173 réponses à ce sujet

[AllThatJazz]

Androme wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Of course they're going to consider the wants and needs of newcomers to the series. That's only commonsense.

Actually, no, it isn't. It's a sequel, a sequel takes place after the game before said sequel, thus if you want to fully understand the events of the sequel, you should have played the game before the sequel. It's NOT ''common sense'' to babysit newcomers for the first few minutes or hell even hours of a game/movie/book whatever, just to make them acquainted with the universe and ruin the experience for people who have actually played the series through.

The Dragon Age franchise isn't exactly a series comprised of games and their direct sequels, though, at least not in the same way Mass Effect is (one story arc spanning three games). It's different but related stories set in the same world, not The Blight parts one, two and three. Which makes Dragon Age the more accessible of Bioware's IPs in terms of jumping in mid series. 

I do think that ME3 is a slightly odd jumping in point because it is the concluding part of a specific storyline, but at the end of the day I'll always think inclusion is better than exclusion. I didn't feel as though ME3 ruined my gaming experience just because they included James Vega as a window into the ME world for new players. Players who jumped in to ME3 without playing either of the first two games missed out on a ton of context and 'in jokes' (Refund Guy etc) as well as character interactions - no Wrex, no Zaeed, no Kasumi, no Samara, no Jack, no Thane, no Grunt, no Legion. And that's fine - that stuff constitutes added value for long-term fans of the series. But to exclude or discourage new players simply because they weren't gaming when the first game came out, or because they don't have time to spend a hundred hours on the prequels first or whatever seems .. eh, mean-spirited - and also somewhat short-sighted and self-defeating from a business point of view. After all, some of the new fans of today will be the hardcore fanbase of tomorrow ...

My nephew bought me Fallout 3 when it was released. I hadn't played Fallout before as the post-apocalyptic setting didn't really appeal. I played the game more as a courtesy than anything else, and I kind of enjoyed it, but didn't love it. The game was, however, nicely accessible to me as a newcomer to the series and it did make me interested enough in the setting to purchase Fallouts 1 & 2. They are now two of my favourite games of all time. Favourite enough to have bought a CE of Fallout: New Vegas and to have contributed to Wasteland 2 on Kickstarter. Don't discount new fans simply because they aren't 'old' fans. 

[Zelto]

There are good ways and bad ways of dealing with the "new vs old" player problem, Mass Effect 3 did it quite badly, forcing what you already knew down your throat at times. Other games don't really bother at all. TES don't explain the other games just hints in books or NCP comments, Dead Space 2, it takes half the game to even mention the plot of Dead Space 1, they just tell you how to play the game without the background. New players really only need to know how to play and what the basic story of this game is, I don't really see how they need to know that the Warden stopped the blight (they don't even know what that is) or that Hawke was there at the uprising in Kirkwall, even if that is mentioned significantly in the new game as the catalyst for DAI's plot.

The themes of Dragon Age 2 were good ideas, but personallyI think suffered in execution. Freedom vs Security is great but when every other mage you meet, including the mage leader becomes or is a psychopath it deminishs the argument of punish the many for the crimes of a few. Equally when every Templar is a complete ass (exept Cullen, eventually, and Thrask) it removes the feeling of doing whats needed even if its unpleasant, if this is ment to relate to the 'real world' then I am very concerned.

I also don't get this "just surviving or powerless concept", you are one of the most physically powerful and socially influential characters in the game, but take no personal action to try and prevet a problem you have known about for 10 years, thats not powerless, more disinterested. Never are you seen trying to fix the problems other than when you are thrust into the middle. This is made worse when you consider that, potentially, your sisters fate may be directly conected to it. DAO the warden trys to fix the problems they encounter one way or another, DA2 Hawke doesn't.

DA2 was a good game by itself, but was a let down in many ways compared to DA:O, and I don't personally think it was just to do with gameplay, I think plot and writing had a part to play.

[Twisted Path]

Zelto wrote...

I also don't get this "just surviving or powerless concept", you are one of the most physically powerful and socially influential characters in the game, but take no personal action to try and prevet a problem you have known about for 10 years, thats not powerless, more disinterested. Never are you seen trying to fix the problems other than when you are thrust into the middle. This is made worse when you consider that, potentially, your sisters fate may be directly conected to it. DAO the warden trys to fix the problems they encounter one way or another, DA2 Hawke doesn't.

DA2 was a good game by itself, but was a let down in many ways compared to DA:O, and I don't personally think it was just to do with gameplay, I think plot and writing had a part to play.

This is the reason DA2 made a lot more sense to me when I replayed it as an evil sarcastic sociopathic bloodmage. Evil Hawke just doesn't care, whereas Good Hawke seems to care but then sits around and does nothing. It's kind of the opposite of a conventional RPG where if you play an evil character it feels weird to inevitably save the day anyway.

[Yggdrasil]

Fuggyt wrote...

For me, the whole three-act frame-narrative structure of DA2 didn't work. It was nice to see Gaider more or less concurred. DA2 wasn't a bad game but as a story it was nowhere near as immersive or compelling as it predecessor, and I venture to suggest that's a consensus opinion. Powerlessness is a powerful literary theme, but it probably works better in a novel or play. I play video games to obtain and apply unworldly power, not to learn another post-modern lesson in the futility of action against the existential abyss. What's next? "Kafka's Metamorphosis: The Game." Just MHO,

Personally I see DA2 as an experiment that just didn't quite work, and I think a lot of the "not working" can be placed at the short development time.  I like that they were trying to shake the formula up, but it just never quite flew.

[hazarkazra]

AllThatJazz wrote...
My nephew bought me Fallout 3 when it was released. I hadn't played Fallout before as the post-apocalyptic setting didn't really appeal. I played the game more as a courtesy than anything else, and I kind of enjoyed it, but didn't love it. The game was, however, nicely accessible to me as a newcomer to the series and it did make me interested enough in the setting to purchase Fallouts 1 & 2. They are now two of my favourite games of all time. Favourite enough to have bought a CE of Fallout: New Vegas and to have contributed to Wasteland 2 on Kickstarter. Don't discount new fans simply because they aren't 'old' fans. 

Well, I think this example falls a bit short seeing the huge time gap between Fallout 2 & 3. They weren't even made by the same company or with the same gameplay. It also had the advantage of having to deal with (relatively) few elements crossing over. And New Vegas (from what I remember) was already a bit less accommidating then Fallout 3.

The DA series on the other hand is released in the same 'generation', making it more fair to assume some previous knowledge. I especially thought it was jarring at times in ME, because why does Shepard keep asking the same story questions every time. Atleast Hawke had the excuse of not being in the previous games 

I don't mind making sure new players can still step in as long as you don't start to 'dumb' down possible story choices because new players 'might not get it'. Making story descisions based on 'new comers' instead of lore-consistent? To me he seems to be  just talking about the 'What are these Dalish elves you keep talking about?' investigate questions and the likes.

Modifié par hazarkazra, 01 avril 2013 - 07:48 .

[Twisted Path]

MichaelStJohn90068 wrote...

Personally I see DA2 as an experiment that just didn't quite work, and I think a lot of the "not working" can be placed at the short development time.  I like that they were trying to shake the formula up, but it just never quite flew.

Yeah, much as I hated DA2 the game is full of really good ideas that were poorly executed. I'd point to Fallout: New Vegas as an RPG with a similar premise (the player character is just some nobody who does odd jobs and works their way up, not a chosen one trying to save the world,) that managed to actually pull it off.

Edit: Heck, some of the best parts of Baldur's Gate 2 are the big sidequests that you're presumably doing for money. I think they were trying to recreate that in Dragon Age 2 but didn't have the time or resources to make those sidequests unique and fun. Instead of investigating a mysterious cult and it leading to you stumbling upon a cool underground city and an ancient, forgotten curse you end up trudging through a cave that's been reused three times already fighting swarms of bandits.

The idea of the three acts with big time skips was great too, and would have been fine if characters and the enviroment had noticably changed between the time skips. I imagine the origional idea was that Kirkwall would change based on the choices you made in each act, but it all got cut due to the super-short development time.

Modifié par Twisted Path, 01 avril 2013 - 08:59 .

[Spedfrom]

The short development time cannot be used as an excuse. At least an acceptable or valid one. For whatever reasons, they decided to shorten the development time and the game's execution suffered greatly due to the decision in spite of the potential it had to be an incredible sequel, so that's on them.

Fortunately DA3 seems to be on the right track on every level so I'm expecting to enjoy it as much as DA:O. Hopefully the cover for Patrick Weekes' The Masked Empire is indicative of the art style for the third game, because it is a beautiful and impressive design.

[Rawgrim]

Spedfrom wrote...

The short development time cannot be used as an excuse. At least an acceptable or valid one. For whatever reasons, they decided to shorten the development time and the game's execution suffered greatly due to the decision in spite of the potential it had to be an incredible sequel, so that's on them.

Fortunately DA3 seems to be on the right track on every level so I'm expecting to enjoy it as much as DA:O. Hopefully the cover for Patrick Weekes' The Masked Empire is indicative of the art style for the third game, because it is a beautiful and impressive design.

Looks kind of...cartoony

[Spedfrom]

It looks distinctive, colorful without being garish and to me it shows an evolution from the art style in DA2 into something more sophisticated and beautiful without being a full departure. But you're entitled to your opinion of course, I just wanted to share mine as well.

[AstraDrakkar]

It was an interesting interview but the title was somewhat misleading, since he really didn't say much about DA3 themes. (or did I miss something?)

Modifié par AstraDrakkar, 02 avril 2013 - 07:04 .

[Wulfram]

AstraDrakkar wrote...

It was an interesting interview but the title was somewhat misleading, since he really didn't say much about DA3 themes. (or did I miss something?)

Well, the final question is DA3 themes

RPS: Even so, are you going to elaborate on any of Dragon Age II’s themes in Dragon Age III?
Gaider: We have some balls that are up in the air. We can’t just let
those go. Those are things we need to deal with that we left up in the
air after the end of DAII. We can’t just move on to something completely
new. We can’t just jump across the continent and suddenly we’re dealing
with something else entirely. There are things we have to address. But
we probably will move on to new overall themes. We will try different
narrative elements.

[AllThatJazz]

hazarkazra wrote...

AllThatJazz wrote...
My nephew bought me Fallout 3 when it was released. I hadn't played Fallout before as the post-apocalyptic setting didn't really appeal. I played the game more as a courtesy than anything else, and I kind of enjoyed it, but didn't love it. The game was, however, nicely accessible to me as a newcomer to the series and it did make me interested enough in the setting to purchase Fallouts 1 & 2. They are now two of my favourite games of all time. Favourite enough to have bought a CE of Fallout: New Vegas and to have contributed to Wasteland 2 on Kickstarter. Don't discount new fans simply because they aren't 'old' fans. 

Well, I think this example falls a bit short seeing the huge time gap between Fallout 2 & 3. They weren't even made by the same company or with the same gameplay. It also had the advantage of having to deal with (relatively) few elements crossing over. And New Vegas (from what I remember) was already a bit less accommidating then Fallout 3.

The DA series on the other hand is released in the same 'generation', making it more fair to assume some previous knowledge. I especially thought it was jarring at times in ME, because why does Shepard keep asking the same story questions every time. Atleast Hawke had the excuse of not being in the previous games 

I don't mind making sure new players can still step in as long as you don't start to 'dumb' down possible story choices because new players 'might not get it'. Making story descisions based on 'new comers' instead of lore-consistent? To me he seems to be  just talking about the 'What are these Dalish elves you keep talking about?' investigate questions and the likes.

Doesn't really matter, it was just illustrating a more general point. Bethesda could have made Fallout 3 a 'niche' title with dense lore and deep gameplay etc that would have meant a lot to existing fans (still a pretty passionate bunch, even after all that time) and been meaningless/confused the hell out of everyone else. Doing so might have even made for a better game (at least for me, I love my old-school game mechanics). But the decision to make the game accessible to new fans paid off in more ways than one - a ton of money was made, the franchise was re-invigorated and this paved the way for New Vegas which, as you said, then had the freedom to return to the series' roots a bit more. F:NV hit a sort of sweet spot - it retained enough accessibility and similarity to F3 to take fans of Fallout 3 with it, but enough depth to get the approval of fans of the original titles, which Fallout 3 most certainly didn't get.  Also helped that it was developed by some of the people who created the Fallout IP in the first place.

Anyway, if Bioware ever wants to shift the sort of  numbers that Bethesda can (though I doubt they'll ever get quite that big, not being sandbox), then frankly they need new fans all the time, not just at the beginning of a series. They certainly don't need to send a 'get lost' vibe to potential new fans of the franchise by becoming overly reliant on assumed knowledge etc. 

Though I have to say, I never had a problem with ME2/3 or DA2 in that regard. despite other issues with those games. They weren't so obscure that new people wondered what the hell was going on, but there was still a reasonable amount of content and context that I only saw/understood because I played the previous games. And just because questions such as 'who are these Dalish?' exist, doesn't mean we are forced to ask them.

[Redbelle]

MichaelStJohn90068 wrote...

Fuggyt wrote...

For me, the whole three-act frame-narrative structure of DA2 didn't work. It was nice to see Gaider more or less concurred. DA2 wasn't a bad game but as a story it was nowhere near as immersive or compelling as it predecessor, and I venture to suggest that's a consensus opinion. Powerlessness is a powerful literary theme, but it probably works better in a novel or play. I play video games to obtain and apply unworldly power, not to learn another post-modern lesson in the futility of action against the existential abyss. What's next? "Kafka's Metamorphosis: The Game." Just MHO,

Personally I see DA2 as an experiment that just didn't quite work, and I think a lot of the "not working" can be placed at the short development time.  I like that they were trying to shake the formula up, but it just never quite flew.

One thing in DA2 I did like was the time when Hawke was being manipulated by a mage of blood and passion.

The dialogue wheel suddenly felt like it had became impotent. The responses, picked according to how I played Hawke, but stymied by the manipulation. It was an effective demonstration of how good writing and giving the player the chance to fight for control took a simple dialogue wheel mechanic and put a new spin on how it could be used.

Going one further, I hope that one day BW will realise that the dialogue wheel can be used in a similar way when an NPC attempts to mind control a character, perhap's even mess up the wheel option's or alter the responses from that which is picked to it's opposite response, with the NPC cackling in the foreground about how and what she's doing, giving the player the clues they need to form the responses they want and break free.

It's always fun to see a developer take a simple game mechanic and expand how it can be applied in game.

[Aleya]

David Gaider wrote...

You're correct, and I'll point out to others that my response was in terms of the writing only-- we have to be careful, when writing the story for DA3, to not assume that everyone playing the game is intimately familiar with the previous two installments... and, indeed, may not know anything about them at all. That gets increasingly challenging as we move forward, and is a very easy thing for us writers to forget (as QA keeps telling us).

But why? The expository dialogue is annoying for anyone who actually has played the first two installments (which I'm pretty sure will be the majority of buyers anyway) and doubly so for people on their second+ playthrough.

Wouldn't it be easier to have a special cinematic available for newcomers that recaps "the story so far"? Like what they do at the start of some tv series' episodes. It'll be much easier to comprehend for a newbie because all the info is in one place and isn't colored by the biases of the NPC doing the explaining, and it frees up dialogue word count to be used on the good stuff instead.

[Get Magna Carter]

I felt the security vs freedom aspect of DA2 offered too little room for compromise
so it ended up as tyranny vs anarchy
not a good choice to make..

[Allan Schumacher]

Wouldn't it be easier to have a special cinematic available for newcomers that recaps "the story so far"?

Actually, it'd probably be more complicated and time consuming (hence expensive). It also wouldn't free up the dialogue word count, because it just means we'd have to take word count from the dialogue and move it to the expository cinematic.

[Noctis Augustus]

Do something new...? You make a game, it's a success, you improve the game. You don't downgrade most of the things that made that game a huge success and improve only combat (somewhat) and UI! That's just... moronic. Take a good look at Bethesda's approach with Skyrim. If you want to do something new make a new IP.

[Renmiri1]

ibbikiookami wrote...

Do something new...? You make a game, it's a success, you improve the game. You don't downgrade most of the things that made that game a huge success and improve only combat (somewhat) and UI! That's just... moronic. Take a good look at Bethesda's approach with Skyrim. If you want to do something new make a new IP.

You wouldn't be referring to any real life Bioware example with that would you ? 

We get it you hated DA2. 


I loved it. Liked it much more than DAO, but I do admit the game was unpolished and Act 3 was rushed. Hopefully DAI will get more time..  But what has thos to do with David Gaider's interview ?

[Noctis Augustus]

Something I read in it. DAII is just too different from DAO, like a completely different game except for the lore.

How can you love DAII? The graphics are a joke, pure laziness not to mention the characters from Origins look completly different. The story is more simple, more linear, interaction with the world is very simple, many things that were present in DAO are not like the item description (first that comes to mind), specializations are learned from thin air and so on... Instead of adding new things and improving others they did the opposite.

I really want this to change in DAIII: I.

[Renmiri1]

The style on DA2 was inspired by early 14th century art. I love it.

The character looks are 50/ 50. The Dalish keeper Maretari, Flemeth and Merril are vastly improved. So is Isabella. Zevran and Alistair are not. Anders is neutral. Like him a bit better on DA2 though.

Story ? Gone from Lord of the Rings clone to something very creative and innovative. Was it perfect ? No. Was it good ? Yup. And Bioware gets 1 billion props for trying something different IMHO

Item descriptions, talent trees ? irrelevant to me. Rune system ? Vastly better than DAA. But all minor IMHO

DA2 is a game that took lots of risks and went for non obvious and non mass market art style and plot devices. And they vastly improved combat.

So ya, in some ways it pwns DAO, because while DAO was a virtually perfect clone of Lord of the Rings narrative, it was still a clone and never dared go anywhere but appeal to mass market Tolkien fans.

Modifié par Renmiri1, 07 avril 2013 - 10:49 .

[Redbelle]

Having only recently just started playing DA2 I can see where there are problem's, but I can also see the element's that work. And by far, the element's that work are the character's.

The recycled dungeon's are a problem, I know them so well that I'm not really exploring anymore. I'm seeing where I've entered, orientating myself and then going to all the usual place's to see if they are open access.

I've not touched Death Spawn since a glitch had it despawn a mob and it's loot that wouild have opened up the next phase of a quest.

And the Darkspawn makeover? In DA:O I distinctly remember a cinematic of darkspawn when they are about to meet the army at the beginning of the game, screaming like an Uruk Hai from LotR:T2T. The new look is, less threatening.

If I had to differentiate DA:O and DA2, I'd say that DA:O is more epic in scope, while DA2 is more...... intimate, in the story being told. It's not that DA2 is a bad game, despite a few seemingly experimental attempt's to try new thing's. It's just a different beast to DA:O as a fantasy game. And maybe it's me, but fantasy RPG's are supposed to have an element of epicness to them with sweeping vista's and open fields to run and frolik, wild and free, spilling darkspwan blood with wild abandon while stopping to help every poor innocent citizen with every little problem that is made to seem insumountable to all but a PC armed to the teeth.

DA2 requires extra suspension of disbelief. Mostly due to the supposed time jump's where Hawke's fortunes change. With the Hero of Feralden, we are with him or her every step of the way from the get go.

Modifié par Redbelle, 07 avril 2013 - 10:58 .

[Noctis Augustus]

Renmiri1 wrote...

The style on DA2 was inspired by early 14th century art. I love it.

The character looks are 50/ 50. The Dalish keeper Maretari, Flemeth and Merril are vastly improved. So is Isabella. Zevran and Alistair are not. Anders is neutral. Like him a bit better on DA2 though.

Story ? Gone from Lord of the Rings clone to something very creative and innovative. Was it perfect ? No. Was it good ? Yup. And Bioware gets 1 billion props for trying something different IMHO

Item descriptions, talent trees ? irrelevant to me. Rune system ? Vastly better than DAA. But all minor IMHO

DA2 is a game that took lots of risks and went for non obvious and non mass market art style and plot devices. And they vastly improved combat.

So ya, in some ways it pwns DAO, because while DAO was a virtually perfect clone of Lord of the Rings narrative, it was still a clone and never dared go anywhere but appeal to mass market Tolkien fans.

Yeah right, I stand by laziness. Anyway, opinion.

Opinion.

I don't see the similarities but if that is confirmed, then it's another story. Either way, opinion.

My point was: downgrade. And you can't argue that those "minor" things make the game more rich because it does.

I don't think cutting people in half with a broadsword, exploding enemies and other unrealistic mechanics is "vastly improved combat" but it was improved I agree. That and the UI.

Interesting that I dislike "The Lord of the Rings", yet I loved DAO's story. Well, DAII tries to appeal to a mass market action fanbase so...

Modifié par ibbikiookami, 07 avril 2013 - 11:45 .

[Renmiri1]

Renmiri1 wrote...
....
We get it you hated DA2. 


I loved it. Liked it much more than DAO, but I do admit the game was unpolished and Act 3 was rushed. Hopefully DAI will get more time..  But what has this to do with David Gaider's interview ?

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Renmiri1 wrote...

The style on DA2 was inspired by early 14th century art. I love it.

The character looks are 50/ 50. The Dalish keeper Maretari, Flemeth and Merril are vastly improved. So is Isabella. Zevran and Alistair are not. Anders is neutral. Like him a bit better on DA2 though.

Story ? Gone from Lord of the Rings clone to something very creative and innovative. Was it perfect ? No. Was it good ? Yup. And Bioware gets 1 billion props for trying something different IMHO

Item descriptions, talent trees ? irrelevant to me. Rune system ? Vastly better than DAA. But all minor IMHO

DA2 is a game that took lots of risks and went for non obvious and non mass market art style and plot devices. And they vastly improved combat.

So ya, in some ways it pwns DAO, because while DAO was a virtually perfect clone of Lord of the Rings narrative, it was still a clone and never dared go anywhere but appeal to mass market Tolkien fans.

Holy ****.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 08 avril 2013 - 03:20 .

[Renmiri1]

Might have gotten my centuries wrong.. Wasn't in the mood to research the right period for a troll that would just reply "Nu-huh, they suck"