267 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

eroeru wrote...

Because they LOVED the previous games, and revere them as a legacy of sorts, as a progenitor to a successful reputation.
Moreso that the reputable part includes an original to the contested sequel.

Bingo. 

Bioware has been making excellent RPGs for over a decade now. They've hit some serious bumps in the road by applying more "mainstream" tactics for their games. 

Like an old friend who has started to hang out with a bad crowd and is making really bad decisions, we're the lifelong friends who have still stood by their side and said "you need to stop hanging out with these guys, they are going to ruin your life." You know, in a metaphorical type of way.

Seth, in your comment you said that you don't like Skyrim... but did you passionately play Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind and Oblivion? Did you enjoy over a decade of Bethesda games and, then, suddenly find their most recent games terrible? I'm thinking not. If you were, you would know that Bethesda has their own (very active) forums.

Not many gamers can say they have been passionate about a particular developer, let alone for over a decade. THAT'S the reason many of us "nay-sayers" are here - because we've always been here and we are getting tired of seeing things slide into the wrong direction.

[hoorayforicecream]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Bioware has been making excellent RPGs for over a decade now. They've hit some serious bumps in the road by applying more "mainstream" tactics for their games. 

Like an old friend who has started to hang out with a bad crowd and is making really bad decisions, we're the lifelong friends who have still stood by their side and said "you need to stop hanging out with these guys, they are going to ruin your life." You know, in a metaphorical type of way.

I always thought of the fans like that as the jilted former lovers. The kind that threaten to slash your tires.

[Plaintiff]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Bioware has been making excellent RPGs for over a decade now. They've hit some serious bumps in the road by applying more "mainstream" tactics for their games. 

Like an old friend who has started to hang out with a bad crowd and is making really bad decisions, we're the lifelong friends who have still stood by their side and said "you need to stop hanging out with these guys, they are going to ruin your life." You know, in a metaphorical type of way.

I always thought of the fans like that as the jilted former lovers. The kind that threaten to slash your tires.

I was going to say; friends that butt excessively into my life, and scream in my face everytime I make a decision they dislike don't stay friends for much longer.

[Fallstar]

I hope people don't take that kind of attitude to their real lives. If your friends and family make a few mistakes after all the years you've known them, you wouldn't just pack up and leave. At least I hope not.

It's a flawed analogy though. I can always just go and buy another game. Can't do the same with people.

[Seth_Holloway]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

eroeru wrote...

Because they LOVED the previous games, and revere them as a legacy of sorts, as a progenitor to a successful reputation.
Moreso that the reputable part includes an original to the contested sequel.

Bingo. 

Bioware has been making excellent RPGs for over a decade now. They've hit some serious bumps in the road by applying more "mainstream" tactics for their games. 

Like an old friend who has started to hang out with a bad crowd and is making really bad decisions, we're the lifelong friends who have still stood by their side and said "you need to stop hanging out with these guys, they are going to ruin your life." You know, in a metaphorical type of way.

Seth, in your comment you said that you don't like Skyrim... but did you passionately play Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind and Oblivion? Did you enjoy over a decade of Bethesda games and, then, suddenly find their most recent games terrible? I'm thinking not. If you were, you would know that Bethesda has their own (very active) forums.

Not many gamers can say they have been passionate about a particular developer, let alone for over a decade. THAT'S the reason many of us "nay-sayers" are here - because we've always been here and we are getting tired of seeing things slide into the wrong direction.

Oh gosh no!! I'm definatley not a fan of the other Elder Scrolls games, I own a few of them. I just cant get into them, there is too much grinding and not enough interaction for my tastes.


I get what you mean but I think it would be awesome if people focused their energy more into developing solutions, over focusing on problems. 


What did you love about Bioware in those early years? 


Do you think there is a way it could be recaptured in DA3?

[Seth_Holloway]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
I always thought of the fans like that as the jilted former lovers. The kind that threaten to slash your tires.

LOL!!  I get where they are comming from.

I'd be cranky if DA:O got turned into a clone of Angry Birds..

I certainly wouldn't be doing any tyre slashing though!

[eroeru]

Seth_Holloway wrote...

I get what you mean but I think it would be awesome if people focused their energy more into developing solutions, over focusing on problems. 

First off, solutions are not separate from problems. In fact, I'd claim that in good writing/critique/argumentation they're inseparable. 
You need to highlight, explain and thus "find" and understand the problem in order to offer solutions. It starts off from purely "feeling" the problem though - couldn't be any other way.

Secondly, getting to the revisable solutions part takes much more effort and an understanding of critique. Usually criticizers don't even bother explaining what's wrong - I'd much rather many of the critics would stay to that for longer and more than it's currently usual.


edit:
An important thing to notice is that the premis of "something being wrong" or simply that something's "bad" is indisputable, it comes down to personal experience and is subjective in its personality (but not in its reasons - otherwise you'd have to dismiss the objectivity of the world, or the game's belonging to the world).

Yet the part where you offer solutions has more easily-found counter-arguments, as they often stem from precticality, a sphere where most can understand and agree upon (as opposed to the reasons "why" the bad parts in the game are bad - this being a more difficult thing to argue because it's either mixed up with the question of whether "something is good, something bad", i.e. "what is good", wrongly so; AND/OR that it's seldom that people suffer from some random factor that made their feeling of "bad" illusive to themselves).

Modifié par eroeru, 04 octobre 2012 - 03:20 .

[TMZuk]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

TMZuk wrote...

This pretty much hits the head on the nail, IMO. Aside that I disagree that games has gotten better. I don't think DA:O was better than BG2. It was good, yes, and had a few areas were it superceded BG2, but as a whole, no! The only truly great CRPG I have played the past five or six years was Fallout: New Vegas. And that wasn't excactly polished.

But I agree very much when you argue that games today suffer from to much focus-testing. They feel unoriginal, contrived and, oh so politically correct . Which studio today would dream up a game like Dungeon Keeper? Or Carmageddon?

The hardware is so much better today, but all the major studios has become as gutless as Hollywood, terrified of venturing outside the well-trodden path. Resulting in forgettable, play-it-safe, uninspired games. Like DA2. Which failed anyway, because it was boring and lack-luster.

I am very curious to see how Wasteland 2 and Project Eternity comes out, and how the major developers will react, if these two games are succesful. Here's to hoping for more daring, less catering to stereo-types.

I don't think that's fair at all.  I preferred BG2 to DA2 but I don't see how it was any more daring or controversial than DA2.  It was set in one of the most bland fantasy settings ever, explicitly designed to appeal to as many people as possible and features a fairly conventional fantasy plot.  Fallout and PST were much more unconventional than BG2.

While I've been very critical of it I think DA2 tried to do many things that were different and unusual for CRPGs. There is no world threatening crisis, your character doesn't start off as anyone special, there is no one obvious villain, and so on.

I think we might be talking past each other. I know that the ~setting~ in BG2 was conventional, but the ~execution~ was done in such a stunning manner, that it is still remembered and played by so many people. The size, the epic scope and the journey was just awe inspiring. It was ~anything~ but lackluster and boring. But of course, if you look a purely the setting, FO and PS:T were much more original games, and hats off to the sadly defunct Black Isle for giving us such gemstones.

Dragon Age 2 had some interesting ideas, but they were sadly extremely poorly executed, as were the whole game. Simply because the world was not believable. The people you fought  - a flaw shared with DA:O - were not people, but hapless trash. The majority of the citizens of the city were statues you could not interact with, but who'd keep working or arguing while spells and swords were flying around their ears. Bloodmagic could be used anywhere and everywhere, in front of a templar if you would, and noone would respond, you couldn't commit a crime even if you wanted to, as there was nothing to interact with in an illegal manner. It was, in short, boring and bland.

If Obsidian can make a game like Fallout: New Vegas, where all the NPCs are "real", in the sense that you can interact with them, steal from them, attack them or exchange a few words with them, with an old engine like Gamebryo, then why can't Bioware offer interaction on at least that level?  Feeling the world around your character, that's what makes a game come alive.

Bioware attempted to cater to the WOW crowd, the action crowd as well as the roleplay crowd, and only managed to create a game that was unsatisfying on all levels.

Modifié par TMZuk, 04 octobre 2012 - 04:07 .

[Nomen Mendax]

TMZuk wrote...
...

I think we might be talking past each other. I know that the ~setting~ in BG2 was conventional, but the ~execution~ was done in such a stunning manner, that it is still remembered and played by so many people. The size, the epic scope and the journey was just awe inspiring. It was ~anything~ but lackluster and boring. But of course, if you look a purely the setting, FO and PS:T were much more original games, and hats off to the sadly defunct Black Isle for giving us such gemstones.

Dragon Age 2 had some interesting ideas, but they were sadly extremely poorly executed, as were the whole game. Simply because the world was not believable. The people you fought  - a flaw shared with DA:O - were not people, but hapless trash. The majority of the citizens of the city were statues you could not interact with, but who'd keep working or arguing while spells and swords were flying around their ears. Bloodmagic could be used anywhere and everywhere, in front of a templar if you would, and noone would respond, you couldn't commit a crime even if you wanted to, as there was nothing to interact with in an illegal manner. It was, in short, boring and bland.

If Obsidian can make a game like Fallout: New Vegas, where all the NPCs are "real", in the sense that you can interact with them, steal from them, attack them or exchange a few words with them, with an old engine like Gamebryo, then why can't Bioware offer interaction on at least that level?  Feeling the world around your character, that's what makes a game come alive.

Bioware attempted to cater to the WOW crowd, the action crowd as well as the roleplay crowd, and only managed to create a game that was unsatisfying on all levels.

I agree with pretty much everything you said everything except your last paragraph.  I liked BG2 but didn't think it was as much as a masterpiece as you (and lots of other people) did, but that's just personal taste.

I absolutely agree with what you say about using blood magic (or just magic for that matter) in DA2.  There were similar issues in DAO, but they were much less noticeable since the conflict between mages and templars wasn't central to the plot.

However I don't agree that catering to people who like MMOs and action games was what resulted in DA2 being less successful.  Making the combat faster paced certainly reduced my enjoyment of DA2, but other people preferred it.  I believe that DA2 tried to make too many changes (different combat, voiced protoganist, and so on) combined with a more complex plot than a conventional save the world plot, all with a short development time.  In particular all of the railroading, and having outcomes to events the same regardless of what you did were magnified because the plot should have been more open ended than saving the world.

Modifié par Nomen Mendax, 04 octobre 2012 - 04:24 .

[Maria Caliban]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Bioware has been making excellent RPGs for over a decade now. They've hit some serious bumps in the road by applying more "mainstream" tactics for their games. 

Like an old friend who has started to hang out with a bad crowd and is making really bad decisions, we're the lifelong friends who have still stood by their side and said "you need to stop hanging out with these guys, they are going to ruin your life." You know, in a metaphorical type of way.

I always thought of the fans like that as the jilted former lovers. The kind that threaten to slash your tires.

BioWare: I'm going to date this jerk.
Fans: But he doesn't respect you!

[Beerfish]

Maria Caliban wrote...



BioWare: I'm going to date this jerk.
Fans: But he doesn't respect you!

EA is a guy with 20 tattoos a porn moustache and rides a Harley and BioWare  is a sweater wearing bobby soxer who is also a candy striper and loves horses?

[upsettingshorts]

Beerfish wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...



BioWare: I'm going to date this jerk.
Fans: But he doesn't respect you!

EA is a guy with 20 tattoos a porn moustache and rides a Harley and BioWare  is a sweater wearing bobby soxer who is also a candy striper and loves horses?

And the fans who come here to complain to BioWare are slovenly neckbearded self-annointed "nice guys" who feel entitled to a relationship.  Yes, I'd say you're following along.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 octobre 2012 - 05:03 .

[Allan Schumacher]

It's one thing to not like the direction that the company has gone. Coming in with a snide remark is counterproductive and makes us prone to ignoring commentary from posters that do it a lot in future interactions (simply because it's not worth getting myself frustrated over).

State what you want in the upcoming game and the thing you did and did not like in previous games in one thing.


I know I've seen posters on this board that say the only game they like is BG1/2 and they hang around hoping that we'll go back to that and want to be a voice for it, which is fine. But if you're hoping for that and are bitter because we aren't doing it and then manifesting that bitterness in snarky way, it's way less productive and often just outright adversarial.

[EricHVela]

I still find the CoD statement to be rather telling. Folks playing CoD aren't even thinking of DA. How are you supposed to get their attention with a product that hasn't held their interest previously?

The idea that they'll find the common thread to entice the CoD players is odd in itself. The "common thread" must already exist by the definition of such. If that has not enticed the CoD crowd on its own, one must make changes to the things that are not common between the two to favor the CoD interests over the DA interests.

It's true. They cannot appeal to both fan bases at the same time. They'll go for one over the other despite the high-risk of losing the former fan base for the chance at a more-lucrative fan base.

(That is a long-shot that has played out among several EA-acquired studios in the past with a low success rate, but there's no other way to survive in the EA environment. You target the highest-income crowd and win, or you get scrapped with the only remaining piece being the business name slapped onto an online-DRM system.)

[upsettingshorts]

ReggarBlane wrote...

The "common thread" must already exist by the definition of such.

It already does exist.  That was Fernando Melo's whole freaking point.  

CoD and games like it already share a common thread with RPGs:   Experience points and progression. 

That's literally all he was talking about.

Fernando Melo said...

Speaking to NowGamer Melo said: “We have data that shows there are a lot of people that enjoy playing RPGs although they won’t necessarily call them RPGs. They’ll play Fallout, Assassin’s Creed and even Call Of Duty, which have these progression elements – you’re putting points into things – but they don’t necessarily associate that as an RPG. So we think that if we expand that out we’ll attract a much bigger audience.”

It's only "telling" in the way you think because of confirmation bias.  Nothing else you mentioned has any relevance because it's all in your head.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 octobre 2012 - 05:59 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The passive aggressiveness isn't necessary.

If you feel our games are nothing more than railroading with a linear story and you're convinced that that is what we're intent on focusing on, I'm not getting the impression that you're actually that interested in having any sort of discussion but rather have a bone to pick.

Hallway level design with linear stories.

On a serious note, I think it's difficult to remain confident in Dragon Age 3 after watching the PAX panel. You guys addressed some of the key issues with DA2, but failed to say what people wanted to hear: less like DA2, more like Origins.

All the 'in defense of DA2' Mike Laidlaw interviews and articles out there certainly don't help. It's one thing to take pride in your work, but it's quite another to claim that it's great and that people just don't get it. When a game needs to be defended by one of it's lead designers, it's not a good game.

[CitizenThom]

I do hope they don't try to be everything to everyone. I just hope the story branches enough that the game will have moments at some point along the way that everyone will be entertained by. Such was the case with Dragon Age:Origins when me, my sister, and then my father talked about different events that had happened in the game. My brother had a copy while he was away from his family working in Alaska last winter, so I imagine he'll have some moments of his own at Thanksgiving this year.


(p.s. and I do think DA2 was good game, I think a lot of things were done right in DA2 eventhough there are a couple of things that need some improvement. DA:O just had a little bit more randomness of event in it to the point that three people could play the game and end up with unique playthroughs.)

Modifié par CitizenThom, 04 octobre 2012 - 06:05 .

[EricHVela]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

ReggarBlane wrote...

The "common thread" must already exist by the definition of such.

It already does exist.  That was Fernando Melo's whole freaking point.  

CoD and games like it already share a common thread with RPGs:   Experience points and progression. 

That's literally all he was talking about.

Fernando Melo said...

Speaking to NowGamer Melo said: “We have data that shows there are a lot of people that enjoy playing RPGs although they won’t necessarily call them RPGs. They’ll play Fallout, Assassin’s Creed and even Call Of Duty, which have these progression elements – you’re putting points into things – but they don’t necessarily associate that as an RPG. So we think that if we expand that out we’ll attract a much bigger audience.”

It's only "telling" in the way you think because of confirmation bias.  Nothing else you mentioned has any relevance because it's all in your head.  

An out-of-context quote is an out-of-context quote.

ReggarBlane said...

The "common thread" must already exist by the definition of such. If that has not enticed the CoD crowd on its own, one must make changes to the things that are not common between the two to favor the CoD interests over the DA interests.

[ianvillan]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The passive aggressiveness isn't necessary.

If you feel our games are nothing more than railroading with a linear story and you're convinced that that is what we're intent on focusing on, I'm not getting the impression that you're actually that interested in having any sort of discussion but rather have a bone to pick.

Hallway level design with linear stories.

On a serious note, I think it's difficult to remain confident in Dragon Age 3 after watching the PAX panel. You guys addressed some of the key issues with DA2, but failed to say what people wanted to hear: less like DA2, more like Origins.

All the 'in defense of DA2' Mike Laidlaw interviews and articles out there certainly don't help. It's one thing to take pride in your work, but it's quite another to claim that it's great and that people just don't get it. When a game needs to be defended by one of it's lead designers, it's not a good game.

Plus on this forum the devs will gladly say which DA2 features will be returning but seem to be struggling to find a feature of Origins to bring back.

The devs even show an idea for companion armour with the disclaimer that things could change but when fans ask if even something as simple as isometric view will be back we get the statement that they cant announce anything because it might change.

[upsettingshorts]

ReggarBlane wrote...


An out-of-context quote is an out-of-context quote.

ReggarBlane said...

The "common thread" must already exist by the definition of such. If that has not enticed the CoD crowd on its own, one must make changes to the things that are not common between the two to favor the CoD interests over the DA interests.

It's only out of context if I accept your premise that Melo's statement is about gameplay and not presentation/marketing.  Since that's the very thing I'm asserting exists wholly in your (and the BSN's) imagination, I maintain that the entire hullabaloo over that article that in the time since its publishing has been - and continues to be - a load of sensationalist nonsense.

ianvillan wrote...

Plus on this forum the devs will gladly say which DA2 features will be returning but seem to be struggling to find a feature of Origins to bring back.

Small sample size.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 octobre 2012 - 06:12 .

[David Gaider]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
On a serious note, I think it's difficult to remain confident in Dragon Age 3 after watching the PAX panel. You guys addressed some of the key issues with DA2, but failed to say what people wanted to hear: less like DA2, more like Origins.

All the 'in defense of DA2' Mike Laidlaw interviews and articles out there certainly don't help. It's one thing to take pride in your work, but it's quite another to claim that it's great and that people just don't get it. When a game needs to be defended by one of it's lead designers, it's not a good game.

Mike said that we will end up somewhere between DAO and DA2. Why some people would interpret that as "oh, so you're going back to DAO style then?" I'm not really sure. Perhaps because they want it to? If you intend to interpret us believing DA2's direction was a good thing even if there were parts of it that need work or even a complete rethinking as "DA2 was awesome and everybody loved it"... that's not really going to help your argument. Nor is "every fany hated DA2", as that's also not true.

In the end, DA3 will have elements of both DAO and DA2. Yes, it may have elements of DA2 you think we should just abandon. It is definitely not going to go back to everything that DAO had. If that's a deal-breaker for you right there, then there you go. If you would prefer to wait until we show you what we have in mind, or come back once that's happened, that's great too. Undoubtedly not everyone will be happy with every single choice we're making for DA3, but that's rather inevitable at this point considering all the different opinions even here on the forums (as much as some people try to claim that there's a consensus).

And... is it frustrating to keep hearing that? I imagine so. Everyone wants to know RIGHT NOW. But you're likely going to be waiting a while for more info.

Modifié par David Gaider, 04 octobre 2012 - 06:12 .

[EricHVela]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

ReggarBlane wrote...


An out-of-context quote is an out-of-context quote.

ReggarBlane said...

The "common thread" must already exist by the definition of such. If that has not enticed the CoD crowd on its own, one must make changes to the things that are not common between the two to favor the CoD interests over the DA interests.

It's only out of context if I accept your premise that Melo's statement is about gameplay and not presentation/marketing.  Since that's the very thing I'm asserting exists wholly in your (and the BSN's) imagination, I maintain that the entire hullabaloo over that article that has in the time since its publishing has been - and continues to be - a load of sensationalist nonsense.

If the marketing doesn't match the game, they lose the audience they're trying to entice and scare off the former audience to boot.

You seem to suggest that they're going to lie to the other groups to get them to play a game that they'll expect to be something else.

Again if what was common between the games was not yet enough to entice the new crowd, a new marketing scheme won't work if the game itself doesn't match the marketing.

[SoulRebel_1979]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

marktcameron wrote...

Just cater to one that's all doesn't matter mixing game mechanics never works.

Except all the instances where it does.

Lol, that was funny

[Maclimes]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

On a serious note, I think it's difficult to remain confident in Dragon Age 3 after watching the PAX panel. You guys addressed some of the key issues with DA2, but failed to say what people wanted to hear: less like DA2, more like Origins.

Did we watch the same video? After watching the PAX Panel, I felt more confident and happy about DA3 than ever.

[CitizenThom]

In some ways, some people didn't in fact 'get' Dragon Age 2. It doesn't take away from the things in DA2 that can be improved upon (recycling, act three on the rails), but I remember that many people were upset that the main character wasn't the center of the universe, and didn't enjoy having the story being told about the events in one place over the course of a decade. I liked those things, but it clearly didn't connect with some people.