126 réponses à ce sujet

[SpunkyMonkey]

Just wonderd which approach you would sooner Bioware go with for DA:3?

A) Daring with lots of new ideas and elements designed to keep things fresh? Risky and could fall falt on it's face, but broader scope for experiment.

Or

Safe, eseentially DA:O but with a few tweaks here and there. Nothing that tries to be revolutionary, just something which gives us what we know and love.

I know it'll probably be a combination of both, but just wondered which you'd sooner see Bioware lean towards.

Are you desperate for a fix of something you know, or are you bored and needing a fix of something fresh?

[Wulfram]

Daring's fine if you've got the time to implement it properly.

[Darth Death]

Unequivocally, it's going to be "A", although I much rather have the "B" approach. I was told in some other thread they apparently took the "best bits" from Origins & implement it in DA2. Not sure what those were honestly.

[SpunkyMonkey]

Darth Death wrote...

Unequivocally, it's going to be "A", although I much rather have the "B" approach. I was told in some other thread they apparently took the "best bits" from Origins & implement it in DA2. Not sure what those were honestly.

It's a valid point - when I look at what was meant to be taken from DA:O I see many of it's strengths left behind.

[ianvillan]

Darth Death wrote...

Unequivocally, it's going to be "A", although I much rather have the "B" approach. I was told in some other thread they apparently took the "best bits" from Origins & implement it in DA2. Not sure what those were honestly.

You can see where they said that here

[bEVEsthda]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

Unequivocally, it's going to be "A", although I much rather have the "B" approach. I was told in some other thread they apparently took the "best bits" from Origins & implement it in DA2. Not sure what those were honestly.

It's a valid point - when I look at what was meant to be taken from DA:O I see many of it's strengths left behind.

What is meant to be taken from DA:O?
Really? You've seen something about that? Because everytime this question has been explicitly stated to Bioware, I've only seen silence. Despite their own "best of DA:O and DA2".

OTOH, there has been plenty of voluntary statements, from Bioware, about all of the things in DA2, which we don't like, to the effect that we shouldn't even bother to try discuss them. They're off the table. We'll get them no matter what.

DA3 will be interesting. They're bound to have some kind of plan to redeem the franchise, even if it's not understandable now.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 14 septembre 2012 - 02:04 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

ianvillan wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

Unequivocally, it's going to be "A", although I much rather have the "B" approach. I was told in some other thread they apparently took the "best bits" from Origins & implement it in DA2. Not sure what those were honestly.

You can see where they said that here

"If you're telling a dark fantasy, you don't want combat to feel like your playing a chess game with a friend"

I think that's the thing that they mis-interpretted, most of us enjoyed the combat for the "chess" aspect of it.

That  statement and that vid as a whole come across IMO as a bit self-indulgant and as if they just got a bit carried away. I really hope they've learnt from DA:2

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 14 septembre 2012 - 02:15 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

bEVEsthda wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

Unequivocally, it's going to be "A", although I much rather have the "B" approach. I was told in some other thread they apparently took the "best bits" from Origins & implement it in DA2. Not sure what those were honestly.

It's a valid point - when I look at what was meant to be taken from DA:O I see many of it's strengths left behind.

What is meant to be taken from DA:O?
Really? You've seen something about that? Because everytime this question has been explicitly stated to Bioware, I've only seen silence. Despite their own "best of DA:O and DA2".

OTOH, there has been plenty of voluntary statements, from Bioware, about all of the things in DA2, which we don't like, to the effect that we shouldn't even bother to try discuss them. They're off the table. We'll get them no matter what.

DA3 will be interesting. They're bound to have some kind of plan to redeem the franchise, even if it's not understandable now.

Probably best to ask them, Bioware state they felt they kept what was good about Origins - I don't.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 14 septembre 2012 - 02:14 .

[Darth Death]

ianvillan wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

Unequivocally, it's going to be "A", although I much rather have the "B" approach. I was told in some other thread they apparently took the "best bits" from Origins & implement it in DA2. Not sure what those were honestly.

You can see where they said that here

"If you're telling a dark fantasy you don't want combat to feel like you're playing a chess game with a friend" & "Something that would work well on a console as it did on pc". WHAT?! Thanks for the vid, it really explained a lot of things...

Edit: Oh! SpunkyMonkey beat me to the quote lol. 

Modifié par Darth Death, 14 septembre 2012 - 02:31 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I think the aspect that turned many people off was lack of time to develop and stretch their legs with some of the new mechanisms. I don't think 'polish' in and of itself would have fixed the problems many people had with the game, but rather more time and testing of the mechanics they were trying out for the first time. The team may have become so interested in pulling off the mechanic, they failed to realize why the old mechanics worked so well, and what would be needed to make the new mechanics have the same (or possibly even better) appeal.

Essentially, the were trying to get the mechanics to work, instead of wondering if it filled the gaps left by implementing the new features.

I like innovation, in all honesty. Having all voiced NPCs, for example, was a big innovation for DA:O, but it was a feature that was given a lot of resources and thought so that it didn't limit what we could say to NPC's for the most part. In DA2, I thought the Cross class Combos were a very cool idea that changed the way I leveled my entire party. The idea of having seven years in one city, which could react, grow and change based on our actions, is also really cool. Playing as an immigrant refugee working your way up a rise to power sounds really cool and exciting.

I can see why the Bioware team was really excited about all of these (and other) features. I don't think as much attention was paid to why the old systems worked so well and I don't think the new features were as properly better as they should have been.

So... my final answer here is I am not an advocate of staying safe or taking risk for DA3. I'm simply in favor of more thought being paid attention to the game development process of not just 'can we do this' but 'how will this affect the overall experience and what will we have to remove/modify to accomplish it?' That way, a review of the impact of the change can be taken into account and steps to prevent gaps in the experience can be mitigated.

[bEVEsthda]

ianvillan wrote...

You can see where they said that here

That video is pretty damning.
In essence, it looks like this group of people, who have some personal ideas (which are pretty bad and tasteless) about a "kewl" game they would like to do, discovers Dragon Age: Origins' success, realize that they are in a position where they can hijack the franchise (thanks to EA's takover? some internal politics?), to market their own miserable crap, and goes ahead and do just that.

Really don't know what to say.  I better focus on that this was early, and part of DA2's marketing. And hold my mouth until DA3 is revealed.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 14 septembre 2012 - 02:37 .

[eroeru]

Haha. Combination of both I guess.

[SpunkyMonkey]

bEVEsthda wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

You can see where they said that here

That video is pretty damning.
In essence, it looks like this group of people, who have some personal ideas (which are pretty bad and tasteless) about a "kewl" game they would like to do, discovers Dragon Age: Origins' success, realize that they are in a position where they can hijack the franchise (thanks to EA's takover? some internal politics?), to market their own miserable crap, and goes ahead and do just that.

Really don't know what to say.  I better focus on that this was early, and part of DA2's marketing. And hold my mouth until DA3 is revealed.

Yup, there's a lot in there that could lead you to think that.

The line about "instantly responsive controls" is something that makes you realize they don't get it at all. The main part of the tension, excitement, and fun in tactical RPG combat is those brief moments where you're waiting to see if your blow lands or not in time etc.

They may be able to design games from a technical aspect, but it doesn't seem as if they're anywhere near as clued up as to what makes an actual good game.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 14 septembre 2012 - 02:51 .

[Darth Death]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

So... my final answer here is I am not an advocate of staying safe or taking risk for DA3. I'm simply in favor of more thought being paid attention to the game development process of not just 'can we do this' but 'how will this affect the overall experience and what will we have to remove/modify to accomplish it?' That way, a review of the impact of the change can be taken into account and steps to prevent gaps in the experience can be mitigated.

How I see it, BioWare already took a big risk with Origins & reaped a plentiful harvest. All they had to do is to refine on what Origins was lacking & improve upon them. A new direction wasn't necessary, resulting in them taking 3 steps forward, then 4 steps backwards. At the time & even now, people wanted more of Origins instead of what we got in DA2. Regardless if people hated it or not, Origins is the foundation of the DA universe & I expect more of the same caliber that was given to me the first time around.     

[SpunkyMonkey]

Darth Death wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

So... my final answer here is I am not an advocate of staying safe or taking risk for DA3. I'm simply in favor of more thought being paid attention to the game development process of not just 'can we do this' but 'how will this affect the overall experience and what will we have to remove/modify to accomplish it?' That way, a review of the impact of the change can be taken into account and steps to prevent gaps in the experience can be mitigated.

How I see it, BioWare already took a big risk with Origins & reaped a plentiful harvest. All they had to do is to refine on what Origins was lacking & improve upon them. A new direction wasn't necessary, resulting in them taking 3 steps forward, then 4 steps backwards. At the time & even now, people wanted more of Origins instead of what we got in DA2. Regardless if people hated it or not, Origins is the foundation of the DA universe & I expect more of the same caliber that was given to me the first time around.     

Bang on.

I think what's bizare is that it's obvious Bioware are trying to grab a bigger share of the COD/casual gamer market - well I'm one of those and it did take me some time to get into DA:O (even though years ago I'd played plenty of BG) but once I was into it the last thing I wanted was change - I just wanted more.

I think the only way they'll get more casula gamers on board is by giving us time to settle into these games instead of keeping changing them at every turn.

Let the innovation be with the stories and the character setups, not the game design or mechanics.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 14 septembre 2012 - 02:58 .

[Arch1eviathan]

I would play it safe. Especially after the fan reactions to both Mass Effect 3 and Dragon age 2.

[MichaelStuart]

Definitely daring.
The gameplay was the weakest part of both Dragon Age games. I would happy if they changed it to something more fun.

[Darth Death]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

So... my final answer here is I am not an advocate of staying safe or taking risk for DA3. I'm simply in favor of more thought being paid attention to the game development process of not just 'can we do this' but 'how will this affect the overall experience and what will we have to remove/modify to accomplish it?' That way, a review of the impact of the change can be taken into account and steps to prevent gaps in the experience can be mitigated.

How I see it, BioWare already took a big risk with Origins & reaped a plentiful harvest. All they had to do is to refine on what Origins was lacking & improve upon them. A new direction wasn't necessary, resulting in them taking 3 steps forward, then 4 steps backwards. At the time & even now, people wanted more of Origins instead of what we got in DA2. Regardless if people hated it or not, Origins is the foundation of the DA universe & I expect more of the same caliber that was given to me the first time around.     

Bang on.

I think what's bizare is that it's obvious Bioware are trying to grab a bigger share of the COD/casual gamer market - well I'm one of those and it did take me some time to get into DA:O (even though years ago I'd played plenty of BG) but once I was into it the last thing I wanted was change - I just wanted more.

I think the only way they'll get more casula gamers on board is by giving us time to settle into these games instead of keeping changing them at every turn.

Let the innovation be with the stories and the character setups, not the game design or mechanics.

What's even more bizarre is BioWare being completely aware of the potential backlash, but fell into complacency when a few people demoed their game. Not sure how many people played DA2 before its release, but observing people's reaction when DA2 finally hit retail shelves (and sometime later) is evident enough in gamers mixed reactions. 

Morrigan said it best: "Change is coming to the world. Some fear change and will fight it with every fibre of their being. But sometimes, change is what they need most. Sometimes, change is what sets them free." Emphasis on the "sometime". Change can be good sometimes, but no all the time. Change should not be abrupt, but gradual. It's important for an individual to know when change is needed & when it isn't. All lessons BioWare can learn from.  

Modifié par Darth Death, 14 septembre 2012 - 03:25 .

[hexaligned]

When you already have a working formula, change just for the sake of change is rarely a positive thing. If not only because of the chance for unnecessary failure, then simply because of the natural reaction to it. But then again I'm a pragmatist. It also depends on if you have the talent/resources to pull it off competently. Or better yet, exceptionally. Bioware might have had the talent for it, as far as I can tell they certainly did not have the time and resources they needed to implement (correctly), the changes they wanted to make.

Modifié par relhart, 14 septembre 2012 - 03:43 .

[Welsh Inferno]

Arch1eviathan wrote...

I would play it safe. Especially after the fan reactions to both Mass Effect 3 and Dragon age 2.

Thats what they should do. But I'm betting they'll take an approach closer to option A.

[Patchwork]

IMO Bioware need to re-build some brand trust and playing it safe would be the easiest way to accomplish that. Innovation is great if time, effort and money is put into developing an idea.

[Sable Rhapsody]

If the DA3 team have enough time to go daring, I am 100% on board with that. However, if the game's release schedule is demanding and they don't have enough time to implement new features or approaches to gameplay, I think it's wiser to go safe. If you do something new in a rushed or mediocre product, it's received much worse than if you do something new in a well-done product.

[Iakus]

Right now I think it would be smarter to go safe. Bioware has burned through a lot of goodwill recently and shouldn't take too many risks until they've won some of it back. Then they can start taking risks again. Preferably by experimenting with a new IP.

[PsychoBlonde]

Wulfram wrote...

Daring's fine if you've got the time to implement it properly.

THIS.

It's not about being daring or safe, it's about how the daring or safe is IMPLEMENTED.  You can make the safest game in the world, and if your implementation is shoddy, people will hate it.  You can make the most daring, risky, crazily out there game in the world, and if your implementation is spectacular, people will love it.  Even the people who were screaming bloody murder about the changes will probably love it.  They just won't PREORDER it.

A lot of the problems with DA2 weren't that the things they decided to do were a bit crazy, it's that they were hyped as being this cool new thing but when you tried them out there just wasn't any substance to them.  Game spanning 10 years?  You couldn't TELL!!  Nothing CHANGED!!!  Framed narrative?  A couple of cutscenes!!! You could skip them by ACCIDENT if you were a little too trigger-happy with the escape key.

I don't care if they decide to do something new or something old as long as they take whatever it is and RUN with it.

[cJohnOne]

I like a brand new game to change things around a little bit. That's what I expect at any rate.