267 réponses à ce sujet

[marktcameron]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

YUP

[upsettingshorts]

marktcameron wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

YUP

This is what the BSN actually believes.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 octobre 2012 - 08:33 .

[Galactus_the_Devourer]

Vandicus wrote...

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.

To be honest, that's not really an excuse:  Lots of games have isometric views and Fog of War/Line of Sight rules. (I know BG2 did, and I think even DAO did)

Honestly, the move away from combat being a strategy/tactical game and into an action-game is probably the part of Bioware's development I've grown to be the most disappointed with: RPG has always been kind to strategy gaming (my other favourite genre) to me. That's why I loved DAO so much: It was a return to that style of game, after the fun but not great KOTOR, Jade Empire and Mass Effect games.

 

[Allan Schumacher]

DuskWarden wrote...

ReggarBlane wrote...

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?

I play COD, I've bought all of them since COD3 and I still play MW2 online multiplayer and BO zombies. I think they're great fun. I'm also a massive fan of DA, all the FOs, NWN, TES and a couple of MMOs. The two markets are not mutually exclusive. They aren't even two separate markets. If a COD players wants to play a game like COD, guess what they do. Play COD. The idea of streamlining your game to appeal to another audience is silly.

To be fair, looking at it from another perspective, there are games that I play simply because they DO have RPG elements.  I played the first Gran Turismo simply because I liked the progression system of the game which I considered to be similar to many things I like in RPGs.  I felt that Deus Ex (arguably an RPG anyways) and System Shock 2 (same deal) were great games that started to genre blur FPS with RPG.

I'm eagerly awaiting NBA 2k13 since the "MyCareer" mode is basically an RPG sports game.  Even a game like NOLF 2 was enhanced simply by having elements of character progression to allow me to differentiate playthroughs and this idea that I'm defining a character that becomes more badass as I play the game.


Some of these games (NBA 2k13 in particular) are games I wouldn't pick up if said feature didn't exist at all.

[Realmzmaster]

Many posters here felt that DA2 was a bad game. I did not. My opinion carries as much weight as anyone on this forum. I thought execution was lacking in some areas, but I was happy with the overall design and focus of the game others were not.

I assume that Bioware made the game Bioware wanted to make in the time frame it imposed on itself. Many of the DA2 points that Bioware stated they were keeping came out of discussions on this forum. Bioware was specifically asked if the dialogue wheel and paraphrases were staying. The answer was yes, but Bioware will be enhancing the wheel. Is Bioware keeping the voiced protagonist? The answer was yes. Is Bioware keeping the DA2 artstyle? The answer is probably yes, depending the capabilities of the Frostbite 2 engine. The design may be further enhanced.
Will there be a tactical camera? That is a technical question that depends on the capability of the Frostbite engine ( I assume it can handle a tactical camera) and the amount of modifications that must be done.The same can be said with all of the above.

Appealing to a larger customer base and gaining market share is what any good company is suppose to strive for and sometimes it comes at the cost of the established base. That is a business decision. I may or may not like it, but I am not in the position to make that call.

A lot of posters like to put down the suits, but without the suits games do not get made and even if made do not come out in a reasonable time frame while still making a reasonable profit.

Kingdom of Amalur and 38 Studios shows what can happen when a company makes a decent game but overspends because it fail to watch its finances.

[Fallstar]

Realmzmaster wrote...
Appealing to a larger customer base and gaining market share is what any good company is suppose to strive for and sometimes it comes at the cost of the established base. That is a business decision. I may or may not like it, but I am not in the position to make that call.

If your core audience was larger than the audience you managed to attract, and you alienated much of your core audience through changes designed to attract a wider audience, then that was a bad business decision. I'm not saying that's what happened with DA2, just that you should be careful with how much you're willing to give up to attract more people.

Modifié par DuskWarden, 04 octobre 2012 - 08:36 .

[marktcameron]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

DuskWarden wrote...

ReggarBlane wrote...

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?

I play COD, I've bought all of them since COD3 and I still play MW2 online multiplayer and BO zombies. I think they're great fun. I'm also a massive fan of DA, all the FOs, NWN, TES and a couple of MMOs. The two markets are not mutually exclusive. They aren't even two separate markets. If a COD players wants to play a game like COD, guess what they do. Play COD. The idea of streamlining your game to appeal to another audience is silly.

To be fair, looking at it from another perspective, there are games that I play simply because they DO have RPG elements.  I played the first Gran Turismo simply because I liked the progression system of the game which I considered to be similar to many things I like in RPGs.  I felt that Deus Ex (arguably an RPG anyways) and System Shock 2 (same deal) were great games that started to genre blur FPS with RPG.

I'm eagerly awaiting NBA 2k13 since the "MyCareer" mode is basically an RPG sports game.  Even a game like NOLF 2 was enhanced simply by having elements of character progression to allow me to differentiate playthroughs and this idea that I'm defining a character that becomes more badass as I play the game.


Some of these games (NBA 2k13 in particular) are games I wouldn't pick up if said feature didn't exist at all.

sorry but you don't make any sense at all no one buys a game because it has a little bit of  rpg elements in it.

[ianvillan]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

I do apreciate that it is a difficult position for Bioware to be in, but it is frustrating seeing features from DA2 being confirmed as in but when it comes to Origins features there is silence.

I keep mentioning the Isometric view because that was a major topic about its removal even Mike Laidlaw said it is an essencial part of tactical game play, yet when me and others ask if there are plans to bring it back there is nothing as if it was just a pointless feature from Origins.

[Vandicus]

marktcameron wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

DuskWarden wrote...

ReggarBlane wrote...

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?

I play COD, I've bought all of them since COD3 and I still play MW2 online multiplayer and BO zombies. I think they're great fun. I'm also a massive fan of DA, all the FOs, NWN, TES and a couple of MMOs. The two markets are not mutually exclusive. They aren't even two separate markets. If a COD players wants to play a game like COD, guess what they do. Play COD. The idea of streamlining your game to appeal to another audience is silly.

To be fair, looking at it from another perspective, there are games that I play simply because they DO have RPG elements.  I played the first Gran Turismo simply because I liked the progression system of the game which I considered to be similar to many things I like in RPGs.  I felt that Deus Ex (arguably an RPG anyways) and System Shock 2 (same deal) were great games that started to genre blur FPS with RPG.

I'm eagerly awaiting NBA 2k13 since the "MyCareer" mode is basically an RPG sports game.  Even a game like NOLF 2 was enhanced simply by having elements of character progression to allow me to differentiate playthroughs and this idea that I'm defining a character that becomes more badass as I play the game.


Some of these games (NBA 2k13 in particular) are games I wouldn't pick up if said feature didn't exist at all.

sorry but you don't make any sense at all no one buys a game because it has a little bit of  rpg elements in it.

So are you saying that Allan Schumacher does not exist?

[upsettingshorts]

marktcameron wrote...

sorry but you don't make any sense at all no one buys a game because it has a little bit of  rpg elements in it.

Any web developers around that can program me a script that plays a laugh track whenever I read a marktcameron post?

[rapscallioness]

yeah they do. It may not be the only reason, but it can tip the deal.

[Galactus_the_Devourer]

I keep mentioning the Isometric view because that was a major topic about its removal even Mike Laidlaw said it is an essencial part of tactical game play, yet when me and others ask if there are plans to bring it back there is nothing as if it was just a pointless feature from Origins.

Precisely, it seems like a fairly easy "Yes or no" question to me. It doesen't spoil anything storywise, and it seems to be a decision that you'd want to make as early in the process as possible. So the lack of a confirmation is well, kinda worrying. Especially since it's a bit of a make-or-break issue for me.

[upsettingshorts]

Galactus_the_Devourer wrote...

I keep mentioning the Isometric view because that was a major topic about its removal even Mike Laidlaw said it is an essencial part of tactical game play, yet when me and others ask if there are plans to bring it back there is nothing as if it was just a pointless feature from Origins.

Precisely, it seems like a fairly easy "Yes or no" question to me. It doesen't spoil anything storywise, and it seems to be a decision that you'd want to make as early in the process as possible. So the lack of a confirmation is well, kinda worrying. Especially since it's a bit of a make-or-break issue for me.

DA2 allegedly had a free camera for months up until the point when it didn't.  So I'm guessing it isn't an easy yes or no question.  I mean I don't understand why it isn't, but I'm not a professional game developer.

[Vandicus]

Galactus_the_Devourer wrote...

I keep mentioning the Isometric view because that was a major topic about its removal even Mike Laidlaw said it is an essencial part of tactical game play, yet when me and others ask if there are plans to bring it back there is nothing as if it was just a pointless feature from Origins.

Precisely, it seems like a fairly easy "Yes or no" question to me. It doesen't spoil anything storywise, and it seems to be a decision that you'd want to make as early in the process as possible. So the lack of a confirmation is well, kinda worrying. Especially since it's a bit of a make-or-break issue for me.

Not to trivialize your concerns here, but its probably not the highest feature on their priority list. I'm no programming or development expert, but it would seem to me that this is something done fairly late in development, as its a quality of life feature that for most people does not determine whether a game is playable. It may very well be possible that they don't know whether they'll have time to add it, that they have someone working on it and its unknown whether it will be finished in time, or that they have decided not to include it. This seems to be a situation where the silence isn't really indicative one way or the other.

[Galactus_the_Devourer]

Vandicus wrote...

Galactus_the_Devourer wrote...

I keep mentioning the Isometric view because that was a major topic about its removal even Mike Laidlaw said it is an essencial part of tactical game play, yet when me and others ask if there are plans to bring it back there is nothing as if it was just a pointless feature from Origins.

Precisely, it seems like a fairly easy "Yes or no" question to me. It doesen't spoil anything storywise, and it seems to be a decision that you'd want to make as early in the process as possible. So the lack of a confirmation is well, kinda worrying. Especially since it's a bit of a make-or-break issue for me.

Not to trivialize your concerns here, but its probably not the highest feature on their priority list. I'm no programming or development expert, but it would seem to me that this is something done fairly late in development, as its a quality of life feature that for most people does not determine whether a game is playable. It may very well be possible that they don't know whether they'll have time to add it, that they have someone working on it and its unknown whether it will be finished in time, or that they have decided not to include it. This seems to be a situation where the silence isn't really indicative one way or the other.

The point is, it would seem to be a feature you'd have to decide to include or exclude relatively early on. (since you might have to change a lot of stuff with a different type of camera to avoid clipping, seeing things you shouldn't, etc. etc.) 

EDIT: In other words, it seems like one thing you'd want to have decided BEFORE you start building levels and creating environments at the very least. 

Modifié par Galactus_the_Devourer, 04 octobre 2012 - 08:49 .

[Vandicus]

Galactus_the_Devourer wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

Galactus_the_Devourer wrote...

I keep mentioning the Isometric view because that was a major topic about its removal even Mike Laidlaw said it is an essencial part of tactical game play, yet when me and others ask if there are plans to bring it back there is nothing as if it was just a pointless feature from Origins.

Precisely, it seems like a fairly easy "Yes or no" question to me. It doesen't spoil anything storywise, and it seems to be a decision that you'd want to make as early in the process as possible. So the lack of a confirmation is well, kinda worrying. Especially since it's a bit of a make-or-break issue for me.

Not to trivialize your concerns here, but its probably not the highest feature on their priority list. I'm no programming or development expert, but it would seem to me that this is something done fairly late in development, as its a quality of life feature that for most people does not determine whether a game is playable. It may very well be possible that they don't know whether they'll have time to add it, that they have someone working on it and its unknown whether it will be finished in time, or that they have decided not to include it. This seems to be a situation where the silence isn't really indicative one way or the other.

The point is, it would seem to be a feature you'd have to decide to include or exclude relatively early on. (since you might have to change a lot of stuff with a different type of camera to avoid clipping, seeing things you shouldn't, etc. etc.) 

EDIT: In other words, it seems like one thing you'd want to have decided BEFORE you start building levels and creating environments at the very least. 

Yet the problems it had in DA:O seemed indicative that they added it on after building levels and creating environments. It can be added at various points in the life cycle for various reasons. Doesn't seem like absence of comment on it, especially this soon after the game's announcement, means anything one way or the other.

[marktcameron]

[quote]Upsettingshorts wrote...

[quote]marktcameron wrote...

sorry but you don't make any sense at all no one buys a game because it has a little bit of  rpg elements in it.[/quote]

Any web developers around that can program me a script that plays a laugh track whenever I read a marktcameron post?

[/quote
I can say the same thing for you.

[marktcameron]

rapscallioness wrote...

yeah they do. It may not be the only reason, but it can tip the deal.

No it cant.

[upsettingshorts]

marktcameron wrote...

rapscallioness wrote...

yeah they do. It may not be the only reason, but it can tip the deal.

No it cant.

Real marktcameron opinions:  "Consumers aren't swayed by a game's features."

[Icinix]

marktcameron wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

DuskWarden wrote...

ReggarBlane wrote...

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?

I play COD, I've bought all of them since COD3 and I still play MW2 online multiplayer and BO zombies. I think they're great fun. I'm also a massive fan of DA, all the FOs, NWN, TES and a couple of MMOs. The two markets are not mutually exclusive. They aren't even two separate markets. If a COD players wants to play a game like COD, guess what they do. Play COD. The idea of streamlining your game to appeal to another audience is silly.

To be fair, looking at it from another perspective, there are games that I play simply because they DO have RPG elements.  I played the first Gran Turismo simply because I liked the progression system of the game which I considered to be similar to many things I like in RPGs.  I felt that Deus Ex (arguably an RPG anyways) and System Shock 2 (same deal) were great games that started to genre blur FPS with RPG.

I'm eagerly awaiting NBA 2k13 since the "MyCareer" mode is basically an RPG sports game.  Even a game like NOLF 2 was enhanced simply by having elements of character progression to allow me to differentiate playthroughs and this idea that I'm defining a character that becomes more badass as I play the game.


Some of these games (NBA 2k13 in particular) are games I wouldn't pick up if said feature didn't exist at all.

sorry but you don't make any sense at all no one buys a game because it has a little bit of  rpg elements in it.

*raises hand*

...actually when I see a game like Prey 2 - I ignore it - get told it has a little bit of RPG in it - suddenly I'm following its progress.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

DA2 allegedly had a free camera for months up until the point when it didn't.  So I'm guessing it isn't an easy yes or no question.  I mean I don't understand why it isn't, but I'm not a professional game developer.

I expect it was a resource allocation problem.  Allowing the camera to be more places means there's a greater range of possible loads on the CPU and GPU - that would take longer to test, and they only had 11 months to make and test the whole game.

I would be surprised if we didn't get a free-roaming camera back for DA3.  If we don't, I'm going to need a detailed explanation.

[marktcameron]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

marktcameron wrote...

rapscallioness wrote...

yeah they do. It may not be the only reason, but it can tip the deal.

No it cant.

Real marktcameron opinions:  "Consumers aren't swayed by a game's features."

lol you actually believe that having little bit of rpg elements sales the game now i know why bioware has gone to dirt thank you for making it easier to not buy da3.

[upsettingshorts]

marktcameron wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

marktcameron wrote...

rapscallioness wrote...

yeah they do. It may not be the only reason, but it can tip the deal.

No it cant.

Real marktcameron opinions:  "Consumers aren't swayed by a game's features."

lol you actually believe that having little bit of rpg elements sales the game now i know why bioware has gone to dirt thank you for making it easier to not buy da3.

Real marktcameron opinions:  "Upsettingshorts says RPG features increase the appeal of titles in other genres, such as NBA 2k13.  This means DA3 will be bad and BioWare is a bad company."

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 octobre 2012 - 09:09 .

[marktcameron]

Icinix wrote...

marktcameron wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

DuskWarden wrote...

ReggarBlane wrote...

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?

I play COD, I've bought all of them since COD3 and I still play MW2 online multiplayer and BO zombies. I think they're great fun. I'm also a massive fan of DA, all the FOs, NWN, TES and a couple of MMOs. The two markets are not mutually exclusive. They aren't even two separate markets. If a COD players wants to play a game like COD, guess what they do. Play COD. The idea of streamlining your game to appeal to another audience is silly.

To be fair, looking at it from another perspective, there are games that I play simply because they DO have RPG elements.  I played the first Gran Turismo simply because I liked the progression system of the game which I considered to be similar to many things I like in RPGs.  I felt that Deus Ex (arguably an RPG anyways) and System Shock 2 (same deal) were great games that started to genre blur FPS with RPG.

I'm eagerly awaiting NBA 2k13 since the "MyCareer" mode is basically an RPG sports game.  Even a game like NOLF 2 was enhanced simply by having elements of character progression to allow me to differentiate playthroughs and this idea that I'm defining a character that becomes more badass as I play the game.


Some of these games (NBA 2k13 in particular) are games I wouldn't pick up if said feature didn't exist at all.

sorry but you don't make any sense at all no one buys a game because it has a little bit of  rpg elements in it.

*raises hand*

...actually when I see a game like Prey 2 - I ignore it - get told it has a little bit of RPG in it - suddenly I'm following its progress.

Then your a delusional and i feel sorry for gaming and where it's headed.

[Icinix]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

DA2 allegedly had a free camera for months up until the point when it didn't.  So I'm guessing it isn't an easy yes or no question.  I mean I don't understand why it isn't, but I'm not a professional game developer.

I expect it was a resource allocation problem.  Allowing the camera to be more places means there's a greater range of possible loads on the CPU and GPU - that would take longer to test, and they only had 11 months to make and test the whole game.

I would be surprised if we didn't get a free-roaming camera back for DA3.  If we don't, I'm going to need a detailed explanation.

I could be wrong - and I usually am - but I recall a discussion about it being to do with the ceiling of each location (at least in part) and needing to build the game to allow the camera that high.