244 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

I'd just like to say I approve of Blair's new avatar to the fullest.

Rock and/or roll.

[Korusus]

Blair Brown wrote...

Maybe its Mikes goal right now because fans are clamoring for more tactical and better combat than what was in DA2, and they're trying to figure that out? Maybe he is focusing more on that specific thing because the writing team is knocking it out of the park? Or insert any other hypothetical reason, etc etc.

You can count me as one of those that actually does care about the combat, and that found DA2 an unpleasurable, unplayable experience because of it, and will never give BioWare money for a "button awesome" game again.  I do want tactical party-based combat.  I already know BioWare is going to knock the story out of the park because they always do, that's always been BioWare's strength, I have no doubt it will continue to be BioWare's strength.  Story was lacking in DA2 but it was far...far.....FAR from being the game's only or even close to its main problem.

That said, ME3's ending was a travesty of epic proportions unworthy of the name BioWare and I'm not even a die-hard Mass Effect fan. If that level of insular decision making has infected the Dragon Age team then this game is DOA.

Also Blair, from a Dev's perspective, isn't it possible that level of negativity that you perceive has a lot to do with...I don't know...DA2 being bad?

Modifié par Korusus, 02 novembre 2012 - 02:00 .

[Realmzmaster]

But that is where opinions differ. I did not find DA2 to be bad. I told Bioware what I thought the faults of the game were and what I liked about DA2. Bad is subjective. Criticism can be stated without being negative , snarky, insulting or taking an aggressive tone. The developers are people just like we are. Would we like to be addressed the way some of the developers have been addressed on this forum?
That is what I keep in mind when I type my responses on this forum. I try my best to be civil, because that is how I wish to be addressed.

[Fast Jimmy]

Korusus wrote...

Also Blair, from a Dev's perspective, isn't it possible that level of negativity that you perceive has a lot to do with...I don't know...DA2 being bad?

This type of comment helps nothing and only seeks to alienate the very devs and game makers who DO dare to post here. 

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised why they view the forums as being hostile or overly negative.


One thing I have enjoyed is just talking with the devs about games. Not games they are even making, neccessarily... just gaming in general. I have to assume they love it, given that they have devoted their lives to it and would have a unique perspective to the conversation.

Blair, do you have a weigh in on what you believe the value of story in video games is? Or how things like choice or the endings plays into that?

[Fiddzz]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Korusus wrote...

Also Blair, from a Dev's perspective, isn't it possible that level of negativity that you perceive has a lot to do with...I don't know...DA2 being bad?

This type of comment helps nothing and only seeks to alienate the very devs and game makers who DO dare to post here. 

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised why they view the forums as being hostile or overly negative.


One thing I have enjoyed is just talking with the devs about games. Not games they are even making, neccessarily... just gaming in general. I have to assume they love it, given that they have devoted their lives to it and would have a unique perspective to the conversation.

Blair, do you have a weigh in on what you believe the value of story in video games is? Or how things like choice or the endings plays into that?

Korusus wrote...

Also Blair, from a Dev's perspective, isn't it possible that level of negativity that you perceive has a lot to do with...I don't know...DA2 being bad?

To answer that first,

A) it is your opinion
other people have different ones, (i liked DA2 before i started working here)
C) as I said in previous posts, its perception, when you work very hard all day trying to make an amazing game for our fans to enjoy, and then hop on the forums to 30 threads of FOR EXAMPLE "no human protagonsit?, im not going to buy this game, you have lost all of my loyalty BioWare, me and all my friends will not support this."  It can be a bummer
D) BUT like I said, you goto the Con's, or see fan art and it's like no, they're just very passionate because they're so emotionally attached to what we are doing, and it refuels the, "man i gota work harder to live up to this"

As for fast jimmys question,

I'm a huge fan of games, all games, so for me it is completly dependant on the game.  I'm heavily into competitive online games like LoL and Starcraft 2, so for those I'm not looking for story, nor care if there is one, its all about balance and the competitive excitement.  But on the completly other end of the spectrim some of my favorite games are FF7 and chrono trigger, which is almost 100% linear story, so it better rock, but then Might and Magic 6 almost has no main story or story telling and I can replay it over and over as well.

For me it pretty much comes down to this, when I sit down to play a game I decide what I want to do (do I want to be engrossed in a deep story, grinding, some online PvP, do a raid with some friends etc etc) and just choose the game that suits the mood.

To weigh in from a much higher perspective of "the gaming industry" I think video games are the greatest form of entertainment we have right now, you can get absolutly lost in them.  Story is a HUGE part of that (i always think to how Half-life changed the industry by making a FPS have a story) so it's very important.  Peoples expectations are getting very high as well as to what good quaility story telling is, which is a good thing, it makes everyone have to push harder to make better games.

Choices are a different thing for me, I do like to have to make them, and have them have consequences, but not overly so.  When I sit around with some friends and we are all talking about the same game, I love the moments where we're all "oh yeah that part with the thing and the other things happening that was AWESOME" and we can all relate.  I wouldnt wan't choices/consequences to be so severe that our coverstaion goes more like "oh yeah that part with the thing and other things happening was awesome right?" ... "oh, no one else did that? cause we all chose different paths.. oh ok, nevermind"

I think dishonored has a nice balance for me, you all end up killing the same guy, but friend A killed him this way, and friend B did this, and I setup a sweet trap etc etc.

Kind of a long post that probably didn't awnser any questions, but I like talking about games 

[AmstradHero]

Blair Brown wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
We've mentioned many times that combat is one of the primary focuses for the team-- indeed, it's Mike's #1 goal. He's even talked about it here, a bit.

This here is what concerns me the most. This is exactly the kind of mentality that got us "button awesome" respawning waves, and hyperspeed combat. Yes, the DAO shuffle of combat was very ordinary, but you know how many players simply didn't care because the game was simply so enjoyable otherwise. I know as Creative Director (that was his title last time I saw) has a lot of things to manage for a project, but prioritising combat (and based on DA2's marketing, it was apparently the #1 focus in that by a significant margin) over other design aspects is potentially concerning as a long term fan.

Over reaction to one sentence Dave Gaider makes is why we are trying to say as little as we can, and be as specific as we can while talking about the game, and keep insisting to please wait for us to SHOW you.  

Dave says "We've mentioned many times that combat is one of the primary focuses for the team-- indeed, it's Mike's #1 goal. "  and everyone suddenly applies their own context to it.  

Maybe its Mikes goal right now because fans are clamoring for more tactical and better combat than what was in DA2, and they're trying to figure that out? Maybe he is focusing more on that specific thing because the writing team is knocking it out of the park? Or insert any other hypothetical reason, etc etc.

Making a broad assumtion of what the creative direction of this game is, off of one sentence Dave says with no context, shouldn't be a launching point to say what you think is and is not happening during the development of DAIII, as if it is fact.

My apologies if I've come across as assuming that combat is the primary focus and everything else has fallen by the way-side. I don't assume that's the case at all, but I do feel there was an over-emphasis on combat in DA2 compared to DAO that played out in both pre-release dicussion and marketing, and I felt that was also reflected in the final product. Hence me raising this concern.

I do think that the combat needs focus, and for one I'd love to see more "utility" introduced into the combat rather than a pure DPS based system which I really think is a detriment to overall combat complexity, especially in a party-based environment. I'm just raising the point that for me (and based upon my broader discussions with others on BioWare games, this applies for many other people as well), combat has never been the primary reason people play a BioWare game. Yes, it helps if it's fun and mentally engaging, but narrative is the real reason why people flock to BioWare games.

In short, I've been a long time BioWare fan, I just want to see the team deliver something that I can really love and rave about to all my friends. I couldn't do that with DA2, but I hope I will be able to do so with DA3.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 02 novembre 2012 - 06:42 .

[obibenjedi]

Has anyone officially said why the endings are so different from the rest of the game/ previous games?

[Bernhardtbr]

Blair Brown wrote...

There is a reason I put "maybe" and "hypothetical" all over that paragraph, no one knows what goes on in that mind of his 

But like i've said in previous threads, we are definatly listening to the fans (one example for me personally is combing through the 'top 5 things you want in DA3 thread', absorbing that information and passing it along to the big decision makers like mike and mark, so they can take that into account)

Oh that´s awesome, so if we insist a lot that we want griffins and Megatron-like evil golems we will get them?

You heard it from the man people, LET`S DO IT!

[Sejborg]

I think they have learnt not to throw the word "awesome" so carelessly around.

[Fast Jimmy]

obibenjedi wrote...

Has anyone officially said why the endings are so different from the rest of the game/ previous games?

I'm not sure what the question here is. Are you asking why the endings for DA2/ME3 were so different than, say, DA:O and ME1?

[Fiddzz]

Bernhardtbr wrote...

Blair Brown wrote...

There is a reason I put "maybe" and "hypothetical" all over that paragraph, no one knows what goes on in that mind of his 

But like i've said in previous threads, we are definatly listening to the fans (one example for me personally is combing through the 'top 5 things you want in DA3 thread', absorbing that information and passing it along to the big decision makers like mike and mark, so they can take that into account)

Oh that´s awesome, so if we insist a lot that we want griffins and Megatron-like evil golems we will get them?

You heard it from the man people, LET`S DO IT!

always a possibility!  I LOVE GRIFFINS!

[Fiddzz]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

obibenjedi wrote...

Has anyone officially said why the endings are so different from the rest of the game/ previous games?

I'm not sure what the question here is. Are you asking why the endings for DA2/ME3 were so different than, say, DA:O and ME1?

I am also a bit confused as to the question.

[Fiddzz]

AmstradHero wrote...

Blair Brown wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
We've mentioned many times that combat is one of the primary focuses for the team-- indeed, it's Mike's #1 goal. He's even talked about it here, a bit.

This here is what concerns me the most. This is exactly the kind of mentality that got us "button awesome" respawning waves, and hyperspeed combat. Yes, the DAO shuffle of combat was very ordinary, but you know how many players simply didn't care because the game was simply so enjoyable otherwise. I know as Creative Director (that was his title last time I saw) has a lot of things to manage for a project, but prioritising combat (and based on DA2's marketing, it was apparently the #1 focus in that by a significant margin) over other design aspects is potentially concerning as a long term fan.

Over reaction to one sentence Dave Gaider makes is why we are trying to say as little as we can, and be as specific as we can while talking about the game, and keep insisting to please wait for us to SHOW you.  

Dave says "We've mentioned many times that combat is one of the primary focuses for the team-- indeed, it's Mike's #1 goal. "  and everyone suddenly applies their own context to it.  

Maybe its Mikes goal right now because fans are clamoring for more tactical and better combat than what was in DA2, and they're trying to figure that out? Maybe he is focusing more on that specific thing because the writing team is knocking it out of the park? Or insert any other hypothetical reason, etc etc.

Making a broad assumtion of what the creative direction of this game is, off of one sentence Dave says with no context, shouldn't be a launching point to say what you think is and is not happening during the development of DAIII, as if it is fact.

My apologies if I've come across as assuming that combat is the primary focus and everything else has fallen by the way-side. I don't assume that's the case at all, but I do feel there was an over-emphasis on combat in DA2 compared to DAO that played out in both pre-release dicussion and marketing, and I felt that was also reflected in the final product. Hence me raising this concern.

I do think that the combat needs focus, and for one I'd love to see more "utility" introduced into the combat rather than a pure DPS based system which I really think is a detriment to overall combat complexity, especially in a party-based environment. I'm just raising the point that for me (and based upon my broader discussions with others on BioWare games, this applies for many other people as well), combat has never been the primary reason people play a BioWare game. Yes, it helps if it's fun and mentally engaging, but narrative is the real reason why people flock to BioWare games.

In short, I've been a long time BioWare fan, I just want to see the team deliver something that I can really love and rave about to all my friends. I couldn't do that with DA2, but I hope I will be able to do so with DA3.

That's what we're all working for,   I want to be able to rave about it to my friends too! 

I agree with the combat points you brought up, for an RPG I prefer more "utility" as you put it, than a pure DPS system.  As for the story, I agree, people flock to our games and know us for that deep and rich story telling with interesting companions, and that will never change, our writing team is top notch.  Now if we can bring up all the other parts of our games (combat, immersion in the world, customization, graphics etc etc) to that level.. well now were talking about a truly amazing gaming experience. 

So when you hear dave or someone else say "mike is focusing on 'x' feature right now" don't think other things are getting left behind, it's quite the opposite, it means were bringing 'x' feature up to the next level 

[Melima]

I've always had a theory (one of my many theories when thinking about the various Dragon Age plots) that there were still a couple, or a handful of Griffins somewhere, secreted away, so as not to become extinct. Top Secret perhaps to only some top Grey Wardens -- maybe in Weisshaupt -- kept to hopefully breed and increase slowly in number. I've thought that Griffins may 'imprint' (nevermind 'Twilight') to only one Grey Warden of choice, and that the Player will be one for a Griffin, though even the Wardens in charge of the creatures may think the Griffins no longer imprint for anyone, after all they've been through. ...just a random thought...

[duckley]

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

They learned that fans will buy their product, regardless if they like it. Sad but true.

You can't please everybody all of the time! I appreciated all the games so far - DA2 was a very good game IMO - especially the character's and the filling in of the overall DA back story and world context. Was it as good as DAO? Nope!  But I am not sure how you top DAO  regardless of  DA2's  flaws that have been discussed ad infinitum.!
 
I hope people will not get so over-hyped for DA3 that they will inevitably be disappointed. Bioware is unique in terms of its development of story and relationships and I would hate to see that lost.. I do believe that Bioware has been vry responsive to fans but as I said at the outset - you can't please everyone all of the time.!

[h0neanias]

Blair Brown wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

obibenjedi wrote...

Has anyone officially said why the endings are so different from the rest of the game/ previous games?

I'm not sure what the question here is. Are you asking why the endings for DA2/ME3 were so different than, say, DA:O and ME1?

I am also a bit confused as to the question.

It seems to be a question about the form, namely the sudden inability to end the newer games in a satisfying manner. I wonder what people thought about the ending of Baldur's Gate back in the day, by the way.

[mopotter]

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

They learned that fans will buy their product, regardless if they like it. Sad but true.

ME3 changed this for me.  I'm not pre-ordering DA3.  If I hear good things about it from people I trust I'll pick it up.  If choices I make don't affect anything or if the endings aren't something I want to see I won't get it.

DA2 had problems but it was fun, I still play it and the endings didn't make me want to hit my head against a wall, or throw something.  ME3 did both.

I personally hope they learned that choices made through out the game should count, if they have said they will.  
And endings should include one where survival for you and your team is possible, as well as having endings where they don't survive.  
I actually liked the way ME2 accomplished this.  I'd rather not have another dark ritual even though after ME3 I don't hate it as much as I did back when I tried every way I could think of to skip it without success.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Blair Brown wrote...
That's what we're all working for,   I want to be able to rave about it to my friends too! 

I agree with the combat points you brought up, for an RPG I prefer more "utility" as you put it, than a pure DPS system.  As for the story, I agree, people flock to our games and know us for that deep and rich story telling with interesting companions, and that will never change, our writing team is top notch.  Now if we can bring up all the other parts of our games (combat, immersion in the world, customization, graphics etc etc) to that level.. well now were talking about a truly amazing gaming experience. 

So when you hear dave or someone else say "mike is focusing on 'x' feature right now" don't think other things are getting left behind, it's quite the opposite, it means were bringing 'x' feature up to the next level 

I would usually agree. But I think the writing in DA2 and ME3 was really below Bioware standards.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 02 novembre 2012 - 07:58 .

[mopotter]

WhiteThunder wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...
I personally hope they learned that while DA ][ was a step in the wrong direction, it was better than anything else that came out that year outside of Skyrim.

please, stop dealing in opinions, people, because they're subjective.

So, DA ][ was better than Shogun 2, Portal 2, The Witcher 2, Deus Ex: HR, FIFA 12, Dark Souls, Arkham City, Battlefield 3 and Skyward Sword.  Really?

Well, I'd have to say for me it was.  ME1 and 2 were also better and I enjoyed DA2.  None of the games you mentioned were games I had any interest in.  So for me, yes.  it was better.   Subjective is the right word.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

mopotter wrote...

WhiteThunder wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...
I personally hope they learned that while DA ][ was a step in the wrong direction, it was better than anything else that came out that year outside of Skyrim.

please, stop dealing in opinions, people, because they're subjective.

So, DA ][ was better than Shogun 2, Portal 2, The Witcher 2, Deus Ex: HR, FIFA 12, Dark Souls, Arkham City, Battlefield 3 and Skyward Sword.  Really?

Well, I'd have to say for me it was.  ME1 and 2 were also better and I enjoyed DA2.  None of the games you mentioned were games I had any interest in.  So for me, yes.  it was better.   Subjective is the right word.

Dragon Age 2 was a bad game in almost every way. It's possible to enjoy bad games, but it doesn't change the fact that it was objectively bad compared to other top tier games and even the original Dragon Age.

[mopotter]

Bernhardtbr wrote...

I´ve personally bought ME 3 on release because I really like Bioware.

Will think twice about doing that again. So quality does matter to keep a loyal fanbase and in that sense I do hope they learned something. It´s not that their approach was 100% bad, it just needs some polishing here and there.

And I personally have pre-ordered ever game they have made since KOTOR.  But after ME3 I won't be pre-ordering DA3.  If I hear good things about it from people I trust, I'll buy it in a heart beat.  But for the 1st time,  I don't see any way I will be pre-ordering a BW game.

[mopotter]

iakus wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Farbautisonn wrote...
Sir, Thats grand. You have told us you wont show or tell till you have something to show and tell. We undestand. However... that does little in the way of ensuring you have learned from DA2 and ME3 and everything in between. Infact it only makes us more insecure, more sceptical.

If that's the case, then prepare to be insecure and skeptical for some time to come. If we were simply to say "we've learned this", chances are that a skeptical person still wouldn't believe us until and unless we had something to back up such statements... indeed, we have talked about some of these things already at several of the con presentations, and if you consider those things irrelevant it's not like more along the same line will actually help you any.

For myself, I'd rather wait and see when it's ready than be promised the sun, the moon, and the stars only to be disappointed later.

I actually agree with this also, though maybe not for the same reason.  Part of my great disappointment with ME3's ending was I expected too much, based on past games, past BW experience and pr hype.  

He's right, I wouldn't believe them,  I'd have doubts, feeling like it was just pr talk, candy coating.  I will need the actual game.  I'll just keep hoping that the actual game is a good as I know they can do.

[mopotter]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

mopotter wrote...

WhiteThunder wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...
I personally hope they learned that while DA ][ was a step in the wrong direction, it was better than anything else that came out that year outside of Skyrim.

please, stop dealing in opinions, people, because they're subjective.

So, DA ][ was better than Shogun 2, Portal 2, The Witcher 2, Deus Ex: HR, FIFA 12, Dark Souls, Arkham City, Battlefield 3 and Skyward Sword.  Really?

Well, I'd have to say for me it was.  ME1 and 2 were also better and I enjoyed DA2.  None of the games you mentioned were games I had any interest in.  So for me, yes.  it was better.   Subjective is the right word.

Dragon Age 2 was a bad game in almost every way. It's possible to enjoy bad games, but it doesn't change the fact that it was objectively bad compared to other top tier games and even the original Dragon Age.

I don't replay games that I don't enjoy and that is what I consider a bad game.  Lack of enjoyment.  A bad game, for me, is one I have no interest in replaying and if I don't replay it I get rid of it or put it somewhere.  DA:O; DA2, ME1 and ME2 were not bad games for me.   There are many people who found ME3 a great game including the endings.  For me - that was a bad game and I don't play it.  

[abaris]

I spent countless hours on DAO. Because of believable and mostly loveable characters, interactions and a feeling of immersion that's a must for any RPG game I'm interested in. I would give it a 10 out of 10, meaning that from my perspective everything was done right and occasional bugs and tidbits didn't bother me at all.

Now, with DAII I never even made it though the demo. True, combat is the least important feature for me when playing RPGs, but what I saw there was enough to put me off. I didn't want to feel like a monkey on speed.

I'm well prepared to give Bioware the benefit of the doubt here and I hope that a solid game will come out. A game that's not a button mash fest and a game that doesn't have a tacked on multiplayer to try catering to a crowd that usually isn't interested in playing fantasy settings in the first place.

I have my serious doubts, but I am prepared to be pleasantly surprised by the finished product. It's only that - given the recent track record - I will wait and see what other users will have to say before considering to open my wallet.

[Realmzmaster]

While I on the other hand have countless hours in both DAO and DA2. Bad as I said is subjective. I do not consider DA2 to be bad. I enjoyed it immensely. DA2 provide hours of fun and enjoyment for me. I will be pre-ordering DA3. Everyone else YMMV.