4 réponses à ce sujet

[Dendio1]

Witcher 2 had this great system where different choices led you to a completely different questing experience. Different companions, hubs and story quests. They were so different that the player must play the game twice to see the second half and fully understand the plot.

I would love dragons age 3 to take ideas like this and more from witcher 2 . Add in new game plus incentives, dont be afraid to toe the line on mature content, and keep things story focused. I always felt the elder scrolls games gave the player too much freedom. Its way to easy to wander around for days before you find real purpose. Skyrim gives more direction than oblivion...and thats a good thing. Bioware just becareful, skyrim may have been huge, but it sacrificed the quality of the characters within the universe.

Aside from that...no more repeat dungeon maps, more detail to environments, more focus on characters their arcs and their romance. Bring some of the origins magic back...the mysterious music and the sense of adventure.

[Fiddzz]

I think we are going to make the game WE want to make.

Sure you will always be influenced by other games(movies/art/writing/etc) previous and current, and you can use that, but you must remain true to your own design, goals, and vision.

[Allan Schumacher]

I know JR was a big fan of BioWare's games.

[Fiddzz]

M25105 wrote...

xyzmkrysvr wrote...

Blair Brown wrote...I think we are going to make the game WE want to make.

Yes, you did that with DA:II. You guys wanted to make a game where something "awesome" happens each time you press a button, where maps were recycled, and dialogue options limited.

When you compare the sales of DA:O to DA:II you can see how well that worked out for you. 

Maybe instead of making the game YOU want to make, you should focus a little more on the type of gameplay WE want. 

(Granted, I'll buy Dragon Age: Inquisition regardless because your games are still vastly more enjoyable than everything else out there. It's just sad that the sequels (both in the Dragon Age and Mass Effect universe) never quite lived up to the original)

Pay attention to this line, it's what seperates good companies from the bad.

First, this is just my opinion, but I whole heartedly disagree with the bolded statement.  From an artists perspective that goes against everything I have learned through years of experienece, training, and lessons.  If you try and make something to appease other people, you will not make something you love.  If you do not love the very thing you are creating, how could other people.  I do not think the creators of Journey or BioShock, sat down and went, "ok instead of making a game WE want to make, lets make sure we are appeasing a select group of people who want a specific type of gameplay"  So why would we?
-This is just a philosophical difference of opinion that would derail this thread so lets try not to get into a discussion about it.

In a more direct answer to your bolded statement.

Who is "we".  On these forums alone there are vastly different opinions on what that gameplay would be, hell, even in this thread.  Like I said, influences are wonderful, but if you do not stay true to your own vision I feel that that is a mistake. (in general, but applies to this discussion)

[Allan Schumacher]

http://www.theatlant...s-of-art/56205/

Of course, if you disagree than we're spinning in circles.


The biggest problem with making a game that I don't want to make is that you're not going to get me as excited to be working on the game, which is going to undermine my ability to contribute quality to it.


EDIT: Ninja'd by Stan!

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 09 avril 2013 - 08:06 .