173 réponses à ce sujet

[Jonata]

Bfler wrote...

"The worst thing is to ignore feedback and work entirely in a vacuum."

Hm, Mass Effect 3?

Btw, does this man have some kind of need to talk or why are there so many interviews lately? Serious question.

With something like the Extended Cut released, and Citadel DLC ended up being basically the biggest piece of fanservice ever created for a game, addressing 99% of every single fan request written in these forums in the past years, saying that Mass Effect 3 was written "in a vacuum" is just being harsh without a purpose.

[Danny Boy 7]

Bfler wrote...

"The worst thing is to ignore feedback and work entirely in a vacuum."

Hm, Mass Effect 3?

Btw, does this man have some kind of need to talk or why are there so many interviews lately? Serious question.

He's not on the Mass Effect 3 team.

He's the lead writer, people always have questions for him, the creative director and producers. It's just how video-game entertainement is. They're the movie stars of their games lol.

[Androme]

 ''but we also have to keep in mind people who are coming to Dragon Age III fresh, who have no previous experience. That’s the biggest thing we have to concern ourselves with.''
___

*facepalm*

I bet it's gonna be like the first 3-4 minutes of ME3 where I noticed on my first playthrough that they catered to people who had just gone to gamestop and picked up ME3, put the disc in their xbox and started playing, with no idea as to what to expect from the game. Seriously if somebody picks up a game called: ''Mass Effect >> 3 <<''  then it should be their fault if they don't understand anything about the game, stop catering to people who doesn't play the series through.

Modifié par Androme, 30 mars 2013 - 12:39 .

[Xilizhra]

Androme wrote...

 ''but we also have to keep in mind people who are coming to Dragon Age III fresh, who have no previous experience. That’s the biggest thing we have to concern ourselves with.''
___

*facepalm*

I bet it's gonna be like the first 3-4 minutes of ME3 where I noticed on my first playthrough that they catered to people who had just gone to gamestop and picked up ME3, put the disc in their xbox and started playing, with no idea as to what to expect from the game. Seriously if somebody picks up a game called: ''Mass Effect >> 3 <<''  then it should be their fault if they don't understand anything about the game, stop catering to people who doesn't play the series through.

There is no "3" in DAI's title.

[Il Divo]

Androme wrote...

 ''but we also have to keep in mind people who are coming to Dragon Age III fresh, who have no previous experience. That’s the biggest thing we have to concern ourselves with.''
___

*facepalm*

I bet it's gonna be like the first 3-4 minutes of ME3 where I noticed on my first playthrough that they catered to people who had just gone to gamestop and picked up ME3, put the disc in their xbox and started playing, with no idea as to what to expect from the game. Seriously if somebody picks up a game called: ''Mass Effect >> 3 <<''  then it should be their fault if they don't understand anything about the game, stop catering to people who doesn't play the series through.

One thing I find a bit odd is that if Bioware is insistent on taking into account players who have never played the previous games, why would they title their games with numerals? "Mass Effect 2", "Mass Effect 3", "Dragon Age II". Wouldn't these titles alone sort of block people off since it's an immediate indicator that the game in question is a sequel of some kind? Better off to just go with subtitles.

Edit: No 3 in DA:I's title? Well, that makes a bit more sense then.

Modifié par Il Divo, 30 mars 2013 - 01:01 .

[BeatoSama]

No there is a III in it.

[Xilizhra]

BeatoSama wrote...

No there is a III in it.

Have they changed that?

[BeatoSama]

There was always a III in it I think. To the right of 'Dragon Age' and anove 'Inquisition'.

[The Hierophant]

Jonata wrote...

Bfler wrote...

"The worst thing is to ignore feedback and work entirely in a vacuum."

Hm, Mass Effect 3?

Btw, does this man have some kind of need to talk or why are there so many interviews lately? Serious question.

With something like the Extended Cut released, and Citadel DLC ended up being basically the biggest piece of fanservice ever created for a game, addressing 99% of every single fan request written in these forums in the past years, saying that Mass Effect 3 was written "in a vacuum" is just being harsh without a purpose.

I don't know about that Jonata? It still doesn't change the fact that Casey Hudson, and Mac Walters wrote the build up along with the vanilla ending without the teams input. DLC like the Extended Cut, and the Citadel being released afterwards don't negate CH's and MW's past actions. I do give the team props for trying to disinfect, and bandage the open festering wounds CH, and MW created in ME3's narrative.

The only potential issue i would have with bringing up ME3 is that it was created by a different team despite both teams working for the same company.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 30 mars 2013 - 01:12 .

[Reznore57]

"The main concern over the story is that we have to balance the interests of long-time fans in the story. We’re talking about people who have played Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age II coming into Dragon Age III, but we also have to keep in mind people who are coming to Dragon Age III fresh, who have no previous experience. That’s the biggest thing we have to concern ourselves with."

That's the full quote....
And he's not talking just about new players.

[Androme]

Xilizhra wrote...

Androme wrote...

 ''but we also have to keep in mind people who are coming to Dragon Age III fresh, who have no previous experience. That’s the biggest thing we have to concern ourselves with.''
___

*facepalm*

I bet it's gonna be like the first 3-4 minutes of ME3 where I noticed on my first playthrough that they catered to people who had just gone to gamestop and picked up ME3, put the disc in their xbox and started playing, with no idea as to what to expect from the game. Seriously if somebody picks up a game called: ''Mass Effect >> 3 <<''  then it should be their fault if they don't understand anything about the game, stop catering to people who doesn't play the series through.

There is no "3" in DAI's title.

Even if there were not a 3 in DA3's title (which there is), it doesn't matter. It's not a reboot or a stand-alone game, so it's still the third game in the franchise, whether it has ''3'' in its name or not.

Modifié par Androme, 30 mars 2013 - 01:30 .

[OdanUrr]

Cirram55 wrote...

Eh, to be fair though, you're talking about marketing. The game is indeed about powerlessness and Hawke shaping the world out of necessity and forcing circumstances. The problem with that is that it wasn't marketed as such, so you expected to be this all-powerful badass hero that saves the day with cool armour and fancy combat moves.

Marketing is still part of the package.

[Avalon The Elf]

New players should never be put ahead of the old ones in games like these, it's what happened to Gears Of War, what happened to The Elder Scrolls, and it's what's happening to Assassin's Creed :/

[OdanUrr]

Avalon The Elf wrote...

New players should never be put ahead of the old ones in games like these, it's what happened to Gears Of War, what happened to The Elder Scrolls, and it's what's happening to Assassin's Creed :/

But... but... mass appeal!

[The Elder King]

Xilizhra wrote...

BeatoSama wrote...

No there is a III in it.

Have they changed that?

As far as I know the game it labeled "DA3 Inquisition". The screenshot in the wiki (which I don't remember if it's offical,) resembles that. This own forum is being called "DA3 I GD", so I think the name of the game is DA3 Inquisition.

[h0neanias]

Just among us friends, I think it's wise not to draw gamers towards playing DA2 before III if they haven't already. They might not make the transition.

[LinksOcarina]

Wulfram wrote...

We had a story that was about failure as much as it was about epic success.

The thing for me is that the game never really acknowledges the failure. It's always going on about how the Champion is the epicest, awesomest guy out there. And of course you've got the combat which has Hawke being capable of obliterating a small army or two before breakfast.

So it really felt more like the game was trying to be epic and failing than that they were trying to do anything different. If they wanted to have a more down to earth main character then they needed to commit to it, rather than end up with a situation where it feels like they're supposed to be epic but fail at everything important.

I would argue that was a major strength of the narrative, that it doesn't acknowledging the failures. We see them happen, however, as the story evolves. 

If you really think about, in-game the Champion is only put on this pedastal because of the stories and rumors surrounding what happened in Kirkwall. Narrative-wise, that is what Cassandra is trying to rule out and thats why the framed narrative device exists. Its assumed the Champion is an epic figure, and Hawke can be, at certain points. But throughout the narrative hes still human in the end.

I think the problem is our expectations are like the mythical telling of the tale, of Hawke mowing down hordes of Darkspawn in the beginning and being ten feet tall and shooting lightning from his eyes. The story was never meant to be fully epic, and how the events play out kind of proves that point to be true. 

[PrinceLionheart]

Kudos to them actually acknowledging the flaws of DA2 unlike the Mass Effect team. :innocent:

[h0neanias]

What this shows, I think, is grave miscommunication between Laidlaw and the writing team. They wanted a more personal, let's say even existential story; he wanted the awesome button. I'd very much like to play a game where the hero is a toy in the fate's hands, if written well -- after all, there was no worldsaving in Torment. What makes DA2 fail is how schizophrenic the game is about it.

[Wulfram]

LinksOcarina wrote...

I would argue that was a major strength of the narrative, that it doesn't acknowledging the failures. We see them happen, however, as the story evolves. 

If you really think about, in-game the Champion is only put on this pedastal because of the stories and rumors surrounding what happened in Kirkwall. Narrative-wise, that is what Cassandra is trying to rule out and thats why the framed narrative device exists. Its assumed the Champion is an epic figure, and Hawke can be, at certain points. But throughout the narrative hes still human in the end.

Hawke's failures not being acknowledged by the wider world is fine.  Hawke's failures not being acknowledged by anyone, not even Hawke themselves or their companions, just makes me feel the writers don't really know what story they're telling.  Or possibly that they know the story they want to be telling, but aren't brave enough to actually do it.

I think the problem is our expectations are like the mythical telling of the tale, of Hawke mowing down hordes of Darkspawn in the beginning and being ten feet tall and shooting lightning from his eyes.

Except the so called exaggerated opening pretty much depicts the actual combat that is seen in the game.  There's no real disparity there - Hawke basically is that awesome, superhuman figure.

[Xilizhra]

Wulfram wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

I would argue that was a major strength of the narrative, that it doesn't acknowledging the failures. We see them happen, however, as the story evolves. 

If you really think about, in-game the Champion is only put on this pedastal because of the stories and rumors surrounding what happened in Kirkwall. Narrative-wise, that is what Cassandra is trying to rule out and thats why the framed narrative device exists. Its assumed the Champion is an epic figure, and Hawke can be, at certain points. But throughout the narrative hes still human in the end.

Hawke's failures not being acknowledged by the wider world is fine.  Hawke's failures not being acknowledged by anyone, not even Hawke themselves or their companions, just makes me feel the writers don't really know what story they're telling.  Or possibly that they know the story they want to be telling, but aren't brave enough to actually do it.

I think the problem is our expectations are like the mythical telling of the tale, of Hawke mowing down hordes of Darkspawn in the beginning and being ten feet tall and shooting lightning from his eyes.

Except the so called exaggerated opening pretty much depicts the actual combat that is seen in the game.  There's no real disparity there - Hawke basically is that awesome, superhuman figure.

I think there's something that can be drawn from these two seemingly disparate things: even superhumans can't always defeat the tides of destiny.

[Cainhurst Crow]

I can understand why they would try and get more players in with the new titles, because I myself have done this.

ME2 got me interested in buying ME1 when I had tried ME1 a year ago and hated it.

Witcher 2 made me interested in witcher 1

SWTOR got me interested in playing KOTOR


These things happen, people who didn't have an interest in the previous games pick up this new one because it looks cool and than get into playing the previous titles as well.

[LinksOcarina]

Wulfram wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

I would argue that was a major strength of the narrative, that it doesn't acknowledging the failures. We see them happen, however, as the story evolves. 

If you really think about, in-game the Champion is only put on this pedastal because of the stories and rumors surrounding what happened in Kirkwall. Narrative-wise, that is what Cassandra is trying to rule out and thats why the framed narrative device exists. Its assumed the Champion is an epic figure, and Hawke can be, at certain points. But throughout the narrative hes still human in the end.

Hawke's failures not being acknowledged by the wider world is fine.  Hawke's failures not being acknowledged by anyone, not even Hawke themselves or their companions, just makes me feel the writers don't really know what story they're telling.  Or possibly that they know the story they want to be telling, but aren't brave enough to actually do it.

I think the problem is our expectations are like the mythical telling of the tale, of Hawke mowing down hordes of Darkspawn in the beginning and being ten feet tall and shooting lightning from his eyes.

Except the so called exaggerated opening pretty much depicts the actual combat that is seen in the game.  There's no real disparity there - Hawke basically is that awesome, superhuman figure.

To the second point, who cares about the depiction of combat. That is irrelevent unless if it was a deliberate decision to make the exaggerated combat one way, and the in-game combat another, which was not the case mechanically.

To the first point, Hawkes failues were acknowledged a few times in-game. Mostly from family like Gamlem, Leandra, and Carver. Rival characters were passive-agressive about that as well. If its a case of it not happening a lot, sure I agree to that, but it does happen. I doubt its a question of bravery vs degrees of what constitutes a fair amount in the end. 

[Bizantura]

Avalon The Elf wrote...

New players should never be put ahead of the old ones in games like these, it's what happened to Gears Of War, what happened to The Elder Scrolls, and it's what's happening to Assassin's Creed :/

Why not!  Well, I was astonished that Wrex in ME3 was not seen by most players.  Why?  Obviously the bulk of the buyers are NOT long time players thus NOT hardened fans of the franchise.  Go figure.....  But as a fan myself that was a humbling experience.