454 réponses à ce sujet

[Heimdall]

it still boils down to Bioware not having an identity. They don't know whether they want to tell a deeply intricate story or let the player feel they can control their own narrative. They don't know whether they want their experience to feel flashy and responsive like an action game or methodical and slow like a tactical one. They don't know if they want to offer loads of customization with races and classes or keep the player on a relative safe path with set attributes and iconic appearances.
Even if the answer with DA:I is a perfectly happy medium between all of those (and many other) items, it still will be a constantly moving brand image. What if the new WoW expansion is the most successful of all time - will DA4 then become an MMO? What if an indie studio with the most classic of RPG elements and next to no cinematic quality winds up the best selling RPG of the year - will the next DA remove the voiced main character? What if DA's MP is more successful than the base game - will they abandon the SP campaign and focus on a story-heavy MP, like an RPG Titanfall?
The complaint isn't that Bioware is always wrong... the complaint is that Bioware doesn't even know what Bioware stands for. Let alone what fans should expect from a DA game.

That's sort of my point, they're trying to find one that they feel works. They saw all the criticism for DA:O for the silent protagonist, clunky unengaging combat, and slay-the-unequivocally-evil-dragon storyline (I know most people on these forums love those things now, but back then there was plenty of criticism). So then they decided to try something different. Did they over-correct and go too far? Sure, but I don't think it's because they're glomming onto the anything and everything that looks successful. They know that what they're good at are stories and characters and they know that players want customization and variable paths. They play around with the balance between the restrictions that help them craft a story and that freedom because they want to know what they can do with it.

Now, if they come out with DA4 and its a radical departure from the other games like you describe I'd be inclined to agree with you but I think they know what they're doing at this point.

[bluebullets]

I fear the hell out of this.

don't.

 

I loved me3 mp. only mp I've ever actually liked.. But it did not/will not ruin the story-base of the series.

 

Idk why everyone hates da:o combat.. i love it to this day. Nothing clunky about it.

[Fast Jimmy]

That's sort of my point, they're trying to find one that they feel works. They saw all the criticism for DA:O for the silent protagonist, clunky unengaging combat, and slay-the-unequivocally-evil-dragon storyline (I know most people on these forums love those things now, but back then there was plenty of criticism). So then they decided to try something different. Did they over-correct and go too far? Sure, but I don't think it's because they're glomming onto the anything and everything that looks successful. They know that what they're good at are stories and characters and they know that players want customization and variable paths. They play around with the balance between the restrictions that help them craft a story and that freedom because they want to know what they can do with it.

Now, if they come out with DA4 and its a radical departure from the other games like you describe I'd be inclined to agree with you but I think they know what they're doing at this point.

If you have to wait eight years, four games and countless DLCs to determine if you've even got brand identity, then you are doing it really, REALLY wrong.

[mopotter]

that's a correlated conclusion you came up with.  It has merit but it isn't always to be true.

Agree, I think it would depend on the people.  I don't want distractions when I play. 

 

Once in awhile, my husband likes to come in and watch me play and make suggestions.  It drives me nuts.  As much as I love him, I want to make my own decisions.  And really, he's the same way because I've come in to watch him and he rejects my kind suggestions.   I also think there is an alterior motive in this.  He wants to play and knows I could go play a different game on the pc. 

 

Unless one of us needs help.  I had a hard time with the DAO bridge puzzle and he helped me with that, then in Skyrim he had a problem with one of the quest and I gave him help.  But just to watch either other play would be boring for me. 

[Fast Jimmy]

don't.

I loved me3 mp. only mp I've ever actually liked.. But it did not/will not ruin the story-base of the series.

No, that would be writers who made the endings of ME3.

[rashie]

Why not have both? It's high time Bioware tried this exploration thing.

I think they should do more than that and go for a full on isometric D&D game if they can secure rights to it, would be a niche game for sure but I think its exactly the kind of game that a studio like Bioware could excel at.

 

 

don't.

 

I loved me3 mp. only mp I've ever actually liked.. But it did not/will not ruin the story-base of the series.

 

Idk why everyone hates da:o combat.. i love it to this day. Nothing clunky about it.

Depends on difficulty, it feels more clunky if the game is played as an action rpg more so than the tactical pause combat game it is.

[Sylvius the Mad]

To me roleplay is less "do what you want" and more "inhabit that role and make choices based upon what your given."

I don't find that I can inhabit the role without knowing more about the character, or at least actually getting to choose what the character says and does.

I don't mind limits, but I need both more information and more control than ME or DA2 provided.

[Zu Long]

I fear the hell out of this.

I wouldn't worry too much. They already have the new ip Shadow Realm which is exactly that, a multi-player RPG. They've also already stated that they have ideas at least through DA5. It's possible they might make a stand alone MP title, but they won't abandon single player while there's still money in it.

[Heimdall]

If you have to wait eight years, four games and countless DLCs to determine if you've even got brand identity, then you are doing it really, REALLY wrong.

Not quite what I meant. I mean that I think Bioware is well aware that Dragon Age's brand identity is a bit vague at the moment. I just think the experiences of both games' receptions has given them a much better idea of what they want Dragon Age to be.

(This is all rather complicated by how it was all planned. They had ideas for DAI before they started DA2 development, and DA2 seems to have grown out of a perceived need for a bridge story and to release a game in only 18 months. I almost think they went "Well if we aren't going with our original sequel idea right away, let's experiment in the mean time")

[Itkovian]

If you have to wait eight years, four games and countless DLCs to determine if you've even got brand identity, then you are doing it really, REALLY wrong.

 

Nah, it just shows that they're willing to experiment to improve their brand.

 

Let's face it, they did it with Mass Effect, and it paid off BIG TIME. ME2 was a MASSIVE departure from ME1, and they intentionally did so. They looked at ME1's criticism, and made radical changes based on them. The end result was ME2, a tremendous success. Which is why ME3 was not as revolutionary: they had found their proper design and stuck with it (there were a lot of differences, of course, but they were evolutionary rather than revolutionary).

 

The same happened with DAO and DA2... unfortunately DA2 from a ludicrously short development cycle, which forced far too many compromises, and we know how that turned out. End result is that DAI is another massive departure, because DA2 did not provide a good fundation.

 

If DAI is as successful as we hope, I think we'll find that it will define the "brand identity" (as you put it) of future DA games. Bioware will then adopt a more evolutionary design process, rather than try and redo everything with each "sequel".

[Heimdall]

^ What this guy said

[Fast Jimmy]

Not quite what I meant. I mean that I think Bioware is well aware that Dragon Age's brand identity is a bit vague at the moment. I just think the experiences of both games' receptions has given them a much better idea of what they want Dragon Age to be.

(This is all rather complicated by how it was all planned. They had ideas for DAI before they started DA2 development, and DA2 seems to have grown out of a perceived need for a bridge story and to release a game in only 18 months. I almost think they went "Well if we aren't going with our original sequel idea right away, let's experiment in the mean time")

I don't disagree inherently, but that doesn't alleviate the problem any. Even if DA:I is the brand model going forward... what is it? "Be everything to everyone?" Thats what it seems Bioware is trying to do - be the open world of Skyrim, the linear timeline of a traditional story, the tactical combat of a strategy game, the action combat of God of War, the cinematic scenes of a JRPG, the story of AAA movie blockbuster, the player agency of an older-school RPG, the MP of a FPS and the appearance customization of an MMO.

That's not really a brand or a feel... that's a recipe to try everything, succeed in just a few.

[bluebullets]

No, that would be writers who made the endings of ME3.

the endings were good.

Spoiler

"QQ MA SHEP DIEDED :("

get over it. people die. he had a good run. He saved the world.

 

[Star Reborn]

don't worry, it's being replaced by fetch quests

[Heimdall]

the endings were good.

Spoiler

"QQ MA SHEP DIEDED :("
get over it. people die. he had a good run. He saved the world.
 

Oh, don't get into THAT argument

[Fast Jimmy]

Nah, it just shows that they're willing to experiment to improve their brand.
 
Let's face it, they did it with Mass Effect, and it paid off BIG TIME. ME2 was a MASSIVE departure from ME1, and they intentionally did so. They looked at ME1's criticism, and made radical changes based on them. The end result was ME2, a tremendous success. Which is why ME3 was not as revolutionary: they had found their proper design and stuck with it (there were a lot of differences, of course, but they were evolutionary rather than revolutionary).
 
The same happened with DAO and DA2... unfortunately DA2 from a ludicrously short development cycle, which forced far too many compromises, and we know how that turned out. End result is that DAI is another massive departure, because DA2 did not provide a good fundation.
 
If DAI is as successful as we hope, I think we'll find that it will define the "brand identity" (as you put it) of future DA games. Bioware will then adopt a more evolutionary design process, rather than try and redo everything with each "sequel".

Aside from ME2, everything Bioware has done to "improve" their brand has trashed and sabotaged it horrendously. And while ME2 was financially and critically successful, it's entire existence in the ME trilogy is comically irrelevant in terms of story, characters and tone. It is the DA2 of the ME series, simply with better production value.

[Heimdall]

I don't disagree inherently, but that doesn't alleviate the problem any. Even if DA:I is the brand model going forward... what is it? "Be everything to everyone?" Thats what it seems Bioware is trying to do - be the open world of Skyrim, the linear timeline of a traditional story, the tactical combat of a strategy game, the action combat of God of War, the cinematic scenes of a JRPG, the story of AAA movie blockbuster, the player agency of an older-school RPG, the MP of a FPS and the appearance customization of an MMO.
That's not really a brand or a feel... that's a recipe to try everything, succeed in just a few.

Well, we'll see what the result of this approach is, won't we? Maybe it's too ambitious. But maybe they'll actually pull it off well and it'll come together as a cohesive whole all its own rather than a series of disparate elements cobbled together. I don't know.

[WidePaul]

I love the DA games, but I also love skyrim, I've had it since release day, on 360 so no mods, and it is still one of my most played games, in fact it is in my 360 right now helping pass the time to inquisition's release. If I can get even a quarter as many hours playtime out of inquisition, I will be very happy, oh and I've only completed the main story of skyrim once, 99.9% of my time has been exploring, I love that I can be heading for a certain place, only to not get there until many hours later due to all the random stuff I've been distracted by

[Heimdall]

Aside from ME2, everything Bioware has done to "improve" their brand has trashed and sabotaged it horrendously. And while ME2 was financially and critically successful, it's entire existence in the ME trilogy is comically irrelevant in terms of story, characters and tone. It is the DA2 of the ME series, simply with better production value.

Well, I agree with this too, but it still works as an example of a revolutionary shift producing fantastic results. They failed when they actually tried to continue the story, yes, but I think that's because they learned the wrong lessons from it (And some astoundingly bad bad design decisions)

I still think the Reaper invasion should have started mid to late ME2 with ME3 beginning in the midst of it instead of that filler Collector plot. Which is neither here nor there, sorry.

[Frocharocha]

If the reviews were Good around DA:II i'`m pretty sure it would have sold a lot more than it deserved. I'm counting DA: Inquisition as a hit.

[Morroian]

This (bolded). This, this, this, a thousand times THIS.

Has the TES formula changed over the years? Of course. However, as much as the Morrowind purists would love to bash Oblivion and Skyrim, they definitely are the same types of game. You have a strong idea what gameplay you are going to get with each iteration of the series.

The DA series? No, you don't. Sure, you'll get lots of dialogue with companions, but other than that? It's a toss up. Party based combat or combat that favors controlling a single character? A story that lets the player feel in contr or a linear plot that heads the same direction without deviation? Mechanics that support tactical play or that favor action? Skills that can be used outside of combat or a variation of a Diablo skill tree? Attributes that can create a different type of character or set variables that allow for no flexibility? Ability to roleplay many different character types, mindsets and personalities, or mix and match three set personality types?

For every one of these questions and more, the player does not know for DA. And each iteration of the game has taken drastic steps in one direction to the next. The changes seen in the TES games were gradual, pushing the formula slightly in directions with each game, watching a progressive evolution instead of painfully bewildering redirection every game.

Bioware needs to figure out what they want the DA series to be and stick with it. Sure, the series can grow and change depending on changes in design philosophy, etc., but do so in baby steps. Skyrim is the result of an evolution of six games and nearly twenty years of relative consistency. Dragon Age has been the result of a hodge podge of design decisions, each one of which is part of the studio's artistic vision one day, then being completely revamped the next.

Throwing out everything and re-inventing wheel every game is a reckless way to build brand identity, let alone polish features.

 

Very good points and the proof is in the pudding with Skyrim's incredible sales numbers

[Fast Jimmy]

Well, I agree with this too, but it still works as an example of a revolutionary shift producing fantastic results. They failed when they actually tried to continue the story, yes, but I think that's because they learned the wrong lessons from it (And some astoundingly bad bad design decisions)

I still think the Reaper invasion should have started mid to late ME2 with ME3 beginning in the midst of it instead of that filler Collector plot. Which is neither here nor there, sorry.

Still, the shift between ME1 and ME2 wasn't as large as DA:O and DA2. I'd say the ME series had a brand - the game felt the same, they just got more "shooter-esque" and stripped dialogue decisions down. You still had a voiced, loosely set protagonist with shooter mechanics, stats in the background, single character control (you always control Shephard) and alien sex. Those all carried forward through each game. DA does not have the same list of connected design elements.

[Lennard Testarossa]

I still think the Reaper invasion should have started mid to late ME2 with ME3 beginning in the midst of it instead of that filler Collector plot. Which is neither here nor there, sorry.

 

The reaper invasion shouldn't have started at all, as it completely invalidates everything that happens in ME 1.

[Itkovian]

Aside from ME2, everything Bioware has done to "improve" their brand has trashed and sabotaged it horrendously. And while ME2 was financially and critically successful, it's entire existence in the ME trilogy is comically irrelevant in terms of story, characters and tone. It is the DA2 of the ME series, simply with better production value.

 

::shrug:: That's highly subjective. Both ME2 and ME3 brought improvements to the franchise, with ME3's only massive flaw being the ending. Without the ending fiasco I am confident it would be held as the best of the trilogy, despite some people disliking some of the changes (heck, lots of people hated the changes from ME1 to ME2, after all). And in any case, ME2 is widely seen as a massive improvement over ME1 (to be honest, I don't really agree with that, but I can certainly see their point).

 

As for Dragon Age, the only real data point we have is DA2, and we all know the main culprit was the ludicrously short dev cycle. I am confident that, had DA2 been given just 1 more year, it would have been far more successful than it was, despite design choices that many did not like.

 

DAI has many differences from DAO, but that's because they're still looking for the best design after DA2's failure to be Dragon Age's "ME2". DAO was a brilliant game, but it did suffer from certain flaws (particularly in the combat design and a lack of artistic theme), and Bioware SHOULD be looking to improve that. Here's to hoping that they did.

[Heimdall]

The reaper invasion shouldn't have started at all, as it completely invalidates everything that happens in ME 1.

(Pretty sure they made it clear it ME1 was only a delay, but this is OT)