809 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Olmert wrote...

Bioware has clearly moved away from the traditional notion of a cRPG.

Yes, they have.

It's a conscious decision.

That seems likely.  But they weren't open about the extent to which their direction was harmful to traditional roleplaying gameplay.

So I'm doing that for them.

They thankfully still espouse many RP elements, but I'm afraid the classic cRPG ship has sailed here.

They take features away.  They bring some of them back.  I don't think we can be quite so unequivocal on that point.

But there are now other avenues, like P:E and Torment, so you can really let BW off the hook and let them go where their creative juices take them.

BioWare is not going to change their direction based on what I say.

[Fast Jimmy]

So what is the takeaway here, then? What should they be doing? 

There's a big takeaway, in my opinion. But first, I'd say the cinematic focus is indeed becoming more of a focus. And focus in design is just like focus with a lens - you can't focus on something new without making other things less clear or even taking them out of the frame altogether. I, and I believe many others, feel that what was taken out of focus by shifting to a cinematic game made the overall product worse.

So, on to that takeaway. It's about branding.

Bioware had a pretty cinematic focus in KOTR, as well as Jade Empire. It wasn't a voiced PC and there were many of the same RPG abilities as we saw in DA:O, but it was quite cinematic when compared with, say NWN or BG. And those games were received fairly well (KOTOR more ban Jade Empire, but that was due to other factors in my opinion as well). The Mass Effect series had a voiced protagonist and was received positively as a Bioware RPG.

So why did DA2 get so much flak? It didn't have the auto-dialogue of ME3. And it had some pretty cool innovations in dialogue, such as being able to "use" companion dialogue options to achieve certain outcomes. There were some polish issues (reused environments, mish mash Act 3, silly combat design) but these are not things that a game lives and dies on. It is expectations.

People expected DA:O2. Now, before anyone goes off the handle about how fanboys need to keep an open mind and that a developer should always try to push the creative envelope when making a game... that doesn't matter. Whether having expectations is right, wrong or indifferent is highly irrelevant. They existed for DA2.

The DA series was branded as a tribute to old-school CRPGs. It had a silent protagonist, unlike the ME series. It had tactical, party-based combat, unlike a Bethesda game. It had a strong story and characters, but it was framed within a story that you could make your own, completely (optional origins, races, non-binary personalities, hard choices) - a game that was equal parts structured narrative as it was flexible for player freedom.

DA2 came out being advertised as the next exciting chapter in the DA series. That was its biggest, largest, most fatal flaw.

They changed the formula. They changed the product. Was it done radically? If you were to list it all on a sheet of paper, you'd come away with a lot more qualities that were the same than different. Even the developers themselves may have thought they were taking the best parts of DA:O, clipping out the "boring" parts or the ones that did not work as well as envisioned and amount up the things that lagged. And poof! Instant success that fans would be ecstatic for.

But they weren't. Well, some were. And many new fans joined up as well. But a large, LARGE swath of players called foul. Because? Branding.

The changes DA2 instituted resulted in a different feel. A different quality. A different product. People thought they were buying DA:O2. Again, whether that was fair or not is irrelevant - it was reality. DA2 was not advertised as a new look at the DA series. It was not advertised as an evolution of the Bioware model. It was not advertised as an interactive cinematic experience. It was advertised as DA2, sequel to the award winning CRPG DA:O, the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate!


And that's the lesson. Either stay the course with the mindset and philosophy of a game series or brand the experiment as such. But don't do one and say the other. Because branding so insanely powerful to the expectations people have for games. And if you mess with those expectations, you will have very unhappy consumers.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 25 juillet 2013 - 11:35 .

[Am1vf]

Fast Jimmy, well said.

[Fast Jimmy]

So what is the takeaway here, then? What should they be doing?

As to what they should be doing, it depends.

They are saying they are taking the best of DA:O and DA2 and making DA:I. I don't know if that statement is true.

If they are going with DA2 in nearly every respect, but trying to keep the DA:O fans in mind to make the experience better for them, then even mentioning DA:O at all is a TERRIBLE mistake. Because certain people (like myself) will only wish and request that everything DA2 be toned down or taken out. They need to wash the taste of DA:O from everyone's mouth and be upfront. They need to say "we're bringing the best elements of DA2 and making changes based on the feedback we've received." They need to plug DA2 over and over and over again. NOT Origins.

They shouldn't be putting Origin companions (like Morrigan) in their teasers (they could just as easily have used Flemeth there). They shouldn't be releasing comics where one of the key characters in Origins is off playing adventurer king across Thedas to find his lost rather, meeting up with other Origins companions along the way. They shouldn't even BREATHE the word Grey Wardens.

They need to treat Origins like it was made by a different department, a different company. A game that they may occasional draw some inspiration from, but which doesn't at all affect their game (aside from the fact that it shares the same setting). Because otherwise, fans will have different expectations and you will have conflicts and wars between DA2 fans, DA:O fans and people who just don't see the what the fuss is between the two.

They need to manage their brand. Which is something Bioware has been pretty notorious at being quite bad at over the past five years.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 25 juillet 2013 - 11:46 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Am1_vf wrote...

Fast Jimmy, well said.

I live to serve, good sir. I live to serve. 

[Realmzmaster]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

So what is the takeaway here, then? What should they be doing?

As to what they should be doing, it depends.

They are saying they are taking the best of DA:O and DA2 and making DA:I. I don't know if that statement is true.

If they are going with DA2 in nearly every respect, but trying to keep the DA:O fans in mind to make the experience better for them, then even mentioning DA:O at all is a TERRIBLE mistake. Because certain people (like myself) will only wish and request that everything DA2 be toned down or taken out. They need to wash the taste of DA:O from everyone's mouth and be upfront. They need to say "we're bringing the best elements of DA2 and making changes based on the feedback we've received." They need to plug DA2 over and over and over again. NOT Origins.

They shouldn't be putting Origin companions (like Morrigan) in their teasers (they could just as easily have used Flemeth there). They shouldn't be releasing comics where one of the key characters in Origins is off playing adventurer king across Thedas to find his lost rather, meeting up with other Origins companions along the way. They shouldn't even BREATHE the word Grey Wardens.

They need to treat Origins like it was made by a different department, a different company. A game that they may occasional draw some inspiration from, but which doesn't at all affect their game (aside from the fact that it shares the same setting). Because otherwise, fans will have different expectations and you will have conflicts and wars between DA2 fans, DA:O fans and people who just don't see the what the fuss is between the two.

They need to manage their brand. Which is something Bioware has been pretty notorious at being quite bad at over the past five years.

If David Gaider wants to write comics and books about the DA universe and include his creations why should he be limited.
If the gamer chooses to pick up the books and comics and expects the games to reflect them that is their misconception not his.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 26 juillet 2013 - 01:26 .

[Am1vf]

Fast Jimmy, I'm afraid I don't agree so much about the "what they should be doing" part.

I agree that they should be sincere about what they are planning and the possibility of the whole "we are taking the best of each" talk being just PR talk concerns me. I liked DAO and DA2 and I don't care so much about which one are they going to "follow", but another fiasco due to misleading marketing and hype is the last thing they need right now.

But I don't think that is good enough of a reason to "hide" DAO characters, they are part of the setting and are also DA2 characters to some extent.

btw, great quote in your signature.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Excuse what's likely a non-sequitur (I haven't read the whole thread), but I'll just put this out here right now: we'll not be using waves nearly as often as in DAII, so fights on the easiest difficulty should be over faster.

We'll still use them, but only when it makes sense, not as a core combat mechanic.

[Sylvius the Mad]

As long as they keep calling these roleplaying games, I'm going to keep demanding roleplaying.

[Am1vf]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Excuse what's likely a non-sequitur (I haven't read the whole thread), but I'll just put this out here right now: we'll not be using waves nearly as often as in DAII, so fights on the easiest difficulty should be over faster.

We'll still use them, but only when it makes sense, not as a core combat mechanic.

I would prefer combat to be fast in easy, fast and brutal in hard. The kind you either win in the first 3-6 seconds or get slaughtered. But, you know, whatever you want to do is fine.

[Fast Jimmy]

If David gaider wants to write comics and books about the DA universe and include his creations why should he be limited.
If the gamer chooses to pick up the books and comics and expects the games to reflect them that is thewir misconception not his.

Irrelevant. David Gaider is using the product of the DA series. While I'm sure Bioware gives him carte Blanche to write books about whatever he wants within the DA setting (which he largely created most the skeleton, flesh and skin on, btw), it still results in fans mentally going back to DA:O. It isn't wise planning. It may not be fair or may even seem dictatorial... but that doesn't mean it isn't counter-productive.

Bioware can't control what fans do. If fans continue to want DA:O-style design, despite nearly every indication of information we've seen so far to the contrary, then those fans have in orrect expectations. You can say that's wrong until the cows come home, but it doesn't matter - it is human nature, it is how people are.

Bioware can only control what they do. And if what they do keeps the public's mind on DA:O, which they have latched onto emotionally in a strong way, instead of focusing on every single small detail DA2 did right and how they can improve on anything it did wrong (without mentioning DA:O in the process), then they can better protect themselves from unrealistic expectations.

That may seem harsh or unfair, but I can guarantee it will result in a better landscape to promote for DA:I.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 26 juillet 2013 - 12:14 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Excuse what's likely a non-sequitur (I haven't read the whole thread), but I'll just put this out here right now: we'll not be using waves nearly as often as in DAII, so fights on the easiest difficulty should be over faster.

We'll still use them, but only when it makes sense, not as a core combat mechanic.

That is good to hear. In-line with previous statements, of course, but still good to hear. 

[Mike Laidlaw]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If they are going with DA2 in nearly every respect, but trying to keep the DA:O fans in mind to make the experience better for them, then even mentioning DA:O at all is a TERRIBLE mistake. Because certain people (like myself) will only wish and request that everything DA2 be toned down or taken out. They need to wash the taste of DA:O from everyone's mouth and be upfront. They need to say "we're bringing the best elements of DA2 and making changes based on the feedback we've received." They need to plug DA2 over and over and over again. NOT Origins.
 

Which, of course, begs the question: is it possible that we're mentioning Origins and putting Origins characters in trailers because things might, perhaps be closer in some ways to Origins than DAII?

Few people seem to be interested in considering that possibility. which I find odd.

[Am1vf]

We are forgetting the possibility that Inquisition could be its own thing, learning from both DAs as much as from any other game, if so might be best to say it.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If they are going with DA2 in nearly every respect, but trying to keep the DA:O fans in mind to make the experience better for them, then even mentioning DA:O at all is a TERRIBLE mistake. Because certain people (like myself) will only wish and request that everything DA2 be toned down or taken out. They need to wash the taste of DA:O from everyone's mouth and be upfront. They need to say "we're bringing the best elements of DA2 and making changes based on the feedback we've received." They need to plug DA2 over and over and over again. NOT Origins.
 

Which, of course, begs the question: is it possible that we're mentioning Origins and putting Origins characters in trailers because things might, perhaps be closer in some ways to Origins than DAII?

Few people seem to be interested in considering that possibility. which I find odd.

Then again, maybe we need to just get some more info out there before anyone can make that distinction. Guess we should do that this year.

[Fast Jimmy]

But I don't think that is good enough of a reason to "hide" DAO characters, they are part of the setting and are also DA2 characters to some extent.

Barring more disclosure on how exactly the game will feel/play, where we can begin discussions of the game without as large of a shadow of its predesors clouding the entire conversation/mindset I still think this is the best option. You can't create excitement for DA:I by using DA:O, in any respect, and not have people expect a game that is like DA:O. It is nearly impossible.

btw, great quote in your signature

Thank you!

[Fast Jimmy]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If they are going with DA2 in nearly every respect, but trying to keep the DA:O fans in mind to make the experience better for them, then even mentioning DA:O at all is a TERRIBLE mistake. Because certain people (like myself) will only wish and request that everything DA2 be toned down or taken out. They need to wash the taste of DA:O from everyone's mouth and be upfront. They need to say "we're bringing the best elements of DA2 and making changes based on the feedback we've received." They need to plug DA2 over and over and over again. NOT Origins. 
 

Which, of course, begs the question: is it possible that we're mentioning Origins and putting Origins characters in trailers because things might, perhaps be closer in some ways to Origins than DAII?

Few people seem to be interested in considering that possibility. which I find odd.

Then again, maybe we need to just get some more info out there before anyone can make that distinction. Guess we should do that this year.

Lol Shameless, Mike. Shameless. This post alone with be an Examiner article before the weekend is over. 

[Am1vf]

@Laidlaw
I liked many of the things DA2 proposed and I would like to see those more developed in a game with a longer development time, sorry for the redundancy. Doesn't necessarily have to be Inquisition, but I would like that. DAO was already great in its own and still one of my favorites so I don't want another DAO yet.

edit:

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
(...)

Then again, maybe we need to just get some more info out there before anyone can make that distinction. Guess we should do that this year.

That sounds correct.

Modifié par Am1_vf, 26 juillet 2013 - 12:25 .

[Sister Goldring]

So Mike, in case you're still reading, do you have any thoughts on the inclusion of an auto resolve feature for the DA franchise?

Some people have argued that this would optimise the experience for those players who are more focused on story progression than combat and would not be an expensive addition to implement.

I would be interested to know what your perspective (in a purely hypothetical sense) is.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Lol Shameless, Mike. Shameless. This post alone with be an Examiner article before the weekend is over. 

I have this suspicion that days before we ship, I will sneeze and it will turn into an article with said outlet.

[MerinTB]

Filament wrote...
So what is the takeaway here, then? What should they be doing? Something like PE? If that's not going to happen, should they focus more on making it as cinematic as possible "like they want to" with all its drawbacks you are all so quick to point out, for the benefits they see in it?

answering the question as if it is not rhetorical but serious

What I think the takeaway should be is that they first need to:
A - Decide what they want to be known for as developers
B - Prioritize game elements, most important to them as developers, in as best an ordered list as they can
C - Use step A to grab the tops few game elements fom B to be the company focus
D - Decide what each game / game franchise is going to be known for
E - Use C to help shape D

BioWare was mostly first know as the RPG developer, vis-a-vis partnership with Black Isle and the use of the Infinity Engine.  Then they became know as the story RPG developer, around the KotOR time.  Then they were known as the story choice (kind of choice & consequence) developer, around DA:O and ME.  Now it seems like they want to be the cinematic story developer, circa DA2, TOR, ME3.  It's a bit schizophrenic.

Throughout all that time, from BG2 forward, there is ONE (and a half) thing(s) that BioWare is consistently known for.  Companions (and romances.)

They have a strength in story-telling, largely through companions in the party, and (to the half again) having romance (a sizable) part of the (optional) player experience.

In my opinion, the takeaway is they should acknowledge their strengths and decide what they want to have as their driving, overarching goal fo the company.  Companion characters seems like a good place to start, as well as story.  Consistently, BG2 forward, this is arguably the one thing they have done and continue to do.

If that's the only throughput for the company as a whole, that's fine.  If that is their choice.

Each game / series then can have it's own focus.  ME on third person shooting mechanics.  DA on awesome button combat.  Etc.  But then the series should take that secondary focus seriously and make that the second priority.

Why?

So they make sure their top priority focused on game elements are the best they can be, and they make it a design imperative to NOT let neither experimentation (which is fine to allow in the game) nor adding other elements (which is almost certainly necessary) to detract from the top few game elements.

---

Personally,  I think they should make a game series that ditches most RPG elements entirely.  Do an adventure game, along the lines of Uncharted, but with their signature companion characters, dialog options, and story telling.  It would be the exact fit for their current cinematic drive.

[Fast Jimmy]

Am1_vf wrote...

We are forgetting the possibility that Inquisition could be its own thing, learning from both DAs as much as from any other game, if so might be best to say it.

For it to be it's own thing, it needs to leave its past in the background, not have it remain in the forefront. 
 
Also, for the other portion of your question, I think many people think it will be DA2-focused simply because the features we've seen confirmed are more DA2 in bent, particularly the role-play/dialogue/character control aspects. Things like the dialogue wheel (which brings to mind Paragon/Renegade binary dialogue or the "three ways to say yes" as the Dip/Sar/Agg options are sometimes called), the voiced main character, paraphrases, no race selection, etc.

Many see these design choices as obstacles to having a player-driven experience within the DA series. We haven't seen any way to have these features and still navigate the roadmap to an experience like what was had in DA:O.

[FenrirBlackDragon]

I admit I am one of those people who usually plays on the lowest difficulty setting first to see how well I do. If I decide I want more of a challenge, I'll amp it up. (Usually I can deal with harder difficulties quite well in fantasy RPGs such as Dragon Age, but in 3rd person shooters like Mass Effect I usually have too much trouble even on normal difficulty since I can't aim for the life of me so I usually stick to casual.) I honestly like combat so long as it's balanced with the other elements that make a good RPG for me. And I feel there would be something terribly missing without at least some lengthy section. I just don't want that to make up the bulk of the game.

Modifié par FenrirBlackDragon, 26 juillet 2013 - 12:30 .