267 réponses à ce sujet

[TMZuk]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

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.

Once more, I don't really think I am contradicting your opinion. I do believe they were attempting to cater to the three afore mentioned groups. And I do believe they failed. Wether they could have succeeded, given a longer development cycle and more funding, I can't say. From what I saw of DA2 ( I played quite a bit into the second act, before I gave up.) the game was so unfinished in all respects, that it would have taken a lot of time (and money)  to improve significantly on it.

That I personally disliked a great many of the changes, (The voiced protagonist, the lack of freedom in character creation, the silly combat, the restrictive classes, the unresponding world, etc, etc. ) of course gives me a biased outlook, but I - and I believe many with me - saw in DA:O a step towards a modern version of the games I loved from around 2000, and I therefore forgave what I perceived as flaws. But, when presented with DA2, I could only see a huge step ~away~ from the sort of games I like, enhancing the flaws from DA:O and catering to people I do not perceive as roleplayers. All in all, a poor attempt at pleasing more people, by giving everyone to little.

So, in accord with the OP, I would like to see Bioware stop trying so hard to please, and instead develop the game they want to. Wether I will like it, if they do that, I don't know, but I doubt the result can be worse than DA2, no matter what direction they choose.

Modifié par TMZuk, 04 octobre 2012 - 07:52 .

[upsettingshorts]

TMZuk wrote...

So, in accord with the OP, I would like to see Bioware stop trying so hard to please, and instead develop the game they want to. Wether I will like it, if they do that, I don't know, but I doubt the result can be worse than DA2, no matter what direction they choose.

As long as you assume any change you disliked in DA2 was a result of BioWare trying to please and not doing what they want to, what reason do you or anyone reading this have to expect that you won't believe the same for anything in DA3 you don't like?

[TMZuk]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

TMZuk wrote...

So, in accord with the OP, I would like to see Bioware stop trying so hard to please, and instead develop the game they want to. Wether I will like it, if they do that, I don't know, but I doubt the result can be worse than DA2, no matter what direction they choose.

As long as you assume any change you disliked in DA2 was a result of BioWare trying to please and not doing what they want to, what reason do you or anyone reading this have to expect that you won't believe the same for anything in DA3 you don't like?

The fact that there was so little to like about DA2, I suppose. there was several things about DA:O I did not like, but the pros outweighed the cons by a good margen. Not so in DA2. In my opinion there were next to nothing positive about that game.

Let me elaborate... I ~hope~ Bioware will attempt to make a game that appeals to what I perceive as roleplayers, instead of attempting to please everyone. But I don't know if they will.

Modifié par TMZuk, 04 octobre 2012 - 07:50 .

[David Gaider]

Stippling wrote...
I understand and respect this, and I know that most companies keep their cards close until it's time to reveal. BUT (and perhaps I interpretted the message poorly) I was under the impression from the rhetoric presented  to us from Bioware was one of community interaction. I thought it was going to be more like, "here's what we're working on, how does it look so far?".

We will get to that point-- probably in the form of developer diaries and so forth. Until that point, discussions with the community are limited to things we've already revealed, which are very few. Ideas presented here by fans may also influence us, but that depends both on how reasonably they're presented and how fundamental the idea is to the design we already have. We don't expect you to know which is which, of course, unless we come in and tell you so. And fair enough on that point.

And, like I said, we get that people want to hear more. Some people really do seem to take the stance of "it is obviously going to be like this until you tell me otherwise"... or seem to suffer from the notion that angry demands will make us more amenable to make the game more for them. And if we're not making it for them, it's noted with despair that this must be because we don't care about them as a group and want "the CoD crowd" (sic).

We know that the crowd here on our forums is not the majority of DA's fanbase. That's also not a big deal. This is the crowd that is willing to offer us feedback, which is useful-- the so-called "silent majority" is simply silent and neither you or I know exactly what they want (and it undoubtedly isn't the same thing for all of them as it isn't the same thing for everyone here). So we will show you more of our cards in due course... I'm simply suggesting that people take a breather and stick to saying what they personally would like to see. It's perfectly fine if you're not speaking for "everyone" or trying to. You don't need to play amateur economist to convince us that your opinions are valid.

Modifié par David Gaider, 04 octobre 2012 - 07:51 .

[upsettingshorts]

TMZuk wrote...

The fact that there was so little to like about DA2, I suppose. there was several things about DA:O I did not like, but the pros outweighed the cons by a good margen. Not so in DA2. In my opinion there were next to nothing positive about that game.

That you disliked the game immensely does not necessarily mean they were doing something they didn't want to do, only that they ended up doing things you didn't want.  

The consequence in either case is the same, a game you don't like, but assuming they could only make one because they're trying to appeal to some unknown other is kind of arrogant.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 octobre 2012 - 07:53 .

[upsettingshorts]

David Gaider wrote...

You don't need to play amateur economist to convince us that your opinions are valid.

What if I play amateur prophet, and claim God told me He wants you to implement the features I like?

[Realmzmaster]

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.

I played all the Bethesda games you mentioned passionately. Oblivion is still the worst of the lot. I refuse to buy Skyrim and yes I have played it at a friends home. I do not like the changes. I know Bethedsa has it own active forums. I also know that Bethesda is not going back to the way it was in Morrowind. Not given that Skyrim did extremely well. So why would I waste my effort in that direction?

I like many of the ideas in DA2. It is the execution I found lacking. That is why I am here to make sure that the nay-sayers are not the only voices heard.

[TMZuk]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

TMZuk wrote...

The fact that there was so little to like about DA2, I suppose. there was several things about DA:O I did not like, but the pros outweighed the cons by a good margen. Not so in DA2. In my opinion there were next to nothing positive about that game.

That you disliked the game immensely does not necessarily mean they were doing something they didn't want to do, only that they ended up doing things you didn't want.  

The consequence in either case is the same, a game you don't like, but assuming they could only make one because they're trying to appeal to some unknown other is kind of arrogant.

I do believe you are attempting to ascribe me opinions I don't hold. I would think that when a company markets a product that is dissapointing, those dissapointed by it will attempt to figure out why it was dissapointing and how that happened. I believe Bioware was aiming to broadly, and I believe they failed. You might hold a different opinion, which you are entitled to. I don't see, however, how my opinion is more arrogant than yours.

[upsettingshorts]

TMZuk wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

TMZuk wrote...

The fact that there was so little to like about DA2, I suppose. there was several things about DA:O I did not like, but the pros outweighed the cons by a good margen. Not so in DA2. In my opinion there were next to nothing positive about that game.

That you disliked the game immensely does not necessarily mean they were doing something they didn't want to do, only that they ended up doing things you didn't want.  

The consequence in either case is the same, a game you don't like, but assuming they could only make one because they're trying to appeal to some unknown other is kind of arrogant.

I do believe you are attempting to ascribe me opinions I don't hold. I would think that when a company markets a product that is dissapointing, those dissapointed by it will attempt to figure out why it was dissapointing and how that happened. I believe Bioware was aiming to broadly, and I believe they failed. You might hold a different opinion, which you are entitled to. I don't see, however, how my opinion is more arrogant than yours.

What.  No.

You said, essentially, that you believe BioWare is going against their instincts to make a game they think will appeal to more customers.  The reason you gave in support of this position is that you thought Dragon Age 2 was really bad.

I said that thinking BioWare must have gone against its own instincts in making DA2 because you didn't like it was arrogant, because it assumes BioWare couldn't have actually wanted to make a game you didn't like.

Why couldn't have BioWare just made a game they wanted to, but was controversial and has very vocal critics?  If this was not the case, then why are they keeping several of the features that led to some of the loudest complaints here?

[TMZuk]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

......

What.  No.

You said, essentially, that you believe BioWare is going against their instincts to make a game they think will appeal to more customers.  The reason you gave in support of this position is that you thought Dragon Age 2 was really bad.

I said that thinking BioWare must have gone against its own instincts in making DA2 because you didn't like it was arrogant, because it assumes BioWare couldn't have actually wanted to make a game you didn't like.

Why couldn't have BioWare just made a game they wanted to, but was controversial and has very vocal critics?  If this was not the case, then why are they keeping several of the features that led to some of the loudest complaints here?

No! I said that Bioware was attempting to appeal to wide. I didn't say they were going against their instincts. If anything, I said that, in MY opinion, their instincts were wrong. I could also speculate that the top-level EA bosses had an influence on why the game was released way to early, but that is pure speculation on my part.

[marktcameron]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

TMZuk wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

TMZuk wrote...

The fact that there was so little to like about DA2, I suppose. there was several things about DA:O I did not like, but the pros outweighed the cons by a good margen. Not so in DA2. In my opinion there were next to nothing positive about that game.

That you disliked the game immensely does not necessarily mean they were doing something they didn't want to do, only that they ended up doing things you didn't want.  

The consequence in either case is the same, a game you don't like, but assuming they could only make one because they're trying to appeal to some unknown other is kind of arrogant.

I do believe you are attempting to ascribe me opinions I don't hold. I would think that when a company markets a product that is dissapointing, those dissapointed by it will attempt to figure out why it was dissapointing and how that happened. I believe Bioware was aiming to broadly, and I believe they failed. You might hold a different opinion, which you are entitled to. I don't see, however, how my opinion is more arrogant than yours.

What.  No.

You said, essentially, that you believe BioWare is going against their instincts to make a game they think will appeal to more customers.  The reason you gave in support of this position is that you thought Dragon Age 2 was really bad.

I said that thinking BioWare must have gone against its own instincts in making DA2 because you didn't like it was arrogant, because it assumes BioWare couldn't have actually wanted to make a game you didn't like.

Why couldn't have BioWare just made a game they wanted to, but was controversial and has very vocal critics?  If this was not the case, then why are they keeping several of the features that led to some of the loudest complaints here?

You dont make any sense at all

[Vandicus]

TMZuk wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

......

What.  No.

You said, essentially, that you believe BioWare is going against their instincts to make a game they think will appeal to more customers.  The reason you gave in support of this position is that you thought Dragon Age 2 was really bad.

I said that thinking BioWare must have gone against its own instincts in making DA2 because you didn't like it was arrogant, because it assumes BioWare couldn't have actually wanted to make a game you didn't like.

Why couldn't have BioWare just made a game they wanted to, but was controversial and has very vocal critics?  If this was not the case, then why are they keeping several of the features that led to some of the loudest complaints here?

No! I said that Bioware was attempting to appeal to wide. I didn't say they were going against their instincts. If anything, I said that, in MY opinion, their instincts were wrong. I could also speculate that the top-level EA bosses had an influence on why the game was released way to early, but that is pure speculation on my part.

How can they change their direction to cater to a group while at the same time sticking with their artistic vision? The requisite change in direction seems to make that impossible.

*EDIT

In other words, your statements implicitly state that Bioware is not following its artistic vision but is pandering to a particular group which you are not a part of.

Modifié par Vandicus, 04 octobre 2012 - 08:16 .

[Galactus_the_Devourer]

B.Combat(DA:O had clunky combat and was horribly, horribly, unbalanced)

DAO's combat wasn't that good, (and as mentioned, pretty unbalanced) but compared to the mess that was DA2's it was awesome.

You also forgot one really important change: The camera. That's pretty much the thing I'm waiting for right now. To see what kind of camera/perspective there's going to be.

[Vandicus]

Galactus_the_Devourer wrote...

B.Combat(DA:O had clunky combat and was horribly, horribly, unbalanced)

DAO's combat wasn't that good, (and as mentioned, pretty unbalanced) but compared to the mess that was DA2's it was awesome.

You also forgot one really important change: The camera. That's pretty much the thing I'm waiting for right now. To see what kind of camera/perspective there's going to be.

Was the absence of an isometric camera explicitly something done as part of their design philosophy?

[upsettingshorts]

marktcameron wrote...

You dont make any sense at all

Are you serious?  It's not a difficult argument to follow.

My argument isn't complicated.  It's "BioWare wanted to make many of the changes in DA2 because they think it makes for a better game."

The other argument is that there was some other, more cynical motive.  

That's all that's going on here.  It's simple stuff.

Galactus_the_Devourer wrote...

You also forgot one really important change: The camera. That's pretty much the thing I'm waiting for right now. To see what kind of camera/perspective there's going to be. 

The camera was a design decision, and one I will give Mike Laidlaw crap for every opportunity I get seeing as he himself said in the lead up to DA2's release that the free camera was necessary for tactical gameplay.

We will see what happens in DA3, because the camera in DA2 was often heinous.  

But really, there's no way in hell that change was meant to appeal to first person shooter gamers.  That's just absurd.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 octobre 2012 - 08:22 .

[Fallstar]

Vandicus wrote...

Galactus_the_Devourer wrote...

B.Combat(DA:O had clunky combat and was horribly, horribly, unbalanced)

DAO's combat wasn't that good, (and as mentioned, pretty unbalanced) but compared to the mess that was DA2's it was awesome.

You also forgot one really important change: The camera. That's pretty much the thing I'm waiting for right now. To see what kind of camera/perspective there's going to be.

Was the absence of an isometric camera explicitly something done as part of their design philosophy?

I hope not, seeing as use of the tactical camera is entirely optional. Removing it only detracted from the game, it added nothing. Same thing with item descriptions. Hopefully they both make a reappearance in DA3.

Modifié par DuskWarden, 04 octobre 2012 - 08:22 .

[marktcameron]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

marktcameron wrote...

You dont make any sense at all

Are you serious?  It's not a difficult argument to follow.

My argument isn't complicated.  It's "BioWare wanted to make many of the changes in DA2 because they think it makes for a better game."

The other argument is that there was some other, more cynical motive.  

That's all that's going on here.  It's simple stuff.

but you believe the first that's what make no sense

[Galactus_the_Devourer]

Vandicus wrote...

Galactus_the_Devourer wrote...

B.Combat(DA:O had clunky combat and was horribly, horribly, unbalanced)

DAO's combat wasn't that good, (and as mentioned, pretty unbalanced) but compared to the mess that was DA2's it was awesome.

You also forgot one really important change: The camera. That's pretty much the thing I'm waiting for right now. To see what kind of camera/perspective there's going to be.

Was the absence of an isometric camera explicitly something done as part of their design philosophy?

It was part of making the game more "action-focused", so yes. 

[unbentbuzzkill]

attempting to appeal to a wider audience is just good business, trying to appeal to a wider audience while ignoring your core fanbase is suicide

[ianvillan]

Vandicus wrote...

Galactus_the_Devourer wrote...

B.Combat(DA:O had clunky combat and was horribly, horribly, unbalanced)

DAO's combat wasn't that good, (and as mentioned, pretty unbalanced) but compared to the mess that was DA2's it was awesome.

You also forgot one really important change: The camera. That's pretty much the thing I'm waiting for right now. To see what kind of camera/perspective there's going to be.

Was the absence of an isometric camera explicitly something done as part of their design philosophy?

Well Bioware did mention how they designed great celings and that if you had isometric view the player could miss them.

They also said that it was difficult to design combat encounters when you could see what was behind walls (how parachuting enemies is a better combat encounter than isometric I dont know)

[Vandicus]

Galactus_the_Devourer wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

Galactus_the_Devourer wrote...

B.Combat(DA:O had clunky combat and was horribly, horribly, unbalanced)

DAO's combat wasn't that good, (and as mentioned, pretty unbalanced) but compared to the mess that was DA2's it was awesome.

You also forgot one really important change: The camera. That's pretty much the thing I'm waiting for right now. To see what kind of camera/perspective there's going to be.

Was the absence of an isometric camera explicitly something done as part of their design philosophy?

It was part of making the game more "action-focused", so yes. 

Did they explictly state this? Seeing as the view was optional in the first place the natural assumption is that it was also on the list of things that were cut simply due to lack of time.

[upsettingshorts]

marktcameron wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

marktcameron wrote...

You dont make any sense at all

Are you serious?  It's not a difficult argument to follow.

My argument isn't complicated.  It's "BioWare wanted to make many of the changes in DA2 because they think it makes for a better game."

The other argument is that there was some other, more cynical motive.  

That's all that's going on here.  It's simple stuff.

but you believe the first that's what make no sense

Just so we're clear, you're asserting that my belief that many of the changes made in DA2 were done intentionally makes no sense.

[TMZuk]

Vandicus wrote...

TMZuk wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

......

What.  No.

You said, essentially, that you believe BioWare is going against their instincts to make a game they think will appeal to more customers.  The reason you gave in support of this position is that you thought Dragon Age 2 was really bad.

I said that thinking BioWare must have gone against its own instincts in making DA2 because you didn't like it was arrogant, because it assumes BioWare couldn't have actually wanted to make a game you didn't like.

Why couldn't have BioWare just made a game they wanted to, but was controversial and has very vocal critics?  If this was not the case, then why are they keeping several of the features that led to some of the loudest complaints here?

No! I said that Bioware was attempting to appeal to wide. I didn't say they were going against their instincts. If anything, I said that, in MY opinion, their instincts were wrong. I could also speculate that the top-level EA bosses had an influence on why the game was released way to early, but that is pure speculation on my part.

How can they change their direction to cater to a group while at the same time sticking with their artistic vision? The requisite change in direction seems to make that impossible.

*EDIT

In other words, your statements implicitly state that Bioware is not following its artistic vision but is pandering to a particular group which you are not a part of.

EA/Bioware is a big business coorporation. They might have an artistic vision, sure. But it has to earn them money.

And I ~believe~ Bioware ~was~ pandering to too many groups, and therefore failed at delievering to any of them. Why would they do that? In an attempt to increase their revenue. The wider the audience, the more copies sold. So I -believe- they reasoned like this: We take out many of the hardcore roleplay elements, we add fast and furious combat, we simplify the interactions and hopefully we'll have a game that will sell five million copies.

As it turned out they didn't.

This is getting stale, so I'll let you have the last word.

Modifié par TMZuk, 04 octobre 2012 - 08:31 .

[Allan Schumacher]

ianvillan wrote...

The devs seem fine to mention features of DA2 that are returning, but are quiet about any Origins features that might be coming back.

Before DA2 was released we heard how it would have all the best of Origins, now Bioware says how the next game will have elements of both games and will mention DA2 systems returning but no Origins systems, it makes me wonder what Origin features Bioware think were any good and if DA2 already had everything that was good about Origins already what is left to add.

Part of this is actually in an effort to help inform you guys so you can manage your expectations.

If there were groups of fans adamantly talking about how they just hated some element of DAO that we were definitely going to put in for DA3, there's a bit more incentive to talk about it just as an "FYI" so that you aren't punched in the gut when a month before release we say "Oh yeah, this other feature is back in now too."

If you'd prefer, we could keep dead silent about what we've decided on some of the controversial hot topics from DA2, only for you to find out about the fact that they're still in when you actually start playing the game.


I'd rather not go into overhype mode at this point (when we haven't even really shown something) while at the same time being straight up and honest with the fanbase that some of the divisive issues for DA2 that groups here speak out against are still going to be in.

If DA3 turns out to be an amazingly awesome game that ianvillain loves, I'd much rather he start out cynical and skeptical with no uncertain expectations about some features he may not care for, and then as more information comes out (and more decisions finalized) ianvillain goes "Hmmm, maybe I'll pick up this game after all.  Some of this stuff does seem pretty neat."

It doesn't do any fan any good if we are evasive about some of these answers because then it just comes off like we're trying to sell it purely on the potential that it might be different, provide a false hope, only to have you be disappointed because the feature is still present.