116 réponses à ce sujet

[Neon Rising Winter]

cjones91 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Poison93 wrote...
Adding a feature that a huge part of the fanbase wanted is perfectly valid and if you would not have needed it, then that's fine, but don't try to present it as a fact that the feature is absolutely unnecessary, just because you feel they should have focused on something else that you perceive as more important.

I don't think I'd go so far as to say a "huge" part of the fanbase wanted. The metrics are pretty clear that the majority of the DA:O users went human. But a huge part of the vocal fanbase wanted it, and that's more important. It's not everyone that counts pre-release, it's the loud ones. 

How many of those people were lazy and skipped the CC in DAO?That's why the stats were skewed in favor of the human noble option.

I wonder if they'd change the default option to whichever the least popular race from DAO was and see how that affects the stats.

[cjones91]

Narrow Margin wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Poison93 wrote...
Adding a feature that a huge part of the fanbase wanted is perfectly valid and if you would not have needed it, then that's fine, but don't try to present it as a fact that the feature is absolutely unnecessary, just because you feel they should have focused on something else that you perceive as more important.

I don't think I'd go so far as to say a "huge" part of the fanbase wanted. The metrics are pretty clear that the majority of the DA:O users went human. But a huge part of the vocal fanbase wanted it, and that's more important. It's not everyone that counts pre-release, it's the loud ones. 

How many of those people were lazy and skipped the CC in DAO?That's why the stats were skewed in favor of the human noble option.

I wonder if they'd change the default option to whichever the least popular race from DAO was and see how that affects the stats.

That's a great idea and it would show most people always go with the default when playing games with race selection.

[Das Tentakel]

draken-heart wrote...

NEWSFLASH: games are often only compared to the original in terms of selling, and the sequels never do as well as the original, and are often nothing like the original.

They are also compared to games in the same broad genre (fantasy CRPG's in the case of DA2) released in roughly the same timeframe, even if there are major differences (Witcher II and Skyrim).
DA:I will have to compare favourably to DA:O, but it can't afford to be too much behind Witcher II, III and modded and patched PC Skyrim when it comes to the aspects where these games are comparable.

[draken-heart]

Das Tentakel wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

NEWSFLASH: games are often only compared to the original in terms of selling, and the sequels never do as well as the original, and are often nothing like the original.

They are also compared to games in the same broad genre (fantasy CRPG's in the case of DA2) released in roughly the same timeframe, even if there are major differences (Witcher II and Skyrim).
DA:I will have to compare favourably to DA:O, but it can't afford to be too much behind Witcher II, III and modded and patched PC Skyrim when it comes to the aspects where these games are comparable.

and in the end, people will still complain. when it comes to game, there really is no winner.

I also think the true reason for the hate, is not the "poor" implementation of things (though that is part of the issue), it is that the story had no real main villain you had to defeat, which is too unique for the fans of RPG.

[cjones91]

draken-heart wrote...

Das Tentakel wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

NEWSFLASH: games are often only compared to the original in terms of selling, and the sequels never do as well as the original, and are often nothing like the original.

They are also compared to games in the same broad genre (fantasy CRPG's in the case of DA2) released in roughly the same timeframe, even if there are major differences (Witcher II and Skyrim).
DA:I will have to compare favourably to DA:O, but it can't afford to be too much behind Witcher II, III and modded and patched PC Skyrim when it comes to the aspects where these games are comparable.

and in the end, people will still complain. when it comes to game, there really is no winner.

I also think the true reason for the hate, is not the "poor" implementation of things (though that is part of the issue), it is that the story had no real main villain you had to defeat, which is too unique for the fans of RPG.

Fallout:New Vegas says hello.

[draken-heart]

cjones91 wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Das Tentakel wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

NEWSFLASH: games are often only compared to the original in terms of selling, and the sequels never do as well as the original, and are often nothing like the original.

They are also compared to games in the same broad genre (fantasy CRPG's in the case of DA2) released in roughly the same timeframe, even if there are major differences (Witcher II and Skyrim).
DA:I will have to compare favourably to DA:O, but it can't afford to be too much behind Witcher II, III and modded and patched PC Skyrim when it comes to the aspects where these games are comparable.

and in the end, people will still complain. when it comes to game, there really is no winner.

I also think the true reason for the hate, is not the "poor" implementation of things (though that is part of the issue), it is that the story had no real main villain you had to defeat, which is too unique for the fans of RPG.

Fallout:New Vegas says hello.

Fallout: New Vegas was completely implemented poorly, unlike the Dragon age Series.

I guess when it comes to DA 2, I am biased towards seeing the good in the bad, so even if the game is "done poorly" I still see the redeeming qualities, whereas everyone else is clear-heded enough to only see the bad, and none of the good.

Modifié par draken-heart, 01 septembre 2013 - 07:15 .

[SphereofSilence]

Provided they have enough resources and time to do it, ambition is good. Time will tell whether the game's going to be awesome or not. Sure looks absolutely great at the moment, but we'll see.

[draken-heart]

SphereofSilence wrote...

Provided they have enough resources and time to do it, ambition is good. Time will tell whether the game's going to be awesome or not. Sure looks absolutely great at the moment, but we'll see.

Ambition is what a realist calls the desires of an optimist.

[Das Tentakel]

draken-heart wrote...

Das Tentakel wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

NEWSFLASH: games are often only compared to the original in terms of selling, and the sequels never do as well as the original, and are often nothing like the original.

They are also compared to games in the same broad genre (fantasy CRPG's in the case of DA2) released in roughly the same timeframe, even if there are major differences (Witcher II and Skyrim).
DA:I will have to compare favourably to DA:O, but it can't afford to be too much behind Witcher II, III and modded and patched PC Skyrim when it comes to the aspects where these games are comparable.

and in the end, people will still complain. when it comes to game, there really is no winner.

I also think the true reason for the hate, is not the "poor" implementation of things (though that is part of the issue), it is that the story had no real main villain you had to defeat, which is too unique for the fans of RPG.

It's a noticeable difference with many videogames, and some disappointed gamers have mentioned it as a reason - but honestly, very often in a context where they seem to be struggling with trying to explain why they didn't like the game. 'Not epic enough' etc. I've yet to encounter a good, convincing analysis of DA2 that includes the absence of a Big Bad as a major reason for the relative failure.

A Big Bad may make things easier (easier to grasp, easier to structure), but they don't make or break a game by themselves.

[draken-heart]

Das Tentakel wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Das Tentakel wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

NEWSFLASH: games are often only compared to the original in terms of selling, and the sequels never do as well as the original, and are often nothing like the original.

They are also compared to games in the same broad genre (fantasy CRPG's in the case of DA2) released in roughly the same timeframe, even if there are major differences (Witcher II and Skyrim).
DA:I will have to compare favourably to DA:O, but it can't afford to be too much behind Witcher II, III and modded and patched PC Skyrim when it comes to the aspects where these games are comparable.

and in the end, people will still complain. when it comes to game, there really is no winner.

I also think the true reason for the hate, is not the "poor" implementation of things (though that is part of the issue), it is that the story had no real main villain you had to defeat, which is too unique for the fans of RPG.

It's a noticeable difference with many videogames, and some disappointed gamers have mentioned it as a reason - but honestly, very often in a context where they seem to be struggling with trying to explain why they didn't like the game. 'Not epic enough' etc. I've yet to encounter a good, convincing analysis of DA2 that includes the absence of a Big Bad as a major reason for the relative failure.

A Big Bad may make things easier (easier to grasp, easier to structure), but they don't make or break a game by themselves.

The new school rise to power with no primary antagonist makes things harder to develop right, which is why it was "implemented poorly." I, however, liked the game in spite of the "failure" of it.

Modifié par draken-heart, 01 septembre 2013 - 07:40 .

[Killdren88]

As long as they don't lie per release (I'm looking at you Hudson) it won't ****** too many people off sure it won't be perfect. But if its as good as its sounding we have little to worry about.

[MakutaDax]

draken-heart wrote...

Challseus wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

LindsayLohan wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

I am more worried about the timeframe. ONE WHOLE YEAR!? that seems weird and unnecessary.

Have you seen the scope of this thing? One year is good and standard.

The added races because of the extension. not the other way around. Working on it until the tail end of summer and releasing it early fall is good. But keeping it for a whole year is unnecessary.

How can you possibly even be qualified to make this statement, unless you actually work at Bioware? We have absolutely no idea what state the game is in, and no idea about things I'm sure they're adding in that they just haven't decided to talk about yet?

I just do not see why the extension was necessary. It seems like to me they extended it just for fanservice, when all of those resources could have been spent on a better story for the game, and not on things like more races or even the horned folk.

And how do you know that the extension won't allow them to develope a larger, more epic story? Sure they might have the bulk of it written, but maybe they were able to do that because they knew they could put the techinical development off thanks to the year long extension. Maybe they can also use that time to enhance the story by adding to it or enhancing its presence in-game. There's a lot of good things that can be done thanks to an extra year and I think (hope) they've only begun showing us the tip of their proverbial iceberg. Especially since that iceberg can be grown even larger by next Fall.

As for over ambition, I agree that there really isn't such a thing as far as game development goes. I don't want a repeat of DA:O or DA2, I want something better than both of them and for that a great deal of ambition is required. Now, could they suffer from over extending their resources and alowing certain portions of the game to fall flat of our expectations? Certainly and that's the thing I'm worried about, not their ambition.

[draken-heart]

MakutaDax wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Challseus wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

LindsayLohan wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

I am more worried about the timeframe. ONE WHOLE YEAR!? that seems weird and unnecessary.

Have you seen the scope of this thing? One year is good and standard.

The added races because of the extension. not the other way around. Working on it until the tail end of summer and releasing it early fall is good. But keeping it for a whole year is unnecessary.

How can you possibly even be qualified to make this statement, unless you actually work at Bioware? We have absolutely no idea what state the game is in, and no idea about things I'm sure they're adding in that they just haven't decided to talk about yet?

I just do not see why the extension was necessary. It seems like to me they extended it just for fanservice, when all of those resources could have been spent on a better story for the game, and not on things like more races or even the horned folk.

And how do you know that the extension won't allow them to develope a larger, more epic story? Sure they might have the bulk of it written, but maybe they were able to do that because they knew they could put the techinical development off thanks to the year long extension. Maybe they can also use that time to enhance the story by adding to it or enhancing its presence in-game. There's a lot of good things that can be done thanks to an extra year and I think (hope) they've only begun showing us the tip of their proverbial iceberg. Especially since that iceberg can be grown even larger by next Fall.

As for over ambition, I agree that there really isn't such a thing as far as game development goes. I don't want a repeat of DA:O or DA2, I want something better than both of them and for that a great deal of ambition is required. Now, could they suffer from over extending their resources and alowing certain portions of the game to fall flat of our expectations? Certainly and that's the thing I'm worried about, not their ambition.

was just my opinion that the extra races are unnecessary when they could have had companions serve the same purpose. I would like the Inquisition be distrusted all over, not just with races i did not choose, and have my Companions join me and help me out in getting others to join me.

Modifié par draken-heart, 01 septembre 2013 - 08:47 .

[Melca36]

cjones91 wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Korusus wrote...

Methinks you should read some of David Gaider's blogs about writing for videogames and how BioWare distributes its resources.  It would be enlightening for you I feel.

provide a link, and I might read when i get time. College starting up next month and I have to make sure I am ready.

Until then, I do not see the need to extend the development when a human protag was fine with me.

People have been wanting playable races even since DA2,Bioware is using the extra time to bring them back and add more features to the game which will make it better.

and if they did not extend the time, peopel would have accepted being a human.

I doubt it,many would still have advocated for playable races in DA4 if DA:I did'nt have them.

It will be interesting to see if anything suffers depth wise for adding the extra races.

I personally enjoyed all the races and I hope the fact that there are playabale races will make people stop bashing people who prefer playing humans

[draken-heart]

Melca36 wrote...

It will be interesting to see if anything suffers depth wise for adding the extra races.

I personally enjoyed all the races and I hope the fact that there are playabale races will make people stop bashing people who prefer playing humans

I personally hope that since they are adding races, they have them as pure flavor, and use companions for the role the races have on the trust front.