13 réponses à ce sujet

[CybAnt1]

Alright, fellow Grognards. It looks like we have the core of a good group here.

 

So to you, I'd like to pose this question, and I would love the answer. BTW, FastJimmy, you seem most adroit at dealing with these issues, though I'd love everybody's input. 

 

When I've tried to raise why DA:I sticking to the "Grognard Framework" would be good, the most common source of opposition is the following claim: "Well, your crusty old grognard games don't sell. They can't be AAA titles. They will only attract a small niche audience. People want action, quick, fast, flashy! Plus who wants to deal with RULES n stuff. If they make games the way 'you folk' like them, nobody will buy them." 

 

... How would you counter this argument? 

 

(Typically, BTW, I deal with anti-grognards by pointing out they refuse to accept that one reason DA2 did more poorly than DA1 sales-wise is not just because it was a rush job, but yes, because, players saw how the series was moving away from key principles. And so they lost buyers/players that way.)

[bEVEsthda]

I generally dislike when DA2 is refered to as a 'rush job'. The reason is that, while it was, I don't think it displayed much evidence of it (there's the reused environments). DA2 detail writing was of good quality, and for what DA2 attempted to be, I thought it was a pretty solid game. Considering all the changes, an impressive piece of work.

This is all connected with my fear of that Bioware may have mainly listened to feedback from critics who actually liked DA2, rather than the ones they should have paid attention to - haters like me. "Rushed" was not the problem.

 

I think all the reasons for my dislike of DA2 came from Bioware's intention to change DA to something different. We have testimony to that the change of direction, was something that was decided by a group of senior members of Bioware. I couldn't help to see though, that there were some personel transfers from EA to Bioware. A couple of them had the job description "Game Design Consultant". I happened to find the CV of one of them on internet. Very mediocre.

Then, I also happen to know what happened to Will Wright - formerly of Maxis - during the development of Spore. He was taken to a series of meetings with EA people, where marketers described the market segment Spore should be aimed for, and emphasized what kind of game Spore must be. They basically brainwashed him to design a simple game for a foggy perception of what some people were supposed to like. Instead of what Will Wright had always done before, - design a game that interested him, and one he personally understood why it would be fun to play.

 

So I have a strong suspicion of that there really lives a black, many-tentacled monster inside EA, and that this monster really is responsible for EA's miracleous ability to turn everything they touch into poop, as well as eating every CEO who tries to kill it.

Look at DA2 again. Suddenly the DA IP was to be turned into a big market franchise. Comics, animated movies, "iconic characters". The art direction changed to fit the comics/anime industry better. Suddenly DA:O wasn't "fun" enough, and we got Dynasty Warriors -combat animation, "awesome-button", and exaggerated characters like Isabel and Varric. Varric, of course, totes a machinegun...

And Bioware have persisted with some things. "Iconic looks" for instance. Which, to me, proves that somebody is still more interested in marketing arguments than in just making a good game.

 

The problem I see for the video games industry, is that they all go for the same small core group of gamers, that over time has become distilled by the flavor of offered games.

Most people wouldn't dream of wasting time on such drivel. So most adult people don't play games. There's no fundamental reason why they shouldn't. Games is an entertainment media. And just like novels, movies, music,.. it should be for everybody. But that would demand that there are games made for others, than powerless 14-y boys with an incessant need to kill and feel powerful, incessant need to be quickly rewarded and confirmed for no effort.

 

I always saw cRPGs and the PC as a sector that had a different appeal, and a potential to grow, albeit slowly, as more people came in contact with a gaming world that could interest them. I think this opportunity is not great today. Mostly because Windows-PCs are a dying race (and MS have dug this grave for themselves), but also because the industry doesn't dare to target anyone but the core video-gamer group. And those who dare, haven't got the marketing muscle to reach anyone but the enthusiasts.

The marketing effort for Spore was a brave attempt by EA to look outside the box. Unfortunately, the marketers assumed the game had to be simple, and that it should "teach" typical game-genres. Whereas in reality it had to avoid those, and instead have something interesting going on, and not be easy as in 'simple', but easy as in intuitive.

 

cRPGs remain an opportunity to slowly grow the market. It remains to be seen if DA:I will be a successful compromise. Personally, I fear that the remaining Bioware developers don't understand what makes these games fun for their original audience. They're maybe fumbling in darkness, relying on exploration and multiple races, but possibly not understanding when & why those things are fun - is in the context of the personal role playing. Which for instance Bethesda's games still provide.

 

I'm rooting for DA:I. And I really don't want to air these fears in the open forums, as I don't want to project any negativity on DA:I. It's important that DA:I succeeds. Else DA is dead. We can only wait, and hope for role-playing to make a comeback in DA:I. If it does, and DA:I is a success, then we can go to work on Bioware, have them removing voiced char and dialogue wheel. ...Or evolving them in as yet unimagined direction.

 

One of the good things for future gaming, is that the new consoles have some powers that were missing from previous generations of consoles. Lots of memory and real crunching power at conditional code. This will allow developers to break out of the typical console formula and maybe make games where there is something interesting going on.

[CybAnt1]

Look, and I don't want to alienate people who play on gaming consoles, and I don't consider myself a "master race" to them.... I used to have them, but like I said my last one was a Sega Genesis. 

 

I have watched PC gaming die ... I remember when GameStop went to a single shelf for PC game titles, to a small stand-alone kiosk, to ... well, gone. (Plus, I was an even more-off-the-norm Mac gamer, so I always went through my usual wait for port, oh no port, bootcamp, thing.) Of course, some will say it's not dead, it's all moved to digital download, but the other thing I've noticed is it has been almost taken over wholesale by MMOs. It seems like those still doing PC games want that monthly subscription fee, or otherwise ... PC gamers are treated as having leprosy. Some master race.

 

And again, I don't have anything "against" people like Pasquale when I say this. I don't hold anything "against" people who for economic or 'segregation' (work on my PC, game on my console) reasons play on console. But it kind of seems apparent from facts. 

 

... DAO was made for PC gamers and that "play style" first, and then adapted for consoles. 

... DA2 seemed to flip the formula, it seems they made it for gaming consoles first, then adapted it for PC. This is WHY PC gamers had the "bug" of the "awesome button" survive into their games until it got patched out. No? 

 

And let's face it, there is a reason why console gamers prefer the action-RPG style game of RPGs, it fits the UI, controller style, and hardware limitations of consoles. Yes? 

 

It just seems to me that a lot of the streamlining and design shifts (most notably, wheel-adoption) in DA2 we saw came from those two things.

a) Mass Effect is selling big man! Make DA more like it! 

b.) PC gaming's dying (or so they saw it), we need the console gamers, we've got to make the game more attractive to them, and sales & marketing show they like action-RPGs. 

[dzs Angel]

The lovers of fast paced Action games have ME 2, DA 2, SWtoR and ME 3. Should be all the explanation they need.

[Pasquale1234]

And again, I don't have anything "against" people like Pasquale when I say this. I don't hold anything "against" people who for economic or 'segregation' (work on my PC, game on my console) reasons play on console. But it kind of seems apparent from facts.

 

 

Glad to hear it, mate. 

 

Would you believe I was one of the people here pitching a fit about them voicing the protag, taking away the skills, customization, and crafting, making combat more action than strategy, denying us the actual text of the words the protag will say, and the whole cinematic bent?  For quite awhile, I used the phrase "Just say no to Dragon Effect" in my signature, but realized that was a little too confrontational to get any sort of positive attention from the devs.

 

I've also stated - many times - that Hawke felt like any other NPC to me.  And that you should never ever be surprised by anything the PC says or does in a role-playing game.  If you are, you aren't role-playing.

 

That I happen to own a PS3 and have played both DA games on it does not define my gaming tastes.

 

... DAO was made for PC gamers and that "play style" first, and then adapted for consoles. 

... DA2 seemed to flip the formula, it seems they made it for gaming consoles first, then adapted it for PC. This is WHY PC gamers had the "bug" of the "awesome button" survive into their games until it got patched out. No? 

 

I don't think the 180 degree shift had anything to do with developing it for one platform or another.

 

Two major factors, imho:

1) The Mass Effectization of Dragon Age

2) Making it more cinematic

 

DAO was a superb cRPG.  The world of Thedas provided me with a stage, and the questlines, characters, and dialogue options a toolset with which I could create and tell the Warden's story.

 

DA2 was a choose-your-own adventure movie with some occasional wow-man-awesome action combat thrown in.

 

It just seems to me that a lot of the streamlining and design shifts (most notably, wheel-adoption) in DA2 we saw came from those two things.

a) Mass Effect is selling big man! Make DA more like it! 

b.) PC gaming's dying (or so they saw it), we need the console gamers, we've got to make the game more attractive to them, and sales & marketing show they like action-RPGs. 

 

Yes, I agree with your point a)

 

And I suppose it's possible that the marketing peeps have some notions along the lines of , but I really think the larger issue was their desire to go more cinematic.

 

Personally, when I want cinematic entertainment, I'll watch a movie.

 

As for sales - how about we point to DAO and Bethesda titles?

[CybAnt1]

Glad to hear it, mate. 

 

Would you believe I was one of the people here pitching a fit about them voicing the protag, taking away the skills, customization, and crafting, making combat more action than strategy, denying us the actual text of the words the protag will say, and the whole cinematic bent?  For quite awhile, I used the phrase "Just say no to Dragon Effect" in my signature, but realized that was a little too confrontational to get any sort of positive attention from the devs. 

 

I've also stated - many times - that Hawke felt like any other NPC to me.  And that you should never ever be surprised by anything the PC says or does in a role-playing game.  If you are, you aren't role-playing.

 

That I happen to own a PS3 and have played both DA games on it does not define my gaming tastes. 

 

... DAO was made for PC gamers and that "play style" first, and then adapted for consoles. 

... DA2 seemed to flip the formula, it seems they made it for gaming consoles first, then adapted it for PC. This is WHY PC gamers had the "bug" of the "awesome button" survive into their games until it got patched out. No? 

 

I don't think the 180 degree shift had anything to do with developing it for one platform or another.

 

Two major factors, imho:

1) The Mass Effectization of Dragon Age

2) Making it more cinematic

 

DAO was a superb cRPG.  The world of Thedas provided me with a stage, and the questlines, characters, and dialogue options a toolset with which I could create and tell the Warden's story.

 

DA2 was a choose-your-own adventure movie with some occasional wow-man-awesome action combat thrown in.

 

It just seems to me that a lot of the streamlining and design shifts (most notably, wheel-adoption) in DA2 we saw came from those two things.

a) Mass Effect is selling big man! Make DA more like it! 

b.) PC gaming's dying (or so they saw it), we need the console gamers, we've got to make the game more attractive to them, and sales & marketing show they like action-RPGs. 

 

Yes, I agree with your point a)

 

And I suppose it's possible that the marketing peeps have some notions along the lines of , but I really think the larger issue was their desire to go more cinematic.

 

Personally, when I want cinematic entertainment, I'll watch a movie.

 

As for sales - how about we point to DAO and Bethesda titles?

 

Well, this is why I've been trying to retrain myself - Bad, Cybant, Bad! - to not make this into a PC vs. console user "war" although some anti-Grognards (maybe esp.  KaiserShep or LinksOcarina) want to frame it that way. Links in particular seems to continue to try to use some kind of strange 'soothing' position against me, by emphasizing that "everything you don't like was on console anyway [most notably 'the awesome button'], and you use PC, so stop complaining." But then, his own position is undermined, Pasquale, by console users like you.  

 

You and FJ and maybe many others are living proof that the Grognard position can also be found among console gamers. And I get the sense that a few of the anti-Grognards may well be PC users, too. 

 

If I can make one thought/reflection though, I just don't know if we'll win with the anti-voiced protagonist issue. I do confess it's a hard battle to win. Lots of people like to hear their character speak. I can't say I dislike it - as a thing in itself. I'm also not crazy about the wheel, either, but we may have to concede the point that it's a good way to display tone icons, and, well, it's hard to argue against their existence (though my personal position is they're overused.) 

 

So that's why I've preferred to stick to Ieldra's argument - that what we Grognards want is not "get rid of voiced PC" or "get rid of the wheel" but "if we're going to have both, then let us be able to see what we're going to say before we say it." After all, it's a middle-ground position that can win over some anti-Grognards if we emphasize it's an optional tooltip when you hover on the paraphrase, like in Deus Ex:HR. 

 

What you wrote in bold seems so obvious and self-evident that I cannot understand why Bio doesn't "get" it - or they don't want to because they are listening to EA suits or other marketing men who don't want them to be able to. I can sense David Gaider's hostility to our Grognard demands, and it bothers me. "This is the way we want to do it." Well, I really wonder, David. Is "we" everybody on the Dragon Age dev team at this point? 

 

Anyway, it seems impossible to get anything relatively 'objective' regarding game sales or ratings, but I think anybody not utilizing mind-altering substances has to get two things.

 

1) DA2 sold less well, and was rated more poorly, overall than DAO.

2) It surely was a contributing factor that they alienated some of DAO's core audience by making DA more like ME, and/or more like an action-RPG. I'm not saying there weren't other reasons, but this was one. And they clearly didn't bring enough new gamers with that approach to make up for the ones they lost. 

 

To me, the evidence is the numerous statements they've made where they admit DA2 was a mistake (and not just because it was rushed), and that DAI will bring back some of the 'player-control,' depth, 'strategy,' etc. that defined DAO. Of course, they are still also calling DAI quite explicitly on the Inquisition page "an action-RPG" and also saying they will combine aspects of both games. 

 

I have a feeling, fellow Grognards, that once the combat details start to be more revealed in coming months, our battles (over features and content in this game) will once again be at our gates. 

[dzs Angel]

It is not a pc - console war. They have at least 3 different departments at Bioware: RPG, MMO and Shooter. Each of these departments is cooperating, in order to reduce the amount of resources needed to create a game. After a while they started to share ideas as well. That is the reason their games stopped making sense. Fast paced gaming is typical for shooters, not console games. Their are a lot of shooters on pc as well.  And in order to implement fast paced gaming etc., vital elements for rpg´s got cut.

[dzs Angel]

1) DA2sold less well, and was rated more poorly , Overall than DAO

2) It surely was a contributing factor that they alienated some of DAO´s core audience by making DA more like ME, and/or more like an action-RPG. I´m not saying there weren´t other reasons, but this was one. And they clearly didn´t bring enough new Gamers with that Approach to make up for the ones they lost.

 

AMEN

[bEVEsthda]

I just posted a long reply to a thread in The lobby (off topic) that was headlined something like

"RPG you like: H&S (turn based) or Real time".

I suggest Grognard members should head over there and pay some attention to the thread.

[Remmirath]

I feel that for quite a lot of the opposition, they simply want an entirely different sort of game than I do, and that game is not what I would consider a roleplaying game. They liked the very things about the Mass Effect series that caused me to give up on it entirely. They appear to honestly see no problems with the issues that I have with DA II, and even if anything see them as positives. It's not even a question of talking to a brick wall, it's a question of talking past a brick wall.

If people won't listen to even the argument that DA:O (a less flashy, less actiony game) sold better than DA II (a more flashy, more actiony game) what else can you say to them? Assurances that this is the case fall on deaf ears, and if proof is not even accepted, I don't know what to say.

I've tried to point out that people don't complain all over the place about the PC not being voiced in the Elder Scrolls series. They sell extremely well, so clearly not having a voiced PC is no sort of death knell whatsoever to sales.

I suppose I'm not very good at arguing about it; my arguments mostly hinge on the fact that many of these changes make for a worse roleplaying game, which is apparently not something that these people care about.

As to the PC voice and wheel specifically, that's one of the issues that I feel most strongly about, and is why I'm still only very cautiously optimistic about DA:I being an improvement over DA II. Perhaps it is due to my acting/directing background and my long years of tabletop roleplaying, but I'm well aware just how important vocal qualities and inflections are to portraying a character, and it grates on me constantly if I have no control over it. It is the single thing that makes it most difficult to roleplay a character for me, having to fight against somebody else's interpretation of the lines the whole way. It's maddening. I considering muting my sound entirely to get around it, but unfortunately I'm fond of the other sounds in games, so I didn't. The dialogue wheel I view as an extension of the problem -- they don't want redundancy, so we get the paraphrasing, and the paraphrasing also makes it more difficult to roleplay a character effectively because one must guess at what they'll actually say.

I still do not understand why making the voice and wheel combination optional is off the table. I see this as a solution that would actually be desirable to both sides, thus somewhat repairing their fractioned fanbase, and it truly doesn't seem that it would be that difficult to do from a programming standpoint -- particularly considering the advantages it would offer, as in, actually making all of the fans happy.

[CybAnt1]

I think, remmirath, we would all be happy with the "Ieldra solution":

 

Keep the wheel, keep voiced PC, keep paraphrases on the side of the wheel BUT have a toggle-able option to turn on tooltips so that when the pointer hovers over the paraphrase, "some large portion" (50%+?) if not all of the dialogue that follows from the paraphrase will be shown. So we have some idea of the result of the paraphrase. 

 

Bioware employees have said that their internal testing shows players don't like first reading and then hearing dialogue. Well, again, we can only take their word on that, I'd love to know some of the methodology of the testing including the demographics of testers. Did it bother them if it was optional, and if it was optional, how many would opt for it, and how often? We really don't know exactly how that in-house testing went, we just have to take their word for it.

 

Anyway, this is where they're meeting us halfway - if something on the wheel leads to an action or series of actions our PC is about to do (the 'action wheel,') that at least will be signaled to players beforehand.

 

I don't know why they can't do this with dialogue as well; but they're just not going to.

[Remmirath]

I think, remmirath, we would all be happy with the "Ieldra solution":
 
Keep the wheel, keep voiced PC, keep paraphrases on the side of the wheel BUT have a toggle-able option to turn on tooltips so that when the pointer hovers over the paraphrase, "some large portion" (50%+?) if not all of the dialogue that follows from the paraphrase will be shown. So we have some idea of the result of the paraphrase.

That would certainly help, but my largest problem is with having the voice at all, so for me it would only remove the lesser of the two annoyances (which is, admittedly, still rather a large annoyance).

It would help me figure out what the character is actually going to say, which is certainly useful (although it wouldn't help with exactly how they say it, which can change the meaning of the words quite a lot), but I would still never be able to replay the game more than the number of available voices. I have tried to replay both Mass Effect and Dragon Age II, and it just doesn't work for me; I can change the character's face and skills however much I want, sure, and intend to play them completely differently, but when they keep saying everything the same it still feels to a great extent like exactly the same character as the last time. The character saying everything differently than how I imagine it when selecting the dialogue option also bothers me at least as much as not saying exactly the words I expect, sometimes more depending on the exact piece of dialogue in question. All that even leaving aside the sort of voice it is, which will invariably not work for a large number of character concepts (and is why I changed my mind from my initial plan and played a male character in DA II, in fact; the female voice just didn't work with what I had in mind).
 

Bioware employees have said that their internal testing shows players don't like first reading and then hearing dialogue. Well, again, we can only take their word on that, I'd love to know some of the methodology of the testing including the demographics of testers. Did it bother them if it was optional, and if it was optional, how many would opt for it, and how often? We really don't know exactly how that in-house testing went, we just have to take their word for it.

Yeah. I don't know why it would bother anyone if it was optional, but I suppose some people could be bothered by that. I'd be inclined to think a good number of people would opt for it, but the only people who I can know would are myself and others I've heard express the same opinion.

Personally, even things I completely loathe and would never use myself don't bother me if they're optional (optional voice wouldn't bother me a bit, for instance).
 

Anyway, this is where they're meeting us halfway - if something on the wheel leads to an action or series of actions our PC is about to do (the 'action wheel,') that at least will be signaled to players beforehand.
 
I don't know why they can't do this with dialogue as well; but they're just not going to.

Well, that is helpful, at least. The icons in DA II were already an improvement over how it was in Mass Effect, since at least one could better guess whether or not your character was going to start insulting someone.

For me at least, all these things can help quite a lot for playing the game once -- I had a better experience in that regard already with DA II than with Mass Effect and especially Mass Effect 2 -- but I greatly value in a roleplaying game being able to replay the game at least a few times with very different characters and being able to play just about any character I want, and until there are either multiple options per gender for voices or a return to none at all, that's not something I'm going to be able to do.

Lower incidence of "being short with someone" turning into "rant at them about how inadequate they are" or "punch them in the face" is certainly a good thing, though. I don't want to imply else.

[CybAnt1]

The character saying everything differently than how I imagine it when selecting the dialogue option also bothers me at least as much as not saying exactly the words I expect, sometimes more depending on the exact piece of dialogue in question. (1)
 

Yeah. I don't know why it would bother anyone if it was optional, but I suppose some people could be bothered by that. I'd be inclined to think a good number of people would opt for it, but the only people who I can know would are myself and others I've heard express the same opinion. (2)

 

(1) This is one thing the faction I would call the "tone lovers" don't seem to get. Well, at least now I know whether my character is going to be Angry, Jokey, or Peacey! 

 

Except... does the writer's idea of an angry reaction (in that moment/situation/context) match my idea of an appropriate angry reaction (given my character's nature)? Does their concept of what would be an appropriate diplomatic or funny response there also match mine? I think this solves one problem, only to create another. Not only that, but in DA 2, the "inertia" of "dominant response" took over, and as you were angry with one, you soon found yourself being angry with all, no matter what. 

 

(2) I can't see how it could bother anybody if it was optional, but their response to optional toggles for things like this is it doubles their beta testing, so they push a puppy out the window every time they get a request for it. Also, Allan Schumacher said there were some technical problems with displaying the full-text of dialogue on the screen, which meant it was doable with difficulty. Also, of course, that this time, they weren't doing it. 

[Remmirath]

(1) This is one thing the faction I would call the "tone lovers" don't seem to get. Well, at least now I know whether my character is going to be Angry, Jokey, or Peacey! 
 
Except... does the writer's idea of an angry reaction (in that moment/situation/context) match my idea of an appropriate angry reaction (given my character's nature)? Does their concept of what would be an appropriate diplomatic or funny response there also match mine? I think this solves one problem, only to create another. Not only that, but in DA 2, the "inertia" of "dominant response" took over, and as you were angry with one, you soon found yourself being angry with all, no matter what.

Exactly. I've no idea why they don't get it, either; it seems fairly obvious to me, especially with the number of people who have explained it over time.

The dominant response did indeed cause problems. The character I played in DA II was, for the most part, fairly reasonably represented by it -- purely by coincidence, since he had little patience for fools and spent most of his time dealing with them by necessity -- but at the times it selected a response based on the tone in a conversation with friends or family or those he actually respected, it got it wrong, because I would have selected a much nicer response in those situations. It didn't allow for any variation based on circumstance; if you were angry or sarcastic to foes, you would also be to friends.

Of course, I don't think that the game should ever have places where your character says something but you can't pick it. That in itself is quite a problem.
 

(2) I can't see how it could bother anybody if it was optional, but their response to optional toggles for things like this is it doubles their beta testing, so they push a puppy out the window every time they get a request for it. Also, Allan Schumacher said there were some technical problems with displaying the full-text of dialogue on the screen, which meant it was doable with difficulty. Also, of course, that this time, they weren't doing it. 

Yeah, I've seen them say that several times. I wouldn't have thought that it would necessitate that much extra testing, but I'm not much of a programmer, so I don't really know what all would be involved with it.

I suppose I'll never understand why they went to the dialogue wheel and away from the list in the first place, because even leaving out how tied in it is with a feature I hate, I can't see any advantage of it over the list. It doesn't take up much if any less room, it doesn't allow more lines, and it makes it harder to go through dialogue using the keys instead of clicking.