240 réponses à ce sujet

[sandalisthemaker]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'm not sure how true my point is to Dragon Age, but you do still have an interesting point either way. I would argue, however, that this would have happened regardless of the changing design philosphies. There were people who loved DA:O's story, but didn't like the slowness of its combat.

True, but instead of tweaking a few things in the formula and keeping most things the same, the DA team gave a very different game with DA2. It shares a setting and some basic RPG elements, but there were some very radical departures in how things were implemented from one to the next. I feel like Fable 3 and Kingdoms of Amalur have more in common with each other than DA:O and DA2 did.

It becomes unfortunate, simply because fans cannot predict with any level of certainty what a DA game even is, let alone the quality of said game. That's just unfortunate.

DA is still searching for its identity. If Inquisition is a success, then future games will certainly be more similar to it.

[Fast Jimmy]

Before the existence of public forums, the impact of diverse opinions and tastes was at a minimum. Since our opinions and tastes were only shared with a tiny group of people, society had casually tolerated the idea of diversity and variety. Once public online forums had surfaced, people started to break into 'like minded' groups. People became shocked and appalled by the level of diversity. Instead of trying to tolerate our diverse nature, society is slowly adopting socialism to control public opinion. 

Well, to be a nitpick, the presence of online forums has practically mirrored that of the rise of video games - except for REALLY primitive home games in the 70's and early 80's, some form of internet forums have existed to discuss things.

To address more pragmatically though, I'd say that the more ubiquitous presence of the internet has helped a more "tribal" mindset in regards to change, true, but it still was present prior to it. For instance, the first sequel to the original Legend of Zelda changed the top down view for a side scroller, puzzles were replaced with more action-y combat and the story, although not the original Zelda's strong point, was more convoluted and obtuse. The game was blasted as being way too different and was not successful. It was the last Zelda game on the NES console and might have been the end of the series if not for the SNES A Link to the Past release, which went back to a top down view with more puzzles and exploration, then the entire franchise may have not survived.

Too much change in a franchise can easily lead to rejection of a title, despite it possibly being a good standalone title on its own merits.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 08 décembre 2013 - 07:35 .

[Mr.House]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'm not sure how true my point is to Dragon Age, but you do still have an interesting point either way. I would argue, however, that this would have happened regardless of the changing design philosphies. There were people who loved DA:O's story, but didn't like the slowness of its combat.

True, but instead of tweaking a few things in the formula and keeping most things the same, the DA team gave a very different game with DA2. It shares a setting and some basic RPG elements, but there were some very radical departures in how things were implemented from one to the next. I feel like Fable 3 and Kingdoms of Amalur have more in common with each other than DA:O and DA2 did.

It becomes unfortunate, simply because fans cannot predict with any level of certainty what a DA game even is, let alone the quality of said game. That's just unfortunate.

DA is still searching for its identity. If Inquisition is a success, then future games will certainly be more similar to it.

DAO was a succes and look what happen.

[Fast Jimmy]

DA is still searching for its identity. If Inquisition is a success, then future games will certainly be more similar to it.

DAO was a succes and look what happen.

Well, there was a LOT of team turnover between DA:O and DA2. Many of the team members were either new to their roles or even brand new to the team, working on their first game ever with DA2. From the (granted, little) insight we have into the team for Inquisition, it seems to be the same major players in the same relative roles for DA:I.

Now... does that mean that since the team is the same, we should expect DA2 with some polish? Or now that the team is a little more experienced and less looking to show they are different, will they possibly dipping more into past Bioware successes (including DA:O)? Or will it be something totally different? And, if so, will that help cement the series or make it even FURTHER schizophrenic?

[Dutchess]

Mr.House wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

DA is still searching for its identity. If Inquisition is a success, then future games will certainly be more similar to it.

DAO was a succes and look what happen.

I'm still confused about why the team felt they had to change that much. Apparently DAO took years to make, so you'd think that they had plenty of time to figure out what they wanted with this setting, yet with the second game it's retcons and adaptations left and right. 

[Fast Jimmy]

I'm still confused about why the team felt they had to change that much. Apparently DAO took years to make, so you'd think that they had plenty of time to figure out what they wanted with this setting, yet with the second game it's retcons and adaptations left and right.

The team changed. Manager, Producer, Lead Designer, Combat Designer and I'm sure many others were all different from DA:O to DA2. Well, I should say they were different from the PC version of DA:O to the console version of DA:O. The PC team made the game for five years, the new team ported it to the 360 and then started making DA2.

[ruggly]

It looks promising, but I'm remaining neutral.

[I SOLD MY SOUL TO BIOWARE]

I quite like the looks of it so far. And I don't really care about how disappointing ME3 and DA2 were, honestly. This is a game. I'm not gonna curse BioWare and swear to never buy one of their products again just because a few of them failed to entertain me.

I just hope Witcher 3 and Inquisition have a large gap between release dates. So I can have time to devour them both. :S

[Deadmac]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Too much change in a franchise can easily lead to rejection of a title, despite it possibly being a good standalone title on its own merits.

I agree with a lot of stuff in your post.

As someone who works in the advertising industry, I have encountered the negative impact of 'too much change too quickly'. In order for a brand to become successful, the rules for consistency have to be established. Some examples of consistency include company logo, product design, product placement, color usage, and typographical choices. Unless a brand suffers from some sort of stagnation, the amount of change someone would make to it would be minute.

If I had to guess at what caused the franchise to stagnate, I would have to point directly at "Dragon Age: Awakening". Unlike the original aspects of the core game, "Dragon Age: Awakening" was rather a boring expansion. Since the expansion didn't contain anything new, the impact of the original brand may have hit a lull. Therefore, BioWare thought it would be wise to shift gears.

"Dragon Age: Inquisition" is more of a compromise, which tries to combined both branding styles.

Modifié par Deadmac, 08 décembre 2013 - 08:17 .

[Hrungr]

Overall - I'm very, very happy with what we've seen so far.

I think despite all the extra development involved and having to created RPG elements from scratch, moving over the Frostbite engine was the right choice. It *looks* great, even in a poor quality gameplay vid. I love the openness. The detail. And with developer comments saying their more current builds look even better... I can't wait to see how a forest or a swamp will look like.

I like the feel of the combat, the pacing and attacks look good, but I'm on the fence with the "cratering" finishing blows. For spells it looks great but for melee attacks it feels a bit much. Maybe it just needs to be scaled back a bit. But I do like the destructible environments and even the gate bashing didn't bother me.

The Agents system seems promising, multiple (and tailorable) strongholds and I'm very curious to see how the new crafting system is going to work.

The one change that I'm on fence about is the move to a much more resource-management based game. This will be the biggest departure gameplay-wise from the previous DAs. Given that it's an open-world(ish) game and there are significant distances to trek to get to places. Is there fast travel? How (and how often) you have replenish your resources is going to be important.

But I think multiple races is what really sealed the deal for me. Initially when announced the game and humans were going to be the only race - that was *one* thing I was really disappointed to hear. It wasn't a dealbreaker, but it was... a letdown. But now - we have our elves, dwarves and even the qunari. And from the early renders they've shown - they look pretty good! And they've been teasing a wide range of character and gear customization options. Sounds good t'me.

Of course what's really going to make or break DAI is the story and the characters... of which we know very little. But I can't tell you how glad I am they were able to get the extra time and resources to put towards this game. I'm hoping for RPG of the Year here.

Modifié par Hrungr, 08 décembre 2013 - 08:52 .

[Karlone123]

My pre-judgements tend to be poor ones, but I feel as if DAI may even be better than DAO.

[Fetunche]

The only thing that puts me off is the resource management, sounds like a lot of unnecessary faffing about.

[durasteel]

All I really care about is the story, about which we know very little so far. What we do know is certainly interesting, and makes me want to know more.

Also, the fact that Patrick Weekes is now part of the DA team makes me have more enthusiasm for Inquisition, although I'm more skeptical of the future of the Mass Effect franchise without him working on it.

[durasteel]

Fetunche wrote...

The only thing that puts me off is the resource management, sounds like a lot of unnecessary faffing about.

I hope they don't add a bunch of annoying busy-work to the game. I hate that. Any "gameplay" that doesn't support the story (eg, trash loot collection and selling with limited inventory space) is annoying busy work.

[Angrywolves]

well fast jimmy certain other players claim there's been little change in Bioware personnel since DAO. I always thought they were lying or plain wrong. shrugs.
I do agree with what Brent Knowles said, although I am sure those remarks made Bioware unhappy.I still feel Bioware is doing a good job with DAI overall, despite some bad artwork on the faces of a couple of the characters.We'll have to see how well it plays.

[SilkieBantam]

I'm excited, I think it looks fantastic.

[Clockwork_Wings]

I'm excited. I'm looking forward to the keep, although I'm hoping I can upload a premade save into it. I hope they utilize agents as ways to include cameos without feeling forced. I hope some loose ends get tied up.

And I want to meet the dwarf noble's son and city elf's former fiance. And Felsi and the nugget.

[Orctavius]

I'm excited. Of course, I'm one of the people who really enjoyed both MEIII and DAII.

[DRTJR]

I am hopeful, this seems on paper like it's my dream game. you manage an army to build influence and power while still leading from the front.

[Wissenschaft]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

Based on info we know about & footage we've seen, how do you feel about DAI? 

I'm not sure I *feel* anything about it, but I do plan on buying it.

Then again, I'd probably plan on buying it without any info or footage.

 

Apathy is an emotion too, so even if your "feel" nothing about DA:I, your still feeling something.

Yeah, think about that. Just think about it.  

[canarius]

There is too much hate for this game so far because of DA2 even though it's mostly trolling or Witcher fans trying to make this look bad since it's a competition. The game looks amazing so far. 30 minute demo was amazing. From what they have said, it sounds very ambitious. If they can pull it, the game could be a masterpiece but if they are lying(which I doubt) as they did with DA2, it might even fail. This is Bioware's chance for redemption. I feel like they will redeem and give us a masterpiece like DAO and we will get another contender for 2014 goty along with Watch Dogs and the Witcher 3. I will definitely buy this but I need to see more gameplay and more info before I preorder a collector's edition.

[XX-Pyro]

Hopeful is the word I would use. Mind you I enjoyed DA2 just not as much as Origins (though it did make staunch improvements in some areas).

[Sidney]

renjility wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

DA is still searching for its identity. If Inquisition is a success, then future games will certainly be more similar to it.

DAO was a succes and look what happen.

I'm still confused about why the team felt they had to change that much. Apparently DAO took years to make, so you'd think that they had plenty of time to figure out what they wanted with this setting, yet with the second game it's retcons and adaptations left and right. 

Years to make, not a huge market share relative to the time I'm gueswsing. They wanteed to reach a bigger audience. Frankly, DAI is trying to do the same thing by throwing in all kinds of buzzwords and going in the "me too" approach of Skyrim which terrifes the hades out of me.

[canarius]

Modifié par canarius, 08 décembre 2013 - 10:28 .

[Uccio]

Deadmac wrote...

"Dragon Age: Awakening" was rather a boring expansion. Since the expansion didn't contain anything new, the impact of the original brand may have hit a lull. 

Awakening was a strange down stripped expansion where working game features were taken away and nothing was given for replacement. Kind of a empty shell of the Origins. I gave it only one playthrough.