126 réponses à ce sujet

[Direwolf0294]

New stuff's nice, but I don't see why every new iteration in a series has to have some sort of huge innovation. I mean, the whole reason people get into a series in the first place is because they like certain elements in it, so what's the point of making big changes to those elements between games just for the sake of innovation? That's not to say they shouldn't be trying new ideas and trying to improve existing ones, but people seem to be expecting these major, life altering changes to have taken place.

And I don't think it's fair to say BioWare hasn't innovated in the last 5 years. Compare the evolution of the Mass Effect games, the interupt system from ME2 is one of the best systems introduced to RPGs in years, or take a look at TOR. Whether you liked TOR or not, it's probably the first MMORPG that's actually been an RPG. In a genre that's been stagnant for years, BioWare didn't innovate many systems, but story telling was definitely one.

[ianvillan]

I think the problem with DA2 was that Bioware thought that Origins was a niche game that would only appeal to a few hardcore fans, so for DA2 they had to make major innovations just so the game had a chance of selling and appealing to more people.

The main thing Bioware did wrong in my opinion was having too many innovations in such a short amount of time, maybe if they would of added one major innovation like VO to DA2, then annother to DA3 and so on there might not of been such upset.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Direwolf0294 wrote...

New stuff's nice, but I don't see why every new iteration in a series has to have some sort of huge innovation. I mean, the whole reason people get into a series in the first place is because they like certain elements in it, so what's the point of making big changes to those elements between games just for the sake of innovation? That's not to say they shouldn't be trying new ideas and trying to improve existing ones, but people seem to be expecting these major, life altering changes to have taken place.

And I don't think it's fair to say BioWare hasn't innovated in the last 5 years. Compare the evolution of the Mass Effect games, the interupt system from ME2 is one of the best systems introduced to RPGs in years, or take a look at TOR. Whether you liked TOR or not, it's probably the first MMORPG that's actually been an RPG. In a genre that's been stagnant for years, BioWare didn't innovate many systems, but story telling was definitely one.

What's the point of a sequel if there's no innovation? It's just more of the same. It gives you no reason to invest in the new edition or even get excited for it. I'm a fan of Fable because the people behind it are always thinking of innovation and new ideas. I think it's a very healthy mindset for anyone in a creative position.

Ahh, yes... TOR. I'll tell you that it should have been a RPG instead of a MMO and maybe then it wouldn't be going F2P soon. What a missed opportunity that turned out to be. We could have had KOTOR 3.

[nightscrawl]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

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?

I'd really prefer that they didn't change several elements again. It would be nice to have some consistency between games in a series. I liked the ideas behind some of the changes in DA2, so I would like them to fine-tune those elements rather than come up with some new thing that will suffer from needing more tweaks.

Allan Schumacher wrote...

To toss in a hand grenade into this thread...

What type of game would you expect to get if I said we were playing it safe?

Does this mean we aren't getting sparkly dragons?

I would expect a few things: standard Bioware character, story, and relationship development. As far as the game itself is concerned, I might say that it means you were going to try to merge the the successful parts of each game, Voltron-like, and come up with a super-mecha game! For me, those parts would be: (from DAO) a huge sweeping story that covers a large area, a more gritty art style (and hopefully the DA2 shiny plastic UI is GONE), more NPC recognition of your character's history/background, custom crafting options (ie Wade), and a bit less of a human-centric story (which I doubt with the mage/templar war upcoming... oh well); (from DA2) the return of the voiced PC, similar relationship (not necessarily romantic) crafting systems like friend/rival that allow you to have a more dynamic relationship with a follower, faster (or real time) combat.


Oh and don't forget... MAGE PANTS. Go go! Tell your armor design teams! More mage pants!

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

What's the point of a sequel if there's no innovation?

Uh... to see where the story goes?

Everyone has their own goals and priorities for these types of games. Something "new and different" and possibly "innovative" might be on the top of your list, but it's not anywhere on mine.

Some change is good yes. But there doesn't have to be change for the sake of change.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 15 septembre 2012 - 01:35 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Well, obviously the narrative is important. But I don't think that alone is worth the investment. When I see new ideas introduced in games it gets me excited. That's why when I see Battlefield 4 announced not even a year after BF3, and then going a step further and confirming that it's going to keep it's 'modern warfare' setting, I get disgusted.

All those people who invested heavily into BF3 are getting screwed. But the part that annoys the hell out of me is that all of these dumb games that don't do anything new or advance the genre in anyway are constantly getting sequels green lit, while truly innovative games like Mirror's Edge will probably never get a sequel.

[Darth Death]

ianvillan wrote...

I think the problem with DA2 was that Bioware thought that Origins was a niche game that would only appeal to a few hardcore fans, so for DA2 they had to make major innovations just so the game had a chance of selling and appealing to more people.

The main thing Bioware did wrong in my opinion was having too many innovations in such a short amount of time, maybe if they would of added one major innovation like VO to DA2, then annother to DA3 and so on there might not of been such upset.

How many games out there are like Origins? Not many. That sort of exclusivity is what will attract people & cause other devs to copy it. You play it safe once that stage is reach because people haven't experience anything like it before, & they want more of it. Origins is like the house that was built on the rock. When the storms came, beating on the house, it did not crumble. Its core values were strong & unique, having no other game being quite like it. That's Origins greatest strength. DA2 is like the house that was built on the sand. When the storms came, beating upon the house, it crumbled & was washed away into the sea. The art of knowing when to change the core values of a product, especially if it gets stale (which wasn't the case with Origins) is important.    

[mousestalker]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

To toss in a hand grenade into this thread...

What type of game would you expect to get if I said we were playing it safe?

DA2 adapted to some new settings.

No changes to the available npc types (female dwarves or female kossith), extensive reuse of the same maps, neverending fetch quests unrelated to the main plot, wave combat used withour regard to sense, restricted character interaction, riding the plot railroad express. an unconnected overall plot and an inability to make meaningful changes.

Taking a risk would mean allowing greater player choice, even if it makes the game designers life harder. If the PC kills King Goody Good in Act One, then the PC must live with the non-optimal ending that the PC created.

DAO was stellar because the Warden could wind up dying. In DA2, nothing Hawke did could really change the ending.

Speaking for myself, what I want is the sweet spot in making choices that could result in a truly sucky ending (PC death) or a fairytale happy ending or somewhere in between, and have the choices I make as player logically dictate the consequences.

Modifié par mousestalker, 15 septembre 2012 - 02:09 .

[Darth Death]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Well, obviously the narrative is important. But I don't think that alone is worth the investment. When I see new ideas introduced in games it gets me excited. That's why when I see Battlefield 4 announced not even a year after BF3, and then going a step further and confirming that it's going to keep it's 'modern warfare' setting, I get disgusted.

All those people who invested heavily into BF3 are getting screwed. But the part that annoys the hell out of me is that all of these dumb games that don't do anything new or advance the genre in anyway are constantly getting sequels green lit, while truly innovative games like Mirror's Edge will probably never get a sequel.

Speaking of BF4, I'll not make the same mistake getting a battlefield game on consoles. AK felt like a playground than an actual battlefield. Just had to get that off my chest. 

[jackofalltrades456]

Better safe than sorry.

[Garrus94]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

That's fine. I was mostly just having fun because I think one could make an argument that making a game more in the mold of DAO or DA2 could be construed as a safe move

While I agree please make one like DAO

[Androme]

 B, because that would be a garantueed success.

[Androme]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

To toss in a hand grenade into this thread...

What type of game would you expect to get if I said we were playing it safe?

If you guys were playing it safe, I would first of all admit to myself that you guys have retained your sanity (no offence, that is meant as a compliment).

Second, I would expect what critics likes to call ''cliché'' type- of story, ''big bad evil/conflict, you are superhero, go pwn''-type of thing, WHICH IS FINE, It's even great, damn it's even fantastic, it has worked before and NOTHING is pointing at that ''formula'' not working in the future, of course the game would have, like you guys have said before, ''pretty much the same'' art direction as DA2, which is fine, that doesn't change anything for me since I'm only interested in the story and the characters in it, a complaint about that is that I feel like, and I'm sure many would agree, that you guys are, sort of, ''abandoning'' storylines and specific characters.. I mean c'mon, where's Morrigan? Where's our Warden? Where's Alistair? Where's Flemeth? Yes yes we did get a cameo but we're not interested in that, what is stopping you from keeping them important to the overall storyline? I did get a answer to my question about that last year in fact, where you guys said that Morrigan is still very important to the overall Dragon Age story line (Pax east 2011), and I hope you guys at BioWare will live up to that!

To more clearly answer your question, in short: I don't expect everything I wrote above, but I dare say that's what many of us who would like a ''safe bet'' would HOPE for: To see our old characters again, and with a properly ''defined'' storyline and objective. (Which, from the leaks, if true, seems to be the case )

[Beerfish]

I'm hoping for 'safe' ME3 was 'daring'

[rapscallioness]

Daring is great if you implement it well. In DA2, the idea that this would be a more personal story instead of "save teh world" I thought was a bit daring. I liked it---but keeping us trapped in Kirkwall and reusing areas was not daring.

That was cutting corners.

Daring or safe, as long as you keep good player agency in the games, you'll be fine. That's really the main thing. Fans of BW mainly love the games because of the player agency.

If BW games evolve into ones that are dominated by auto-dialogue, or where the player only reacts and is told what to do all the time. Never proactive...then we're gonna have problems.

I don't care if you play it "safe"..whatever that is, but I don't want a copy/paste of DAO. I already played that game. Several times. heh heh. Enjoyed it but there's always room to imagine more.

Either way, just don't hold out on us. If there's some great story idea you know we would love and is an intriguing part of the story...put it in the core game. Don't hold out for DLC and giggle at the fans cuz we don't know what's coming. Some things are good DLC. And some things darn well should be put in the core game.

Flesh out the game.

I imagine playing it safe to mean DAO 2.0. I'm okay with that if it means lengthy main quests that make you feel like you've really been questing. Though DAO could have used some more meaty sidequests.

But you guys know what we want. Mike touched upon it at that PAX last year I think it was. "Scope"; "Player agency". I mean that's what BW started out trying to do. Focusing on that kinda thing. But now there seems to be some kinda resistance to those ideas. Amongst yourselves. Idk wats going on over there, but it feels that way.

Like BW is trying to move away from those concepts, and the fans are none to happy about that.

Who knows. But daring or safe isn't really the issue. Execution is. And keeping the ideas of player agency and scope at the forefront of your minds while making this...Next Big Thing.

Do that and this NBT really will be your NBT. I hope it is. I hope you send it over the moon.

[Wozearly]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Because my general opinion of DA2 = lots of really bad ideas fully implemented. The only clear execution failure of DA2 is the repeated environments, and this is a detail I can partially defend and have often done so. It's a matter of making the game longer on limited zots.

The only thing I can understand (and to some part agree with) is that Mike wanted to make the combat feel faster and more responsive. As for the rest, it's three monkeys in a china store.

I'm somewhere between your view and the "lots of great ideas poorly implemented" camps. My personal view was that the DA2 team 'oversolved' some of the things they were trying to improve from DA:O (e.g. improving combat speed from DA:O leading to the twitch-combat of DA2, improving responsiveness and impact of abilities leading to the need to have repeated waves of enemies or super-health elites to balance out the new much higher DPS speed party).

Not only did this create brand new problems, it also radically altered the feel of the game. When you then consider the other things going on at the same time; the art style redesign, the shift to a
voiced protagonist, the three-act narrative with its time delay, etc. - ultimately this changed the whole look and feel of the game in a way that the changes in the Mass Effect series simply didn't.

I don't think that any of these concepts were inherantly flawed, but some of the decisions on how to implement them were, because (IMO) in many cases the team ended up removing something that was fundamentally working and replacing it with something that was different, but not universally agreed to be better. Ultimately that divided fans into "Yes, this is better" and "No, this is terrible!" camps.

How in the Maker's name those two bitter, warring factions get reconciled is a very good question. And I'm glad its not my job to answer it.

[KingRoxas]

Daring!

Modifié par Kingroxas, 15 septembre 2012 - 08:49 .

[Atlanth]

 Innovation for innovation's sake won't do anyone any good. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't be daring.

DA2 gave us some things that I actually really liked, like fully-voiced characters, which I think makes for better immersion and storytelling, the dialogue wheel, the rivalry/friendship meter etc. Making the combat fast-paced was a daring move too, though, unfortunately, that led to a lack of need of strategy in the fights.

So, trying new things can either go horribly wrong or really, really right. The solution to this is to find a good balance between keeping what works and making the next installment new enough to keep things interesting, a balance between daring and safe.

What were the things that made DAO such a good game? Undoubtedly, the different origins, the epic scale of the conflict, the engaging characters and the feeling that whatever you do, you are changing the world.

At this point, I have to admit that I prefer DAO to DA2. Why?

Because, while there are new aspects in DA2 that I like, there are also many that I dislike. DA2 is a good game, but it has no replay value. The final result, whether you are on the mages' or templars' side, is the same. You do not see the results of your actions (I mean the little things), for in the great scheme of things, they do not matter.

In DAO, you are told what happens to Redcliffe or the Urn of Sacred Ashes and the results are different because of your actions. That motivates you to play the game again, this time for a different result. Yes, the Archdemon is dead. But would DAO be half as interesting, if that's the only thing we had been told? The different origins and specializations also help the immersion.

In DA2, there's only one possible ending, no matter what you do. This, in turn, makes you not want to replay the game. So if you can't replay it for the story, you should replay it for the gameplay, right? After all, you do not play games like Skyrim for their story, but for the loot and the many different combinations of abilities. Unfortunately, you do not need strategy in DA2, so you do not replay it for that aspect either.

So when I look at DAO and DA2, which game do I want to play again and again? The answer: DAO. Exactly because of the different results, different origins and classes.

What can be done better in DA3?

DA3 has a lot of potential. Now that the Mage-Templar War is in full swing and the conflict all over Thedas, the story can once more be epic in scale. There could be even different origins again, because nobody in Thedas can be unmoved by the raging war. Mages are everywhere, whether in the Circle, the Dalish clans or even Orzammar (the dwarves do control the lyrium trade, no?). Include some political intrigue (because countries like Orlais or Tevinter won't hesitate to use the opportunity to further their goals) and things that worked well in DA2 like fully-voiced characters, sprinkle everything with Bioware storytelling, and you get a masterpiece. Even copying things like interrupts from Mass Effect isn't a bad idea as long as it's implemented well. Make us face choices where we can't persuade everyone to like each other and live peacefully together, where we have to decide!

Be daring, but always ask yourself: If we put this or that in the game, will the players replay it? Or will they find it too tedious because of this or that aspect?

Modifié par Atlanth, 15 septembre 2012 - 09:11 .

[Morty Smith]

Make a pretentious trailer with ultra hip tsfh or audiomachine music, mention ponies, add the word bangable behind every characters name and you got 95,6% of the BSN in your pocket. The other 56,5% will also buy it, grumble and post angry threads until the next game.

I say daring, with pretentious bangable ponies.

I´ll buy that.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Beerfish wrote...

I'm hoping for 'safe' ME3 was 'daring'

What made it daring?

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 15 septembre 2012 - 11:12 .

[Sylvianus]

I expect that Bioware knows pretty much what it is doing, and what it wants.

Only one advice. Don't get cocky. Don't get cocky with " new ideas, new ideas, new ideas. "

I like new ideas, when it leads somewhere, and when it works and when it is effective. I don't care about any idea that sounds  " cool " but which is concretely irrelevant in the game or that leads nowhere. If it doesn't work in the game, if it isn't effective or if you can't make it effective, then it isn't a good idea. Don't do it. Only the result counts. If the result seems really good to you, then, there's no reason that many of us couldn't agree with you.  

New ideas are bad and not " cool "  if you don't know where you are going with them or if they fail miserably concretely. Your point isn't to change everything for the sake of it, to the point you don't even know where the hell you are going with your franchise and what the hell you are doing.

Your priority is to make good games. Damn good games. Don't be obsessed with innovation for the sake of innovation without thinking about its implementation. And don't hesitate to use what is working. Don't ever hesitate and leave the semantics behind or for those who like debates lol.

An example of good idea, and poor decision and execution : Mass effect 3. War asset system. Really. There's no depth, it doesn't work well, and it is meaningless to the player. Worse with the dlc leviathan that comes after. ( I liked the dlc, it isn't the point ) It's maybe not new in the game industry, but they did try something else, but many wonder if they really really thought about their system. ( they did obviously but... it's weird how shallow it is. It could have been something awesome )

Either you do something well, either you do not. As simple as that. In every area. ( impossible, but the point is to try. )

Do not neglect the details, and especially do not think that the fans don't care about the details. They do. I felt pretty much that the devs thought so while playing DA2 the first time.

DAII for me has reduced what made the strength of bioware's games, and increased at the same time its weaknesses already present in previous episodes. Therefore the blacklash so strong.

Strengthen your strengths, reduce your weaknesses.

Daring, safe. Doesn't matter to me. Think about a great game. With pragmatism, efficiency and passion.

Here, my two cents.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 16 septembre 2012 - 03:24 .

[Heimdall]

I was just watching a Halo 4 dev doc and one of the developers said something quite profound.

"Good game design is evolutionary, not revolutionary."

[Rawgrim]

Wulfram wrote...

Safe would probably take from DA:O

1. Save the world plot
2. Realistic art style
3. A Warden protagonist

and from DA2

1. Voiced protagonist
2. Faster combat
3. Isabela's dress sense

I wouldn`t call isabela`s dress sense safe. It looks booby-trapped to me.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Lord Aesir wrote...

I was just watching a Halo 4 dev doc and one of the developers said something quite profound.

"Good game design is evolutionary, not revolutionary."

Their vids for Halo 4 are incredibly pretentious and over-produced. Much like everything else in those videos, it's too dramatic.

Innovation doesn't always mean revolutionary. Portal was innovative, but it wasn't revolutionary. Same can be said of Heavy Rain and Mirror's Edge. There is nothing profound about what he said, I can do it too: "Good level design makes for a better experience". < ---------- Duh. 

Revolutionary is like the jump from 2D to 3D gaming, as in Mario 64 and Ocarina of TIme. It changed how we play games. It will probably never happen again. But that doesn't mean we should stop innovating.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 16 septembre 2012 - 04:06 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

You see for me the timing is the key thing here with "safe or daring" - for one there's a fracture amongst core Bioware fans who feel as if they are being forgotten about, and also I don't think Bioware have realized that DA:O did succeed in capturing/recapturing a casual audience, it just took us time to settle into it. And the best way of scaring that audience off is by implementing lots of changes as DA:2 did - by doing that us casuals have to get used to it all over again and that's not something most enjoy. Why does FIFA or COD do so well every year? Because half the battle has already been won given the fact that the audience can pick up and play the game straight away. Casual gamers take longer to settle into games, and thinking that the answer is to revert to a mash attack button is laughably bad. Now just doesn't seem the right time to be daring.

I really hope Bioware use DA:O as the core foundation to build DA:3 on, it's vast quality shines through and whereas a space-opera is about explosions, guns and quick-fire action, fantasy RPGs are about tactics, mental challenges and stratergy.

Allan Schumacher wrote...

To toss in a hand grenade into this thread...

What type of game would you expect to get if I said we were playing it safe?

I'd definitely expect Bioware to use DA:O's as a base for DA:3 in that case - it's pretty clear that more were happy with that than DA:2.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 17 septembre 2012 - 09:21 .