are saying, but no. Direct sequels are not supposed to be the same thing as its predecessor. They can be, and they can be successful for doing that, but it doesn't make them universally good or bad. It just makes them the same as last year. To expect something to stay the same is a fallacy, because when it does finally change it will shatter the fantasy that one creates about it, causing this diehard nerd rage that reeks of this line of thinking. 

I mean, its ok to like a certain way of things. No one can take that away from you, and no one should. So go play them. Hell, the enhanced edition of Baldurs Gate is coming out in a week, you can find solace there and enjoy the new content they are adding to update the title. We also got Wasteland 2 on the horizon as well for your needs. And if you want something else, look to Obsidian since they are announcing something in 3 days that should be good to see. So you got options, for what you want to be, and you don't have to stay here and shout betrayal to an already jaded, cynical crowd who is sick of jaded, cynical, and downright misleading lines such as the ones said above

Otherwise, it just makes you look foolish. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 12 septembre 2012 - 04:32 .

[zyntifox]

Terror_K wrote...

If BioWare wants to broaden its overall appeal via a fresh IP, then I have no problems with that. My issues are with the fact that they seem to feel the need to warp, twist, retool and near-on reboot their existing IPs for the sake of mass appeal and broadening their audience, and that by doing so they are not only ruining these IPs by turning them into something they shouldn't be, but they're not even making the proper RPGs they once did at all.

I see no reason why BioWare couldn't have continued to stay true to the original games with Dragon Age and Mass Effect and did their experimenting and branching out with something completely new.

This is something i've said all along. I don't think DA2 would have been recieved as poorly if it was a completely new series. If you call your game "game x" be prepared to not only be judged by the game's own merits but also in perspective of "game x-1, game x-2... game x-n". Be consistent when creating your franchise and if the quality of the series is sufficient your fans will broadening the audience for you, i know i have created a couple of new RPG-fans by introducing them to DA:O.

[Korusus]

Avejajed wrote...

I don't think DA2 was "dumbed down".

You may not think so, but it was.  I know it's not PC to use that phrase, we have to call it "innovative" and other malarky, but it is an inferior product to DA:O in so many metrics.  It just is.  I don't even know how to go about debating that.  You can't even outfit your companions.

[Boss Fog]

ianvillan wrote...

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.

I've already covered half of this but where did they actually mention all of this?  Because it certainly wasn't in the developer diaries that I watched.  I willmention a few things in regards to what you have listed.  

You do realize DA:O is the oddity in their line of games right?  In BG and BG2 you couldn't just talk to your companions whenever you wanted, you had to wait until they spoke to you.  In KOTOR, you had to wait as well.

They got rid of out of combat skills because I'm fairly certain they didn't want to pump resources into something that people hardly ever used.

You better post a source for this: "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. "  Of course they look like different places, it takes place in an entire country as opposed to one city.  You're simply speaking of the problem of reused environments which they've already fixed!

Modifié par TelvanniWarlord, 12 septembre 2012 - 04:59 .

[ianvillan]

TelvanniWarlord wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

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.

I've already covered half of this but where did they actually mention all of this?  Because it certainly wasn't in the developer diaries that I watched.  I willmention a few things in regards to what you have listed.  

You do realize DA:O is the oddity in their line of games right?  In BG and BG2 you couldn't just talk to your companions whenever you wanted, you had to wait until they spoke to you.  In KOTOR, you had to wait as well.

They got rid of out of combat skills because I'm fairly certain they didn't want to pump resources into something that people hardly ever used.

You better post a source for this: "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. "  Of course they look like different places, it takes place in an entire country as opposed to one city.  You're simply speaking of the problem of reused environments which they've already fixed!

The different environment wasn't to do with reused environments it was because having a forrest that looks like a forest and have the deep roads look total different did not give a consistency to the game, so instead they made the environments all that the same style and all be brown so the where ever you go would be consistent 

That quote comes from this website

[LinksOcarina]

BrotherWarth wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Again, what's the point in creating an IP if you're not even consistent with it? What's the point in players becoming a fan of something when you spend years crafting it to their tastes, then just throw the whole formula away at the drop of a hat and exchange it with something completely different? Direct sequels to games (or anything) are supposed to be essentially be the same type of thing as its predecessor. I don't watch a show like, for example, Star Trek one season with hopes and acceptance of it becoming Desperate Housewives the second season and then suddenly becoming C.S.I. in the third.

Hmm..maybe to see it evolve instead of getting stuck in a rut? Like Tony Hawk, Dynasty Warriors, Final Fantasy, Guitar Hero, Call of Duty, Resistance, Uncharted, Madden,even Legend of Zelda and Mario come to mind as examples of this. Some are stable and successful, some are hurting for a major change. In the end, consistency is irrelevent because if it is the same game each time, there is no reason to get that game again.

This is... ridiculous. They released one Dragon Age game. You're talking about decades-long franchises that went on for title after title doing the same thing. And using stupid examples as well. Who was complaining about Uncharted or Resistence sequels being too similar to their predecessors?
Imagine if ME2 had had its art style, narrative, and focus changed in the way DA2 did. It would have been unwelcome and unwarranted. So why is DA different?

Ridiculous my ass.

For starters, 4 of those franchises have only existed for 10 years or less. 

Second, not all of them have stayed the same, but have become the same over time. Dynasty Warriors for example started out as a fighting game, a FIGHTING GAME, before Dynasty Warriors 2 transformed it into a button-mashing action title, and has failed to change anything else since then, other than adding modes, enemies, and what not.

Tony Hawk started life as an arcade skateboarding game, but by the time we got to American Wasteland or whatever incarnation it was that was non-numbered, the focus changed to a story-driven, more hardcore skater simulation. The series lasted until Ride, which went back to the roots and pissed off people because of that damn controller.

And don't get me started on Guitar Hero...which crashed and burned because they made the same game for five years running and added innovation only once, when they made it like Rock Band and then copy/pasted the feel of each game with different skins for consumption. 


As for Uncharted and Resistance, well, Resistance you may be right. I personally felt like the games were all the same, just going into different storylines. Uncharted however is the type of concept we see each time that makes it formulaic and downright boring to play after the first title; guy goes for treasure, gets captured/betrayed/left for dead, guns down a bunch of natives and wins in the end. Its like Indiana Jones without the heart, and it is boring crap.

And one can even argue Mass Effect 2 DID have those changes made to it. The focus on collectors as an agent of the reapers, the revamping of Cerberus as an organization, the change in the graphical detail and the enviornment layouts, the change in the combat systems. Mass Effect 2 is a different game than Mass Effect 3, just as Origins is a different game as Dragon Age II.

It doesn't mean one is superior over the other by default. It just makes them different. Fans can love it, hate it, or don't care. But the simple fact of the matter is that is how it is, and at least someone took a ****ing risk in this industry. One that doesn't pay off, but a risk nonetheless.

[Boss Fog]

ianvillan wrote...

The different environment wasn't to do with reused environments it was because having a forrest that looks like a forest and have the deep roads look total different did not give a consistency to the game, so instead they made the environments all that the same style and all be brown so the where ever you go would be consistent 

That quote comes from this website

So the quote didn't actually come from a developer, it came from the marketing director whom I hope they ended up firing.  I as a rule of thump hold to myself that you should never take the word of someone in marketing.  The only people you should be listening to are the developers.

Modifié par TelvanniWarlord, 12 septembre 2012 - 05:48 .

[Wulfram]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Imagine if ME2 had had its art style, narrative, and focus changed in the way DA2 did. It would have been unwelcome and unwarranted. So why is DA different?

ME2 had massive changes compared to ME1.

[Renmiri1]

Wulfram wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

Imagine if ME2 had had its art style, narrative, and focus changed in the way DA2 did. It would have been unwelcome and unwarranted. So why is DA different?

ME2 had massive changes compared to ME1.

Yup. 

IMHO what changed from DAO to DA2 was not "dumbing down" or "appeal to wider audience". What changed drastically was the timeframe to develop the game. While DAO had 3-5 years to get ready, DA2 had only 11 months.

Is easy to see why the corporate suits wanted a shorter development cycle. If BW could churn out good selling games every year instead of every 3 years, their revenues and stock value would grow. Is harder to see why the devs would agree to such crunch. No matter how good they are, 11 months forced them to streamline and simplify more than it was wise. Reused dungeons was a failure. Act 3 was rushed.

I'm sure by now people here on BSN know I love DA2 but even I can see the cut corners and rushed development. DA2 is a masterpiece for a game developed in such short time. It is a good game but 6-8 months more in dev would have made it a masterpiece and as beloved as ME2, IMHO.

It is still my favorite DA game. My humble opinion. But I'm glad that BW is taking a longer time to develop the next DA game. 

[Sylvianus]

Renmiri1 wrote...
I'm sure by now people here on BSN know I love DA2 .

Oh we do. Everyone knows on this forum, do not worry. Everyday we are forced to remember how much you love this game.

Renmiri1 wrote...
but even I can see the cut corners and rushed development.

Well, there, I don't know. But okay, I believe you.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 12 septembre 2012 - 08:24 .

[Steppenwolf]

LinksOcarina wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Again, what's the point in creating an IP if you're not even consistent with it? What's the point in players becoming a fan of something when you spend years crafting it to their tastes, then just throw the whole formula away at the drop of a hat and exchange it with something completely different? Direct sequels to games (or anything) are supposed to be essentially be the same type of thing as its predecessor. I don't watch a show like, for example, Star Trek one season with hopes and acceptance of it becoming Desperate Housewives the second season and then suddenly becoming C.S.I. in the third.

Hmm..maybe to see it evolve instead of getting stuck in a rut? Like Tony Hawk, Dynasty Warriors, Final Fantasy, Guitar Hero, Call of Duty, Resistance, Uncharted, Madden,even Legend of Zelda and Mario come to mind as examples of this. Some are stable and successful, some are hurting for a major change. In the end, consistency is irrelevent because if it is the same game each time, there is no reason to get that game again.

This is... ridiculous. They released one Dragon Age game. You're talking about decades-long franchises that went on for title after title doing the same thing. And using stupid examples as well. Who was complaining about Uncharted or Resistence sequels being too similar to their predecessors?
Imagine if ME2 had had its art style, narrative, and focus changed in the way DA2 did. It would have been unwelcome and unwarranted. So why is DA different?

Ridiculous my ass.

For starters, 4 of those franchises have only existed for 10 years or less. 

Second, not all of them have stayed the same, but have become the same over time. Dynasty Warriors for example started out as a fighting game, a FIGHTING GAME, before Dynasty Warriors 2 transformed it into a button-mashing action title, and has failed to change anything else since then, other than adding modes, enemies, and what not.

Tony Hawk started life as an arcade skateboarding game, but by the time we got to American Wasteland or whatever incarnation it was that was non-numbered, the focus changed to a story-driven, more hardcore skater simulation. The series lasted until Ride, which went back to the roots and pissed off people because of that damn controller.

And don't get me started on Guitar Hero...which crashed and burned because they made the same game for five years running and added innovation only once, when they made it like Rock Band and then copy/pasted the feel of each game with different skins for consumption.

All games that went more than one title without completely changing the franchise.

And one can even argue Mass Effect 2 DID have those changes made to it. The focus on collectors as an agent of the reapers, the revamping of Cerberus as an organization, the change in the graphical detail and the enviornment layouts, the change in the combat systems. Mass Effect 2 is a different game than Mass Effect 3, just as Origins is a different game as Dragon Age II.

It doesn't mean one is superior over the other by default. It just makes them different. Fans can love it, hate it, or don't care. But the simple fact of the matter is that is how it is, and at least someone took a ****ing risk in this industry. One that doesn't pay off, but a risk nonetheless.

Mass Effect 2 didn't change the art style, they improved the graphics. It still looked the same, just sharper. And the combat was just improved, not changed from tactical combat to "button=awesome" combat. You're doing some serious stretching here.

[Nomen Mendax]

BasilKarlo wrote...

Mass Effect 2 didn't change the art style, they improved the graphics. It still looked the same, just sharper. And the combat was just improved, not changed from tactical combat to "button=awesome" combat. You're doing some serious stretching here.

I think there was more change from DAO to DA2, but I also think you are understating the changes from ME1 to ME2. Combat was changed significantly, and whether it was improved is open to debate.  Pesrsonally I'm not fond of the cover mechanic (particularly when I take cover behind a thin glass barrier that can't be penetrated by rockets) and they also changed the control scheme to the terrible spacebar does everything scheme that also plagues ME3.

And while the art change was not as great as the change to DA2 it introduced the idea of iconic companion outfits which are probably stupider in ME2 than they are in DA2 -- at least Aveline and Fenris wear armour.

The also took liberties with the lore in ways that didn't make a whole lot of sense.  As I said there were more changes than you seem willing to admit to.  The big difference is that more people liked ME2 so weren't claiming that Bioware betrayed them when it made all these changes (which isn't to say that there wasn't any criticism).

[Terror_K]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Again, what's the point in creating an IP if you're not even consistent with it? What's the point in players becoming a fan of something when you spend years crafting it to their tastes, then just throw the whole formula away at the drop of a hat and exchange it with something completely different? Direct sequels to games (or anything) are supposed to be essentially be the same type of thing as its predecessor. I don't watch a show like, for example, Star Trek one season with hopes and acceptance of it becoming Desperate Housewives the second season and then suddenly becoming C.S.I. in the third.

Hmm..maybe to see it evolve instead of getting stuck in a rut? Like Tony Hawk, Dynasty Warriors, Final Fantasy, Guitar Hero, Call of Duty, Resistance, Uncharted, Madden,even Legend of Zelda and Mario come to mind as examples of this. Some are stable and successful, some are hurting for a major change. In the end, consistency is irrelevent because if it is the same game each time, there is no reason to get that game again.

I get what you are saying, but no. Direct sequels are not supposed to be the same thing as its predecessor. They can be, and they can be successful for doing that, but it doesn't make them universally good or bad. It just makes them the same as last year. To expect something to stay the same is a fallacy, because when it does finally change it will shatter the fantasy that one creates about it, causing this diehard nerd rage that reeks of this line of thinking. 

I mean, its ok to like a certain way of things. No one can take that away from you, and no one should. So go play them. Hell, the enhanced edition of Baldurs Gate is coming out in a week, you can find solace there and enjoy the new content they are adding to update the title. We also got Wasteland 2 on the horizon as well for your needs. And if you want something else, look to Obsidian since they are announcing something in 3 days that should be good to see. So you got options, for what you want to be, and you don't have to stay here and shout betrayal to an already jaded, cynical crowd who is sick of jaded, cynical, and downright misleading lines such as the ones said above

Otherwise, it just makes you look foolish. 

No... that's just stupid. Again, what's the point of creating an IP --especially such a strong story-driven one-- when you just keep changing it utterly all the time at the drop of a hat? I'm not talking about being exactly the same without any changes at all. I'm talking about keeping the style, tone and concepts the same.

I'm not talking about changing for innovation here and building on what you have. That's a different matter. Games can build on prior installments, innovate and grow without changing the formula and being something completely different. Baldur's Gate 2 is a classic example of this, as is Fallout 2.

For more recent examples, look at the Assassin's Creed series: AC1 was actually a pretty poor game despite the hype, but AC2 came along and managed to build on it and fix most of the issues, and then Brotherhood came along and built further on that to refine things a little more and add more depth. Revelations wasn't as big a leap, but when the formula was already pretty damn good, why make big changes? One thing BioWare needs to learn is when something isn't broken, you don't need to fix it. Innovation doesn't need to happen for the sake of it. Heck... Call of Duty proves that it doesn't even need to happen to sell well!

Gears of War, Uncharted and Batman are another three examples: all these games had sequels that built on what was already there and added more and refined more while still staying true to the core gameplay and style. The Hitman series is another example, where each game added more depth and built on what was there.

The point is, you can still innovate and grow and avoid stagnation without completely abandoning your original principles, concepts and material. Dragon Age 2 didn't do this at all, and on top of it all was barely innovating when most of the changes made were simplifying and removing depth rather than adding it. That's generally what making things "more accessible" does. But Dragon Age 2 was almost a complete reboot more in lines of the upcoming Tomb Raider and Devil May Cry reboots than it was an actual sequel. And it wasn't needed... there was only ONE friggin' game at that point!

Mass Effect 2 & 3 are bad examples of this, because they are BioWare doing the same thing for the same reasons, hence me often saying lately that these BioWare titles of late don't so much have problems as they do symptoms from a far greater problem higher up the ladder. ME2 was also a game guilty of dumbing down and straying from the formula, though it did it in a less sudden and overt manner. The series went from a Cinematic Action RPG into basically a Cinematic TPS with light RPG elements. ME2's gameplay was barely that of an RPG at all, and while ME3 may have brought some of the statistical gameplay elements back, it completely failed on the player agency and roleplaying front thanks to a complete lack of dialogue options, too much autodialogue, near complete linearity and railroading with the narrative and the fact that none of our choices really mattered in the end, despite about 7 years of promises that they would. In some ways the Mass Effect series was more of a betrayal than Dragon Age was, but the main point is that they're both indicative of BioWare's current disease.

Again, it also clearly wasn't done for the sake of innovation and growing the IP in a natural way, but was done merely for the sake of branching out and broadening appeal to a group of players put off by the original. Sacrificing fans who like Dragon Age: Origins for what it is just to try and get potential fans is poor form and a bad way of going about things, as well as a bad reason to change your game. The other non-BioWare examples I listed above at least knew how to innovate and grow on what they already had in a natural manner, and their games didn't grossly deviate from their original vision as a result, and still managed to stay both fresh and true. BioWare games lately feel like they've deliberately pulled a George Lucas and made "prequels" without even having the decency to wait a decade or two before screwing up their work.

Also, with heavily story-driven games where the story is the main focus, you don't need as much drastic innovation in terms of changing gameplay mechanics, because what the fans are really after is more story. New characters, new locations, new plotlines, etc. are what RPG players crave the most. That's why in P&P RPGs we can play the same editions of AD&D, Star Wars, Vampire: TM, etc. over and over again with the same rulesets because we know we can choose different characters with different abilities and play a different adventure together with different choices, companions, NPCs, quests, locations, enemies, etc. With an RPG the core gameplay doesn't need to constantly change as long as the narrative and roleplaying side of things is different and fresh. That's what matters in an RPG.

[Steppenwolf]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

BasilKarlo wrote...

Mass Effect 2 didn't change the art style, they improved the graphics. It still looked the same, just sharper. And the combat was just improved, not changed from tactical combat to "button=awesome" combat. You're doing some serious stretching here.

I think there was more change from DAO to DA2, but I also think you are understating the changes from ME1 to ME2. Combat was changed significantly, and whether it was improved is open to debate.  Pesrsonally I'm not fond of the cover mechanic (particularly when I take cover behind a thin glass barrier that can't be penetrated by rockets) and they also changed the control scheme to the terrible spacebar does everything scheme that also plagues ME3.

And while the art change was not as great as the change to DA2 it introduced the idea of iconic companion outfits which are probably stupider in ME2 than they are in DA2 -- at least Aveline and Fenris wear armour.

The also took liberties with the lore in ways that didn't make a whole lot of sense.  As I said there were more changes than you seem willing to admit to.  The big difference is that more people liked ME2 so weren't claiming that Bioware betrayed them when it made all these changes (which isn't to say that there wasn't any criticism).

"Iconic appearances" weren't a change to the art style, just the customization depth. Everything still looked the same.
And ME1 had a cover mechanic, it was just clunky since it was essentially crouching. The only big change to combat that wasn't an improvement to what was already there is the universal cooldowns for powers.

[Wulfram]

ME2 had a major change in artstyle. From everyone wearing armour to all non-quarian women running around half dressed. The environments stopped being so classical sci-fi utopian clean, and became more distopian and dark. The music changed from the heavily synth based to being more orchestral

ME1 is still my favourite, art wise.

And it's combat was transformed. Ammo was added. Universal cooldown was added. Shepard's accuracy no longer depended on his stats. Many people would say it was an improvement - though I'm more ambivalent - but it was still changed, more than DA2 combat.

[Steppenwolf]

People wearing different outfits is not a change to art style. If it is then Awakening changed Origins' art style. And we saw different places in the galaxy. It was still the same galaxy, still had all the bright, utopian places. We just saw another side of the galaxy in ME2.
And ammo completely left my mind. I'll give you that.