357 réponses à ce sujet

[seraphymon]

you two are still yapping and filling out the pages with that crap? At any rate there is no point in worrying about things we cant control, All we have infront of us is the release of DAI atm.Im also kind of tired of people listing DAO as the holy grail of what a rpg is. It is a wonderful game for sure, and the toolset is an amazing asset, but there are so many aspects of the game that were really sluggish and clumsy. I dont understand for example how people can think the combat in DAO is good enough to be held up as a standard that future titles should follow, i mean seriously. Your characters spent more time awkwardly shuffling around oneanother like a bunch of gorillas on crack than they did swinging a weapon. It was slow, clunky and looked awful.  ooh the gorilla like movements...It looked even more unsettling with female chars, especially with those weird stringy noodle like arms.

Don't think many would disagree DAO had its flaws in combat and one that needed addressing.  But DA2 took it way too far on the other end and DAI is just copy/paste so far. Given the choices, Id rather take DAO. At least I can see what the hell my characters are doing and where they are at and I dont have those stupid drawves back flipping as if on crack.

[Paul E Dangerously]

Customer service is always a tough endeavour. Just comes with the territory in any business. 

 

What I think a lot of folks may be missing is telemetry. I say "may" because I have no hard evidence, BUT, both DA:O and DA2 hook up to the internet and it's very possible that data taken from both games has guided the dev team in this change. Where a lot of people cry about "less choice" it may be indicated by telemetry that folks really only use a handful of powers (spells, talents) over and over again and it may be a wise use of resources (which are always limited) to whittle down choice in one area and expand it in other areas that customers seem to be more interested in. They already know they can't please everyone, it would behoove them to use whatever data they have to design a game that pleases most of their customers.

 

Games really are an experiment. It's evident in the evolution in each series I've played, Bioware to Bethesda. There is no hard science to this, it's always a minor miracle they pull these things off. That's no excuse for poor games or bad customer service, it's just a fact I take into consideration when evaluating games. 

 

The problem with this kind of thinking is that it inevitably leads to something that cuts out whole chunks of the game. Like with DA2, the logic was "Most people played humans anyway, so nobody will care if we eliminate the other races".

 

My real problem with it is that a game in a series should at least look like it's from the same series. If you showed someone videos of DAO and DA2 side-by-side without telling them the titles, they look like they could be from completely different franchises. Change isn't a bad thing in and of itself, but when you hack off so much of it that it's barely even recognizable as the descendent of the original product, there's a problem.

[Morroian]

I'm pretty sure Bioware learned their lesson from DA:2,

 

Given the limited action set, the reduction in abilities and the lack of choice in stat allocation I think they learned some lessons but not enough.  

[In Exile]

The problem with this kind of thinking is that it inevitably leads to something that cuts out whole chunks of the game. Like with DA2, the logic was "Most people played humans anyway, so nobody will care if we eliminate the other races".

 

My real problem with it is that a game in a series should at least look like it's from the same series. If you showed someone videos of DAO and DA2 side-by-side without telling them the titles, they look like they could be from completely different franchises. Change isn't a bad thing in and of itself, but when you hack off so much of it that it's barely even recognizable as the descendent of the original product, there's a problem.

 

BG1 and BG2 don't look like they're from the same series any more than DA:O and DA2 look like they're from the same series, seeing as both are past on iterations of the same engine. 

[Paul E Dangerously]

BG1 and BG2 don't look like they're from the same series any more than DA:O and DA2 look like they're from the same series, seeing as both are past on iterations of the same engine. 

 

Really? Because aside from the graphical upgrade to BG2, it's still an isometric D&D game. As opposed to the difference between DAO and DA2, where one game looks almost entirely like a hack-and-slash.

[Steelcan]

It seems to me that it's going to be one of those two-extremes games. It's either going to be really good, or it's going to absolutely suck. Only time will tell, but I don't feel like it's going to get many average reviews.

I doubt it, I think its going to garner slightly positive reviews overall but be rather mixed, I imagine (barring any ME3 level plot catastrophes) the reviewers will split into those who like the streamlining and those who don't

[In Exile]

Really? Because aside from the graphical upgrade to BG2, it's still an isometric D&D game. As opposed to the difference between DAO and DA2, where one game looks almost entirely like a hack-and-slash.

 

It's the same engine. A screenshot from DA:O and DA2 look almost entirely the same. Mechanically, that is to say under the hood, DA2 was basically identical to DA:O with the exception of it having superior (but more poorly balanced) mechanics with far, far worse encounter design. 

 

 

These are clearly related games. 

 

Edit: Whoops, based the same DA:O screenshot twice, LOL. 

[dch2404]

I hate to say it but unlike other franchises, Dragon Age has yet to firmly establish its gameplay identity. Its universe and lore are all filled though, but I don't think story is enough to save a franchise. Without gameplay, you might as well make a movie.

 

How would you explain this type of game to a newcomer. DAO would suggest a top down RTS-like combat system with the option to jump into 3rd person. It was marketed as the spiritual succesor to Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. For those too young to have played BG, these are the games which made BioWare who they are today. Baldur's Gate introduced some of the company's core values such as story choices, large open worlds, and romance options (or a single option for females). DAO combat was essentially a real-time version of Baldur's Gate's pseudo turn-based AD&D system. DA2, however, suggests DA is a hack and slash where you button-mash to win. I understand the reason for this was probably because it was simpler to make when given the 1 year development time, but I didn't have to like it.

 

DA2 split the fanbase right down the middle thus presenting a problem for BioWare since they are on the lower end of the AAA spectrum. BW doesn't command  sales numbers like COD or BF. They could have just continued down the DA2 hack and slash route and completely alienated the DAO/BG fans. But can they afford to lose such a significant portion of their fanbase, who were also quite possibly some of their most long-term fans?

 

Just for comaprison, take the Batman franchise, they play essentially the same, i.e. a beat-em-up in an open city where you gain XP to unlock new moves.

Diablo - hack and slash through dungeons and collect loot.

Elder Scrolls - do whatever you want in a seamless open world. Want to get better at swordplay, swing a sword. Want to get better at casting spells, cast a spell. Etc.

Call of Duty - don't need to explain this one.

GTA - jack cars in a fictional city.

 

Dragon Age - to be determined.

[themikefest]

From what I've seen about the game, it will do well. How well? Time will tell.

[xkg]

From what I've seen about the game, it will do well. How well? Time will tell.

 

Nice rhyme 

[In Exile]

I hate to say it but unlike other franchises, Dragon Age has yet to firmly establish its gameplay identity. Its universe and lore are all filled though, but I don't think story is enough to save a franchise. Without gameplay, you might as well make a movie.

 

How would you explain this type of game to a newcomer. DAO would suggest a top down RTS-like combat system with the option to jump into 3rd person. It was marketed as the spiritual succesor to Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. For those too young to have played BG, these are the games which made BioWare who they are today. Baldur's Gate introduced some of the company's core values such as story choices, large open worlds, and romance options (or a single option for females). DAO combat was essentially a real-time version of Baldur's Gate's pseudo turn-based AD&D system. DA2, however, suggests DA is a hack and slash where you button-mash to win. I understand the reason for this was probably because it was simpler to make when given the 1 year development time, but I didn't have to like it.

 

DA2 split the fanbase right down the middle thus presenting a problem for BioWare since they are on the lower end of the AAA spectrum. BW doesn't command  sales numbers like COD or BF. They could have just continued down the DA2 hack and slash route and completely alienated the DAO/BG fans. But can they afford to lose such a significant portion of their fanbase, who were also quite possibly some of their most long-term fans?

 

Just for comaprison, take the Batman franchise, they play essentially the same, i.e. a beat-em-up in an open city where you gain XP to unlock new moves.

Diablo - hack and slash through dungeons and collect loot.

Elder Scrolls - do whatever you want in a seamless open world. Want to get better at swordplay, swing a sword. Want to get better at casting spells, cast a spell. Etc.

Call of Duty - don't need to explain this one.

GTA - jack cars in a fictional city.

 

Dragon Age - to be determined.

 

You're completely wrong about BG1 and BG2. It did introduce core values, but those core values were simplfying gameplay, adding restrictions to builds, and limiting choice for the purpose of story options in comparison to other equivalent games like, especially, IWD. 

 

DA:O wasn't real-time BG (because, among other things, BG was also RTWP). DA:O was KOTOR but with swords and sorcery instead of the force. 

[guntar74]

I think the game will do fine. Everything I've seen so far looks like a great improvement from both games. For me origins combat was too slow so I like that they are keeping it faster. And they said the got rid of the repeated instances of 2. So those were my issues.

[Hellosanta]

I'm having hard time understanding why people keep saying that DA2 combat is dumbed down hack-and-slash. I always had to use tactical cam when playing DA2 in nightmare difficulty as well as when playing DA:O. Not to mention that I had to carefully set up the tactics for each companions that I bring and micro-manage them if necessary. People think DA2 is dumbed down hack-and-slash because of more flashy animation? or the presence of the auto attack?

[realguile]

[In Exile]

I'm having hard time understanding why people keep saying that DA2 combat is dumbed down hack-and-slash. I always had to use tactical cam when playing DA2 in nightmare difficulty as well as when playing DA:O. Not to mention that I had to carefully set up the tactics for each companions that I bring and micro-manage them if necessary. People think DA2 is dumbed down hack-and-slash because of more flashy animation? or the presence of the auto attack?

 

I'm pretty sure it's the animations and the fact that the console combat was more hack & slash than DA:O. 

[ImperatorMortis]

Would not be surprised if this game flopped. 

[xkg]

I always had to use tactical cam when playing DA2

 

Ehh, If I only could do that. Shame there was no tactical cam in my version of DA2. 

[Vindicare175]

I'm sure your not the only one who is worried but i am not. I have some faith that thanks to the extra development time and lessons hopefully learned from DA2 , that the game will be a success.

[Grieving Natashina]

All I know is that this site is the absolute worst place in the world to come for a measured perspective on BioWare games.

Isn't that most official fan sites though, regardless of company or product?  

 

Anyway, nearly everywhere I look outside of here, I'm reading optimism and positive thoughts for the game.  Hmm, a lot of Tumblr seems to like it.  The dislikes are the minority.  Reddit?  Well, now that the rumor that the PC version required a 4GB vid card has been dispelled, the reaction is largely positive there too...

 

I've notice anywhere I've checked that the negativity is loud, but just a minority.  As with most things.   It's Chicken Little syndrome again.

 

 "Oh no!  Despite the game having twice as much development time as the previous one, it's gonna suck!   Oh no!  Despite the fact that ME3 was a different team from almost 3 years ago, it's gonna suck!  Oh no!  Despite seeing positive and hopeful early reviews, I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and ignore them because it has to suck!"  I've seen this routine before.  

 

No matter the game company, it's always the same narrow-minded song and dance. 

 

Then again, I liked ME3 and I enjoyed DA2.  I never have been one to give a crap if someone dislikes the games I enjoy or not.  

 

DA:I is going to do just fine.  EA isn't going to force BioWare to kill the franchise.  Funny, it's almost like some of the truly hateful posters want this game to do poorly just to prove themselves right.  It's almost like it doesn't matter that this is a good game company that is going to deliver us an interesting and entertaining game.  Nope, it only seems to matter that they were right about the game falling on its ass.   

 

 

As I said earlier, I think too many people are giving those few that are heavily whining (and not just quietly grumbling) 2-3 years later about DA2 and/or ME3 too much credit.

[Degs29]

I'm less worried about this game than I was with ME3.  Coming off ME2, the stakes were incredibly high.  Although I personally feel everything but the ending of ME3 lived up to those standards, obviously many disagreed.

 

With DA:I, it's a different story.  DA2 was a major letdown for many people.  I'm not among them actually.  Despite having some gripes about the game, I still thought it was a worthy addition to the series and enjoyed it.  But I feel comfortable saying DA2 lowered the bar for many people and will help keep expectations in check for DA:I.  Even saying that, I think Bioware has pumped up the hype on this game to the extent that if they fail to follow through they will drastically affect the next Dragon Age game.

 

But consider...what were people's major gripes in DA2?

 

Re-used environments?  Fixed.

Too small a world?  Fixed to the nth degree.

Lack of customization?  Fixed, depending on who you ask.

 

With that in mind, I think DA:I will do good to great.

[ImperatorMortis]

the fact that people are on the bsn talking about this game proves that this game isnt going to have any problem selling

 

That makes no sense. This is the bioware forum of course people are going to talk about it. And its not like all the things people are saying about it here is positive. 

 

On any other forum when a Bioware game is brought up most of the people there will bash it. The people on this tiny forum are a small, SMALL minority. 

[Spectre Impersonator]

You'd think Bioware would be looking to give people what they want after the embarrassment of the Mass Effect 3 ending and the unpopularity of DA2's.

 

Just play it safe and keep it simple. Obviously it's a bit late for this advice that won't be read however, I really don't believe it's that hard to please or at least pacify fans, in terms of ending. GENERALLY, people want an ending that's actually an ending. People want an option for a happy ending. People want the story to finish its complete arc. People want the journey they experienced to MEAN something (face palming at you "Dark Tower" series). People want closure for their characters, even it's as simple as one line of dialogue or an image that sets the tone for the future.

 

Basically, pulling something like this:

will satisfy the majority. Look at KotOR... the basic "good guy" ending was something like this and there was no uproar. I don't understand why anyone would want to conceive of something like this:

Is there any reason to take a story in such a direction other than pretentiously attempting to be unexpected? Origins had a pretty straightforward close point in the throne room and there was no backlash. Is it that hard to see what works and what doesn't?