848 réponses à ce sujet

[ORTesc]

So tell me about this great impact on the game that leaving Connor possessed has. I keep bringing it up whenever people talk about choice in Origins mattering, but nobody has been able to give me an answer beyond "Alistair disapproves -10".

 

If we're going to praise Origins we should at least be honest: It was great at giving you the choice in how you handled matters, but it was terrible at making that choice actually mean something within the game.

 

You're right, it meant absolutely nothing. That decision was supposed to have lasting repercussions, obviously it did not. You can't blame Origins for that, the game left enough doors open. You can blame the teams that worked on DA2 and Inquisition for making that choice mean absolutely nothing.

 

You make a solid point though, Origins gave you great ways to deal with certain situations. Multiple options to tackle an issue... even if in the end it didn't matter. I'm sorry, but I'd rather have the illusion of choice than "bring me 10x bear teeth" followed by "thanks have another repeatable 10x whatever quest".

 

Inquisition has no life. It's an empty sandbox filled with dead npcs that just stand there to give the player endless fetch quests. It's a huge world with nothing in it.

[ORTesc]

And DA2 faced an incredible amount of rage over the fact that there were choices without measurable in-game consequence. Clearly Bioware had a resource issue with the side quests but I don't blame them for cutting flavour choices seeing the way DA2 went.

 

Dragon Age 2 went the way Dragon Age 2 went because Bioware knew best. Bioware didn't need to listen to feedback or sales numbers on Origins. Bioware wanted to make Dragon Age into Mass Effect, and Hawke was to be the new Sheperd. Gone was the thought process behind "spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate", that genre was dead! What people wanted was more action! Endless waves of things to slaughter! And a pirate woman! Let's make this a console game! And now that it's failed it's OUR fault! We didn't like their precious art, just like the Mass Effect 3 ending, and something must be wrong with US, the consumer!

 

I've actually come to absolutely hate Bioware.

[FKA_Servo]

Dragon Age 2 went the way Dragon Age 2 went because Bioware knew best. Bioware didn't need to listen to feedback or sales numbers on Origins. Bioware wanted to make Dragon Age into Mass Effect, and Hawke was to be the new Sheperd. Gone was the thought process behind "spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate", that genre was dead! What people wanted was more action! Endless waves of things to slaughter! And a pirate woman! Let's make this a console game! And now that it's failed it's OUR fault! We didn't like their precious art, just like the Mass Effect 3 ending, and something must be wrong with US, the consumer!

 

I've actually come to absolutely hate Bioware.

 

At this point, I think it's pretty widely known and accepted that this wasn't the case. DA2 was DA2 because clearly, EA kicked it out the door about a year too early, certainly before Bioware would have done so. Endless re-used maps and a tiny, tiny number of locations wasn't a deliberate artistic choice on their part. I'm content to lay what blame there is at EA's door in this case. Besides, the gameplay itself wasn't any more "console" than DAO. They went with a different aesthetic, and sped up the animations (a good choice, in my opinion as well as many others), but the core gameplay is pretty much identical.

 

Also, why single out Isabela? Pirate women are always awesome.

 

Also, you're still hilariously overdramatic. If you really hate Bioware as much as you claim, there are probably more productive places and ways to spend your time.

[ORTesc]

At this point, I think it's pretty widely known and accepted that this wasn't the case. DA2 was DA2 because clearly, EA kicked it out the door about a year too early, certainly before Bioware would have done so. Endless re-used maps and a tiny, tiny number of locations wasn't a deliberate artistic choice on their part. I'm content to lay what blame there is at EA's door in this case. Besides, the gameplay itself wasn't any more "console" than DAO. They went with a different aesthetic, and sped up the animations (a good choice, in my opinion as well as many others), but the core gameplay is pretty much identical.

 

Also, why single out Isabela? Pirate women are always awesome.

 

Also, you're still hilariously overdramatic. If you really hate Bioware as much as you claim, there are probably more productive places and ways to spend your time.

 

Indy devs with teams of 2-3 people produce games in 6 months without using the same maps, why can't Bioware? You know what, don't bother. People just love to white knight this developer. How many people need to jump off the train until you're stuck holding the stick all alone?

[Cyonan]

You're right, it meant absolutely nothing. That decision was supposed to have lasting repercussions, obviously it did not. You can't blame Origins for that, the game left enough doors open. You can blame the teams that worked on DA2 and Inquisition for making that choice mean absolutely nothing.

 

You make a solid point though, Origins gave you great ways to deal with certain situations. Multiple options to tackle an issue... even if in the end it didn't matter. I'm sorry, but I'd rather have the illusion of choice than "bring me 10x bear teeth" followed by "thanks have another repeatable 10x whatever quest".

 

Inquisition has no life. It's an empty sandbox filled with dead npcs that just stand there to give the player endless fetch quests. It's a huge world with nothing in it.

 

I don't blame Origins or even DA2/Inquisition, because the choice was never going to matter a whole lot. It's simply too much work needed to make them all meaningful choices. Mass Effect had the exact same issue, and most of your choices got delegated to being acknowledged in a single email during ME2. Unless you want to make a sequel that doesn't do anything but show you the result of your choices from the previous game, it generally just isn't going to happen in a high budget game.

 

I was just setting the record straight that the Dragon Age series(and arguably all BioWare games) never really offered amazing consequences for the majority your choices.

 

Now, the fact that you can make that choice is still a good thing. It says something about your character: are they somebody willing to put in the extra effort to save the arl's family or are they power hungry and willing to make a deal with a demon? The result is the same in both cases, but it allows for some actual role playing which is presumably what we're here for.

 

Inquisition I would say offered a good variety of choice in dialogue for a game with a voiced main character and still had choices to make in the main story and even companion quests, but the rest of the side quests not so much. Since they also have a lot more content in the game than they did in Origins and a lot of the extra room got filled up with fetch quests, it can end up feeling like most of it is just pointless busywork. It's something I've already mentioned they should work on in future games.

 

Either way I still enjoyed the game despite its flaws just as I enjoyed Origins despite its flaws.

[Sidney]

Very few choices have in game effects for sure. I mean the only effect of any of the BIG DAO choices was which cannon fodder guys you have at the end and in the case of Orzammar there is literally no difference. The biggest in game consequences were companions leaving. That isn't a knock because most CRPGs give you the illusion of choice because, basically failure is never an option so no matter what Irencicus, Malak, Archdemon and Sovereign are all gonna lose.

The one thing I will say about DAI is is makes some more effort in that direction. The most obvious is the mage and Templar choice effects who the second in command is ( oddly the less chosen option gives you the better antagonist). A variety of choices and judgments turn people into agents which isn't the most breathtaking effect on the game but it is an effect.

The serialization of games in particular makes it feel hard to have any serious consequence because those issues can ripple forward in games and you start getting an insane amount of permutations and combinations.

[Phonantiphon]

I think they should keep on making the same game, over and over and over and over again, why change it?

Easier for them and easier for us.

This is why I never change my underwear, it worked for me on sunday and even though it's a bit stale, it still works for me on saturday. I think a philosophy of not ever developing anything or moving on should definitely be adopted.

 

If there's one thing that games forums have taught me - (aside from the need to take a deep breath occasionally) - it's that some gamers are the most conservative individuals you will ever come across...

[loralius]

Origins 2....what a stroke of genius

[keesio74]

 Bioware didn't need to listen to feedback or sales numbers on Origins.

 

Oh they did... what they saw was that console sales were anywhere from ~5-10x greater than PC (depending on which chart they used). So they decided to target the casual console gamer than the hardcore PC gamer.

[AlanC9]

At this point, I think it's pretty widely known and accepted that this wasn't the case. DA2 was DA2 because clearly, EA kicked it out the door about a year too early, certainly before Bioware would have done so. Endless re-used maps and a tiny, tiny number of locations wasn't a deliberate artistic choice on their part. I'm content to lay what blame there is at EA's door in this case.

I'm not sure "kicked it out the door" is precisely correct; it's not like KotOR 2 where LA moved the release date up from the original plan. The plan for DA2 apparently was always for a game that was relatively quick and cheap to make, and thus theoretically more profitable. I don't have a conceptual problem with that myself since I think the bloated budgets and dev cycles of AAA games haven't been great for the games. As for the results, well, I liked DA2 fine myself, and I might be better off with three DA2-types rather than two DA:O/DA:I-types.

[ORTesc]

Oh they did... what they saw was that console sales were anywhere from ~5-10x greater than PC (depending on which chart they used). So they decided to target the casual console gamer than the hardcore PC gamer.

 

So something sold well and the decision was made to go in another direction? I don't get it, when something works, why fix it? That's more of an insult to console gamers when a developer "knows what you like" more than you do, isn't it?

[wolfhowwl]

I'm not sure "kicked it out the door" is precisely correct; it's not like KotOR 2 where LA moved the release date up from the original plan. The plan for DA2 apparently was always for a game that was relatively quick and cheap to make, and thus theoretically more profitable. I don't have a conceptual problem with that myself since I think the bloated budgets and dev cycles of AAA games haven't been great for the games. As for the results, well, I liked DA2 fine myself, and I might be better off with three DA2-types rather than two DA:O/DA:I-types.

I wonder how much of DA:I's development time was moving to Frostbite 3 and getting a handle on the engine. If we do get another Dragon Age game they'll be ready to go with Frostbite and have enough assets from Inquisition to recycle for three Dragon Age 2s.

The short schedule didn't help DA2 and may explain the repeated environments but some of the decisions were just bad. BW wasn't forced to pad out fights with enemies spawning out of thin air or have the brilliant idea of having the leader of your allies turn on you no matter what (lol choices matter).

Mass Effect 2 had just two years from starting development to hitting the street. It's a well-regarded game and a better put together one than ME1 as well. Perhaps that team had better management.

[AlanC9]

So something sold well and the decision was made to go in another direction? I don't get it, when something works, why fix it? That's more of an insult to console gamers when a developer "knows what you like" more than you do, isn't it?

DA:O wasn't all that profitable in itself, from what the devs have said, though DLC revenue made the project solidly profitable. And apparently the tracking data showed a lot of people got bored with it and quit early. More than get bored with other games? Beats me. I don't have access to the data. But EA does.

[AlanC9]

The short schedule didn't help DA2 and may explain the repeated environments but some of the decisions were just bad. BW wasn't forced to pad out fights with enemies spawning out of thin air or have the brilliant idea of having the leader of your allies turn on you no matter what (lol choices matter).

I wonder if the wave design was because the new, faster combat turned out to be faster than anticipated and led to unacceptably short combats? Alternatively, they may have been intending to do something like the ME wave implementation where enemies enter through doors at the outside of the battle area, but they ran out of time to come up with the spawn points.

As for the leader -- all I ever heard about that was one of the fights was a late addition because someone decided the game needed another late boss fight. I'd like the whole concept of boss fights to die in a fire, myself, but what can you do?

Yeah, I'm pretty sanguine about the next game, since I figure Frostbite is working out fine for them.

[outlaw1109]

DA:O wasn't all that profitable in itself, from what the devs have said, though DLC revenue made the project solidly profitable. And apparently the tracking data showed a lot of people got bored with it and quit early. More than get bored with other games? Beats me. I don't have access to the data. But EA does.

Source?  DA:O was a great selling game.  Hard to imagine profit was "tight".

The purpose behind rushing DA2 (or, from what I understand) DA2 being scheduled so quickly, was because EA wanted Bioware to release a game every two years.  Alternating between ME and DA.  (basically giving the games a four development cycle).  

DA:O had 6 years, DA2 had 2 years, DAI had 4 (on schedule) and in less than two years we should see another ME entry.  Why do they care?  It's called sustainability.  So that profits from one game will carry them on to the next, as opposed to an accordion effect of profit surplus versus no profit at all.

Calling EA the "bad boogeymen" is great and all, but there is logic that can be applied to their "schemes".

Also, while I do agree that Bioware seems to be tailoring their games (more and more)to console players, it is important to note that they have been doing this for a long time.  DA:O was but the first example.  On it's release, they specifically said they wanted to reach a wider (console) audience.  It's where the sales are.

Personally, I can understand their want to make more money.  Afterall, despite all of the "artistic" crap everyone likes to claim, they are in business to make money.  You don't go to college and grab an education and then say, "Now that I have a degree in programming, I can finally make free games for strangers to enjoy."

There are some people out there that are into making neat little RPG's just for the "Die Hard" crowd, but they want you to pay them to do it (kickstarter) anyway.

I don't think people realize that those kickstarter games are practically doubling the developers profits.  You cover the cost of development with the Kickstarter, but then you buy the game and where does that money go from sales?  SOMEONE's pocket.

[xkg]

I don't think people realize that those kickstarter games are practically doubling the developers profits.  You cover the cost of development with the Kickstarter, but then you buy the game and where does that money go from sales?  SOMEONE's pocket.

 

I think you got it all wrong. You don't pay twice. If you back up the game you'll get it on release, don't need to pay again.

[AlanC9]

Source?  DA:O was a great selling game.  Hard to imagine profit was "tight".

Gaider, I think. He's usually the one letting the cat out of the bag. Take a bit of digging to find it now, since it came up during the whole DA2 kerfuffle.

[Cyonan]

The purpose behind rushing DA2 (or, from what I understand) DA2 being scheduled so quickly, was because EA wanted Bioware to release a game every two years.  Alternating between ME and DA.  (basically giving the games a four development cycle).  

DA:O had 6 years, DA2 had 2 years, DAI had 4 (on schedule) and in less than two years we should see another ME entry.  Why do they care?  It's called sustainability.  So that profits from one game will carry them on to the next, as opposed to an accordion effect of profit surplus versus no profit at all.

Calling EA the "bad boogeymen" is great and all, but there is logic that can be applied to their "schemes".

 

If this was the case then Dragon Age 2 would have been 2012, and Mass Effect 3 would have been 2014.

 

Instead we got ME2 in 2010, DA2 in 2011, and ME3 in 2012. The only 2 year gap that existed was that only an expansion to SWtoR was released in 2013 and then of course Inquisition in 2014.

 

It seems more likely that EA wanted a game every year rather than every 2 years, and eased up after a rushed Dragon Age 2 and fumbled ending to Mass Effect 3 caused massive fan outrage.

[Drakul]

I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp. Origins sold well. DA2 didn't. Why would you attempt to improve DA2 instead of improving that which was already a success? Because you wanted to make Skyrim? Bethesda doesn't do story well. Bethesda does open worlds well. You do story well. You don't do open worlds well.

 

I honestly have no idea who's running the show over there, but it honestly reminds me of this:

 

So what are you asking for? small areas? this is origins 2 but with open world because of next gen technology...

[outlaw1109]

If this was the case then Dragon Age 2 would have been 2012, and Mass Effect 3 would have been 2014.

 

Instead we got ME2 in 2010, DA2 in 2011, and ME3 in 2012. The only 2 year gap that existed was that only an expansion to SWtoR was released in 2013 and then of course Inquisition in 2014.

 

It seems more likely that EA wanted a game every year rather than every 2 years, and eased up after a rushed Dragon Age 2 and fumbled ending to Mass Effect 3 caused massive fan outrage.

My numbers could be wrong.  Memory is not my strongest suit, to be honest, but I do seem to remember some mention of a stricter schedule.  Either way, in buisness practice, it's still called sustainability.

 

I think you got it all wrong. You don't pay twice. If you back up the game you'll get it on release, don't need to pay again.

This is not true of all games.  Some have requirements for donation amount before you get the game for free.  Others do not offer the game itself for free, but digital bonus "kickstarter" content.  Varies by project.

[zambingo]

I would love Origins 2. Although I do like where the franchise is now. Maybe EA/Bioware could do a spinoff and make that a more stylistic sequel/love letter to DAO. Maybe as a mobile/tablet game... could be a safe way to differentiate the gameplay style from what the main franchise is now.

[Akka le Vil]

Oh they did... what they saw was that console sales were anywhere from ~5-10x greater than PC (depending on which chart they used). So they decided to target the casual console gamer than the hardcore PC gamer.

 

Considering Origins sold over one or two millions on PC, that would make some pretty impressive console sales

[tmp7704]

Indy devs with teams of 2-3 people produce games in 6 months without using the same maps, why can't Bioware?

Can you point us to a video of such game(s), so we can see the results?

[Phonantiphon]

It must be terrible to be the OP, to have so many facts and so much knowledge and insightful opinions and yet be constantly surrounded by such ignorant numpties who simply don't grasp the very basic concepts being put across.

It must be so frustrating for you.

[Cyonan]

It must be terrible to be the OP, to have so many facts and so much knowledge and insightful opinions and yet be constantly surrounded by such ignorant numpties who simply don't grasp the very basic concepts being put across.

It must be so frustrating for you.

 

I bet it's literally a cancer to them.