Aucune réponse à ce sujet

[Sirrrus]

To Whom It May Concern:

I would like to offer my input in response to the open letter from Bioware. I am a passionate fan of Dragon Age and of my gamer friends (about 20 of us) I am also the only one who enjoyed both titles so far. I have been informed that this is unusual because I play on PC. It's no secret that most PC players enjoyed part 1 and most console players enjoyed part 2.

My first overall suggestion would be not to attempt a blend of both the tactical PC and the fast-paced console styles. It would most likely fail because it does not align with your "hedgehog concept". (Read Jim Collins "From Good to Great") Part 1 was immensely popular because it's innovation was detail-oriented, tactical manuvering on a level of control that previously did not exist. Part 2 was less successful because that hedgehog concept was removed in an attempt to blend the tactics with fast-paced console games. Watered down, it pleased nobody. Instead of attempting another blend, which would only be successful if you guessed the correct formula, offer both sides in entirety: Allow an in-game switch mode which changes between completely tactic oriented and fast-paced console hack n' slash.

Secondly, the story/plot for part 1 was riveting. The seemless convergence from the different possible starting points was fantastic and I found myself completeing the game and restarting over and over just to play the other storylines. Part 2 had only two choices, favor the mages or hate the mages. There wasn't even a clear middle-ground. The real world is based on control, choice and customization, but of the same core things: products, jobs, beliefs, values, etc.  i.e. Everyone wants an iPhone (basing this on initial sales), but even if the screen was shatterproof, everyone would still go out and buy a custom case for it. Another example, eveyone may want a laptop computer, but almost everyone will change the desktop background and location of desktop icons to suit themselves. You must remain true to your core, DA 1 offered the path to being a Warden, 1 choice, that's it. But you offered options, choice, customization...control over how to reach that end. This is also why the tactics you implemented were so popular. While you may feel that choice was widely available in DA 2, from a player perspective, it was not. I personally felt like I was building relationships and trust with PC's and NPC's, only to have the rug pulled out from under me as if an Ahlzheimer's patient stiched the script together.

Lastly, equipment has been extremely lackluster. But if trying to walk the highwire between MMO's where equipment is everything and driving, story-based games where plot is everything, I personally feel you lean too far towards the latter. The equipment may look good graphically, but was always unusable until it was underpowered. I can't believe I'm pulling this anology out, but Final Fantasy 7 had a fantastic structure for dispertion of equipment. You found many items early on that would carry you far into the game but were downright useless versus a handfull of enemies requiring you to carry at least one extra weapon and with Materia, something that was weak early in the game would grow into something very powerful later but only if you invested time into it. The order in which weapons and armor became available in both DA games took away some of the fun because I often knew I was too weak and couldn't do anything about it. Or a style of play I wanted to pursue was not available, even if I wanted to invest the time in it, because the gear simply couldn't be found until later. This again gets back to control and choice. Bethesda implements and excellent system of rewarding that which you choose to invest time in. When these options are available, players play longer and get more replay value out of the game. Address this issue, I can only offer comparisons to games that already exist, but I do believe it needs work.

Next, overall visuals, I loved the sense of satisfaction in real-time of attacking and slaughtering a Dragon in DA 1 but was really disappointed with the removal of most of the slow-motion kills in DA 2. (The only ones I can truly recall were actually separate cut-scenes, this takes control away because you set up the kill and I did not truly participate) I cannot wait to see what graphics you are going to offer in the next installment. I was very pleased with both part 1 and 2. The creative/artistic differences between part 1 and 2 were too noticable to make me believe I was playing the same game. Qunari are human but black in the first game and now they're horned, demonic beings with super-strength? Darkspawn are very goblin-like in part 1 and very zombie-like in part two? The "Sacred Ashes" trailer on YouTube offers an almost exact depiction of what I visualize in my head it would be like to physically be in the game. Once you create that immersion, once a player has subconsciously (or consciously) substituted themself into the game as the protagonist, you win. It doesn't matter if you have Care Bears battling Diablo on the Tele-tubby farm with the Master Chief watching from the sun while darkspawn perform Swan Lake in tutus. If that immersion can be created, you'll see dollar signs.

To create that immersion you need what I would describe as a Path, a Goal, Means to Acheive, an End and Rules. The Path I would most often describe as the protagonist - something to operate through to achieve the objectives, a Goal is an objective - these are small things that get us the trophy in the end - life is a game of inches, Means to Achieve would be equipment and other characters who will assist and possibly an in-game economy, an End is the trophy - that thing which we have the ultimate desire to achieve - this was missing from DA 2 because it didn't seem like you guys knew what we were supposed to achieve, and lastly, Rules. Rules are extremely important, they are boundaries established throughout gameplay that only change within the suspension of disbelief. Rules can also be created from the real world (i.e. most people would not believe a character can take a shotgun blow to the head, it breaks the rule that you'd most likely die). An example of an in-game rule would be if I cast a frost spell and it freezes one character, but not another, there had better be a good reason (the 2nd character better be made of fire or something). Many games break rules as you play and that is what adds to player frustration and breaks the illusion created by immersion. Assassin's Creed is a great follower of this formula in my opinion. AC 2: Ezio is my Path, assassination missions along the way are Goals, Means to Achieve are the hidden blade and array of weapons, the End would be elimination of conspiring Templars, an example of Rules is if Ezio is spotted, he must fight or escape. Assassin's Creed 1 breaks some of this formula...Means, the block doesn't work with the hidden blade, only counterkill...another example, Altair dies if he falls in water, breaks suspension of disbelief.

I feel your team is so creative and so talented that if you'd only stick to a hedgehog concept, that one thing that you know you can do better than anyone else, and putting aside all the other little things you'd like to add to "try and make everyone happy", then you'll have a smashing good game. I hope my input is somewhat helpful and I cannot wait to see the product you develop!

Break a leg!