155 réponses à ce sujet

[LinksOcarina]

google_calasade wrote...

deuce985 wrote...

I just think that whatever Bioware decides to make, it needs to be pure. Either a pure strategic/tactical CRPG or a pure action game with minor RPG elements. I mean this especially on the combat. I don't see a pseudo-action/tactical RPG working out.

When I play a game like that, I'm often wondering what Bioware is trying to accomplish. That's how I felt in DA2. It feels like the combat is trying to be an action game but it comes off rather awkward because they try to retain some tactical elements from DAO. Like pause combat, party control, and skill combos. But like I said above, everything is so frantic in DA2, what is the point of constantly pausing my combat every two seconds to micro-manage? That completely kills what makes action so fun? I don't understand who they're catering to with a combat system like DA2. It lacks the depth for any gamer looking for a more strategic experience and it lacks flow, pacing, and fluidity for a gamer looking for the actionish part.

Pick between being a pure tactical/strategic RPG or a pure ARPG. That way you can focus on improving those mechanics. Not trying to make something between. I just can't see a hybrid combat system ever working well. That's just my opinion though...

Mechanics and features aside...

EA would be far better off going in one direction or the other rather than trying to merge them. Neither the DA 2 nor DA:O camp is interested in a compromise from what I've seen. By trying to appease everyone, EA runs the risk of pissing off both. If people thought the negativity was bad after DA 2, that will be nothing compared to the storm that will hit after disappointing the two sides...a far likelier scenario than pleasing them. At least if they went in one direction or the other one group would be happy for the most part.

man, I feel bad for guys like me who can care less about how it plays, and are along for the ride to enjoy a storyline. 

[LinksOcarina]

google_calasade wrote...

jstme wrote...

I suggest to loose that RPG element then altogether. It uses frostbite? Make it Battlfield: Dragon Age with some kind of short single player campaign ,but tons of multiplayer and microtransactions and there you go.
Suits happy.

I did not want to say anything along those lines, but such a (foolish) move would not surprise me. Why foolish? Because the farther the label Bioware drifts from its roots the more trouble they are going to have. The competition is vastly different than in the 00s, so they can neither afford to rest on their laurels nor morph into something they are not in terms of reputation.

In short, they seriously need to step up their game and ought to do so catering to the role-playing video game market on which Bioware was built. Unfortunately, though, it has become fairly obvious these past couple of years that whoever sits in the driver's seat fails to comprehend that market.

Isen't that going back to BioWare's roots though? They did start with Shattered Steel and MDK to be fair.

In all seriousness, that is never going to happen, unless BioWare explicitly states they are not going to make an RPG again. Although I find it unlikely that they will, mainly because their entire role as a division of EA is to cater towards RPGs and RTS games for the company. Got to remember they are a separate branch from the EA games or EA sports label, or the Maxis label. 

And considering BioWare's reputation, they are pretty much breaking even anyway. That said, their attempts at breaking out have been met with nothing but daggers at their throats, namely Mass Effect 3 and The Old Republic. ToR I think they overestimated what they made, while Mass Effect 3 was a giant cluster**** where everyone made mistakes, from fans to Hudson and Walters.

Good news is they can learn from that. Bad news is I think most people are too cynical to care. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Isen't that going back to BioWare's roots though? They did start with Shattered Steel and MDK to be fair.

BioWare did not make MDK.  They made MDK2, but that was after Baldur's Gate.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

DA2 is not an action RPG as StM has stated the DA2 and DAO combat systems are the same. The difference is in speed.

And event sequencing.  That the order of effect and animation is reversed between the two games is a fairly large difference.

I could also pick on ME3 which is firmly in the action rpg camp. Shepard is controlled by the player. Player control skill is important. Also Shepard can only issue commands to his companions. The player cannot take control of anyone but Shepard. DA2 is different in that it is party based with the player being able to switch to any companion and take control. A feature both ME3 and Witcher lack.

Though, the ME games also allow the player to aim while paused, thus removing the player skill element.

That's certainly how I played them.

[Bernhardtbr]

Really? Didn´t know you could do that. But to be honest I think 99% people didn´t play like that.

[LinksOcarina]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Isen't that going back to BioWare's roots though? They did start with Shattered Steel and MDK to be fair.

BioWare did not make MDK.  They made MDK2, but that was after Baldur's Gate.

Meant to say MDK 2, but even if it was after Baldur's Gate that is kinda irrelvent to the joke I was making...

Oh never mind, it wasn't funny I guess. 

[MichaelStuart]

Other than making combat more tolerable, I can't see how it would change anything really.

[Wozearly]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Other than making combat more tolerable, I can't see how it would change anything really.

That depends on whether people find the action-combat system difficult, or undesirable.

Even if its only the combat mechanics that change to a fully action-based combat sytem, that could still be seen as a huge negative for people who prefer an action-light model or one where the player's own co-ordination is irrelevant to their character's skill.

On a semi-related note, I was wondering whether you'd post in this thread, given that you've argued the merits of a full action-RPG combat model in a number of other threads.

For the record, I personally think a full action-RPG combat model would be a great thing for Bioware to take a try at...but In a franchise other than Dragon Age.

[Sylvius the Mad]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Meant to say MDK 2, but even if it was after Baldur's Gate that is kinda irrelvent to the joke I was making...

Oh never mind, it wasn't funny I guess.

1996 - Shattered Steel
1998 - BG
2000 - MDK2
2000 - BG2
2002 - NWN
2003 - KotOR
2005 - Jade Empire
2007 - Mass Effect
2008 - Sonic Chronicles
2009 - DAO
2010 - ME2
2011 - DA2
2012 - ME3

For reference.

I find it interesting that they've released one major title per year since Mass Effect, but prior to that it was more often 2 years between major releases.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 01 novembre 2012 - 10:50 .

[LinksOcarina]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Meant to say MDK 2, but even if it was after Baldur's Gate that is kinda irrelvent to the joke I was making...

Oh never mind, it wasn't funny I guess.

1996 - Shattered Steel
1998 - BG
2000 - MDK2
2000 - BG2
2002 - NWN
2003 - KotOR
2005 - Jade Empire
2007 - Mass Effect
2008 - Sonic Chronicles
2009 - DAO
2010 - ME2
2011 - DA2
2012 - ME3

For reference.

I find it interesting that they've released one major title per year since Mass Effect, but prior to that it was more often 2 years between major releases.

Don't need the reference, thank you.

But yeah, team size helps in this case, especially since most of the time for previous releases was wrangling IP's for publishers. Now they have a sugar daddy known as EA that gives them money to make games. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Don't need the reference, thank you.

But yeah, team size helps in this case, especially since most of the time for previous releases was wrangling IP's for publishers. Now they have a sugar daddy known as EA that gives them money to make games.

EA also appears to give them firm deadlines.

[the_one_54321]

Firm very short deadlines...

[DreamwareStudio]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Meant to say MDK 2, but even if it was after Baldur's Gate that is kinda irrelvent to the joke I was making...

Oh never mind, it wasn't funny I guess.

1996 - Shattered Steel
1998 - BG
2000 - MDK2
2000 - BG2
2002 - NWN
2003 - KotOR
2005 - Jade Empire
2007 - Mass Effect
2008 - Sonic Chronicles
2009 - DAO
2010 - ME2
2011 - DA2
2012 - ME3

For reference.

I find it interesting that they've released one major title per year since Mass Effect, but prior to that it was more often 2 years between major releases.

2013 - DA 3, right?

I think I remember reading a quote that stated EA would not treat RPGs as if they were Madden games (i.e., no annual releases for the role-playing genre). Even with a bunch more developers, it still takes time for the writers to get things right and that (writing) is an area in which numbers do not equate to better and faster production. Even in programming, however, there is no such thing as better and faster because the two contradict each other. It does not matter what methodology you use to approach development (Agile, Waterfall, etc.), if all the kinks have not been worked out of the iterations, you're walking on each other and projects get spaghettied.

The faster you go, the more mistakes you create and miss.

Modifié par google_calasade, 02 novembre 2012 - 05:10 .

[Xewaka]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
1996 - Shattered Steel
1998 - BG
2000 - MDK2
2000 - BG2
2002 - NWN
2003 - KotOR
2005 - Jade Empire
2007 - Mass Effect
2008 - Sonic Chronicles
2009 - DAO
2010 - ME2
2011 - DA2
2012 - ME3
For reference.
I find it interesting that they've released one major title per year since Mass Effect, but prior to that it was more often 2 years between major releases.

I need to doublecheck the facts, but I think Black Isle/Obsidian published its stuff (Icewind Dale I & II, KotOR 2, NWN2) in the intervening years, completing the yearly publicacion cycle (sort of). Also, expansions have to be kept in mind for the early years, as well.

Modifié par Xewaka, 02 novembre 2012 - 02:22 .

[hoorayforicecream]

google_calasade wrote...

2013 - DA 3, right?

I think I remember reading a quote that stated EA would not treat RPGs as if they were Madden games (i.e., no annual releases for the role-playing genre). Even with a bunch more developers, it still takes time for the writers to get things right and that (writing) is an area in which numbers do not equate to better and faster production. Even in programming, however, there is no such thing as better and faster because the two contradict each other. It does not matter what methodology you use to approach development (Agile, Waterfall, etc.), if all the kinks have not been worked out of the iterations, you're walking on each other and projects get spaghettied.

The faster you go, the more mistakes you create and miss.

It isn't an annualized schedule. They have separate teams, each working on a separate title. Bioware hasn't been a one-game studio for many years.

[DreamwareStudio]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

2013 - DA 3, right?

I think I remember reading a quote that stated EA would not treat RPGs as if they were Madden games (i.e., no annual releases for the role-playing genre). Even with a bunch more developers, it still takes time for the writers to get things right and that (writing) is an area in which numbers do not equate to better and faster production. Even in programming, however, there is no such thing as better and faster because the two contradict each other. It does not matter what methodology you use to approach development (Agile, Waterfall, etc.), if all the kinks have not been worked out of the iterations, you're walking on each other and projects get spaghettied.

The faster you go, the more mistakes you create and miss.

It isn't an annualized schedule. They have separate teams, each working on a separate title. Bioware hasn't been a one-game studio for many years.

I'm aware they have separate teams. I just wonder at the speed (that includes pre-2007) in comparison to other developers.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Xewaka wrote...

I need to doublecheck the facts, but I think Black Isle/Obsidian published its stuff (Icewind Dale I & II, KotOR 2, NWN2) in the intervening years, completing the yearly publicacion cycle (sort of). Also, expansions have to be kept in mind for the early years, as well.

If you count the expansions, then the release sequence goes:

1996
1998
1999 - TotSC
2000
2000
2001 - ToB
2002
2003
2003 - HotU
2005
2007
2008
2009
2010
2010 - Awakening
2011
2012

That puts the only real gap around Jade Empire when DAO's development started.  DAO really does seem to have consumed a ton of resources for years and years.  No wonder it was so good.

[DreamwareStudio]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If you count the expansions, then the release sequence goes:

1996
1998
1999 - TotSC
2000
2000
2001 - ToB
2002
2003
2003 - HotU
2005
2007
2008
2009
2010
2010 - Awakening
2011
2012

That puts the only real gap around Jade Empire when DAO's development started.  DAO really does seem to have consumed a ton of resources for years and years.  No wonder it was so good.

Well, yes and no, I think. DA:O is a little different because it was under backroom development for quite a span (folks working on the story & world without any real deadline). At least that is the way I understand it. Could be wrong, though. Either way, DA:O is (IMO) Bioware's crowning achievement (I would count the BG series as that but there were other companies involved with it). In light of DA:O, they should more often take their time.

[TMZuk]

playaplayer wrote...

 Discuss.

Perhaps if you'd posted an opinion yourself, it would of been funnier?

Anyway, no cons what so ever.

[Giltspur]

Action RPG's like Witcher 2 and Amalur and Jade Empire and Skyrim have a single character you control, and any party members you have aren't under your control (Witcher, Skyrim) or are walking buffs (Jade Empire).  These games allow movement (dodging and rolling) to be a bigger part of the gameplay as you can react more quickly.  This makes the game feel more visceral.

"Tactical" RPG's like Dragon Age or Baldur's Gate use movement as well, but it's different.  It's more about party positioning or formation given the circumstances.  You're not actively rolling and dodging.  So the decision points have to be about what you click and what ability to use.

For me, in terms of gameplay, a party is one of the defining features of Dragon Age (and Baldur's Gate).  And parties that you control don't translate to action RPG's as well as they do to tactical RPG's as active dodging and reacting (key to action RPG's) doesn't translate as well to a full party as it's too much micromanagement.

Admittedly, if they want to action up the main character, they could also make the party members more limited (as in ME) or out of your control (as in Witcher), but I prefer the model they have now because I like the extra tactical decisions a party can afford.

Modifié par Giltspur, 02 novembre 2012 - 08:32 .

[Realmzmaster]

I can only assume that DAO did consume a great deal of resources along with other endeavors. I do not think Bioware would not have agreed to investment capital from Elevation Partners if it could fund DAO by itself.

Elevations Partners invested $300 million in 2005. Elevation Partners owned Pandemic Studios. Elevation placed the two developers under the VG Holding umbrella. Elevation Partners sold VG Holding to EA for $860 million in 2007

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 03 novembre 2012 - 04:31 .

[ReallyRue]

Dragon's Dogma's combat was great. It required tactics, classes are diverse, combat is exciting and looks good. Greatswords were the right speed, sword and boarders didn't feel like their only purpose was to soak damage, dual-wielders were agile but didn't teleport/fly/whatever, archery required some skill and accuracy, and mages felt powerful but looked refined and impressive. it felt like what the balance between DAO and DA2 combat should be.

Obviously the game really lacks character or story depth/development, but I doubt anyone's suggesting DA can learn from that.

Modifié par ReallyRue, 02 novembre 2012 - 10:22 .

[DreamwareStudio]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I can only assume that DAO did consume a great deal of resources along with other endeavors. I do not think Bioware would not have agree to investment capital from Elevation Partners if it could fund DAO by itself.

Elevations Partners invested $300 million in 2005. Elevation Partners owned Pandemic Studios. Elevation placed the two developers under the VG Holding umbrella. Elevation Partners sold VG Holding to EA for $860 million in 2007

Excellent points, though I'm sure there were reasons besides DA:O that validated the investment.

[Uriko128]

 I want DA3 to be as tactical as DAO, but as flashy as DA2. If that's possible