97 réponses à ce sujet

[Dreamer]

There's always a disclaimer somewhere when showing pre-final footage (whether it be pre-alpha, alpha, beta...whatever) that content shown is not final and are subject to change. This occurs in all forms of entertainment. Unless the dev or pr team say it is final cut or gold master or whatever term they choose to use with whichever footage it's being demo'd, there's a good chance what you saw won't be there or will be altered significantly.

The only people that should be faulted on this are those who are dense enough to not realize that pre-release footage is always subject to change, and in games is virtually guaranteed when what's being showed is pre-alpha, alpha, or beta footage.

Similar processes happen in anything that requires design with time and budget constraints...not just entertainment.

 

What you're suggesting is that developers/publishers can say anything they want--dream up any game they like--and sell copies of said game safe in the knowledge that "we told them it was subject to change." There's no accountability in that, and that's exactly how they like it.

 

Maybe if there were better recourse for the consumer, this sort of behavior would be less aggravating, but the industry is already so anti-consumer that it's difficult to feel any sympathy for these people. We're limited in our refund options (EA's "gracious" 24 hr return policy on games that take 100+ hrs) and our media outlets are completely dysfunctional and often at-odds with the consumer (paid reviews and exclusives). While all that continues to be industry practice, we should feel okay demanding that when they start telling us about their game, they at least advertise what they know for certain will make it to launch.

 

Put another way:

 

"If you can't be sure a feature will make it to launch, don't talk about it."

 

"But how will we advertise our game?"

 

"So you admit you're advertising your game as containing features you can't honestly suggest will be a part of the paid release?"

 

"Well, I guess, but that's how game development works."

 

"No that's how marketing works and the sooner you stop perpetuating that nonsense, the better. Talk about your game when it's set in stone. That, or you need to start offering your customers some options for recourse; it might be time to loosen up refund and return policies so your fans don't feel burned when they drop $60 on something that doesn't quite match the idea you sold them."

[Mission]

This is why developers should never release gameplay info for a game till its about to release, and why I try not to watch video's or read info except that they are working on a game.

 

They always get peoples expectations up and the break their hearts when said features are not in the game.

[Dubya75]

I can understand that some features may be show-cased early in the development cycle and never make it into the final cut, but the devs still told us about these lovely game features AFTER the game was declared feature-complete.

[In Exile]

You have said this three times now with varying degrees of verbosity. Care to support your claim with actual proof?

Maybe I'm just not on-board with what you call "meaningless flavour choice" / "empty choices", but to me DA:I comes nowhere close to the impact player decisions had in both the previous DA and ME games. And just for the record, I could not wrap my head around the argument of many ME3 critics that the beam colour invalidated ALL previous game decisions, either.

Let me pick out the ME universe (even if that may do DA:I a bit of an injustice, since the story arc is concluded for ME, but not so for DA:I):
* Krogan extinction or survival with or without hope (Eve, Wrex vs. Wreav)
* Quarian/Geth peace or complete annihilation of one
* Human/non-human relationship in general (cooperation vs. (attempted) dominance)
are all choices with maximum impact on the universe post-Shepard.

By contrast, DA:I has emotionally miniscule consequences:
* Templar/mage choice: You end up with one leader dead, and the other mimicking "One flew over the Cuckoo's nest" (*drool*)
* Warden choice: GTFO or not, doesn't make a difference (at least in DA:I, maybe in DA:I+1).
* The sentencing was actually the only new and nice touch that DA:I had (albeit not THAT new since we had similar stuff in DA:A already).

When it comes to companions, I'm perfectly aware that personal opinion takes an even greater role... but for me, personally, NONE of the companions had an emotional impact that even came close to anything in previous BW games. How can one possibly name Jack and Isabela, or Mordin and Anders, or even Legion and EDI in one sentence with the papier-mache cut-outs that were Cassandra and Cole? Even my previously beloved Varric and Leliana (oh, Leliana...) felt like yellowed-out Kodaks compared to their former selves in DA:O/KW. (Although I should definitely have been forewarned by an overwhelmingly disappointing James in ME3...)

DA:I sadly is the first RPG ever that I completely lack the desire to re-play. I'm currently finishing my latest ME run-through and it just makes me painfully aware of the greatness that DA:I could/should have been.

But back to the OP: I agree. I've stuck with Bioware so far (liked ME3 too, despite minor misgivings), but DA:I was my last (pre-)purchase. I buy games to feel emotionally engaged. DA:I left me cold as a stone.

DA2 was crushed for not having varied content to a choice. Let's take saving the mages in Act I from Set Kerras. You had multiple ways of approaching the quest, but it all led to one thing: the mages are caught went Act II started. This was called a "meaningless" choice because it lacked in-game consequence. The more charitable term was "flavour" because it allowed you to define your character. In any event, this was a much maligned feature. Bioware games in general followed this pattern.

In DAI the choices that you do get to make have reactive content down the line. This is true not just about the things you say in dialogue (characters remember your views on the Chantry) but about the choices you make in the scant story missions that we have. This isn't all that great from an objective POV - but it's an absolute revolution for Bioware.

[Terodil]

[...]

Oh, I see what you mean. Well, you'll get no argument from me on the lack of meaningful choices in DA2. However I would argue that DA2 was -- at that time -- a negative outlier, a hastily thrown-together sequel to a beloved franchise. Unfortunately, it seems to have laid the foundation for a trend.

But look at the choices around the ME2 suicide mission, for example. Damn, that was an awesome decision tree, I would have loved to see the developer's whiteboard rendition of it

[In Exile]

Oh, I see what you mean. Well, you'll get no argument from me on the lack of meaningful choices in DA2. However I would argue that DA2 was -- at that time -- a negative outlier, a hastily thrown-together sequel to a beloved franchise. Unfortunately, it seems to have laid the foundation for a trend.

But look at the choices around the ME2 suicide mission, for example. Damn, that was an awesome decision tree, I would have loved to see the developer's whiteboard rendition of it

The suicide mission was the best designed quest Bioware had ever had and I absolutely don't understand why they haven't copied it for every endgame ever. It's not like anyone dislikes it. It totally captured the feeling and vibe of having more than your 4-person fireteam. Even ME3 cut it and it just doesn't make sense.

I used DA2 as an example only because it leapt to mind more easily. DAO is similar, however. Consider the consequence of siding with Blehen over Harrowmont. Nothing changes in Orzammar visibly. Nothing changes down the line in the main quest. Aside from the proving vs. tracking down the noble, the content is identical. DAI for better or worse tries to go farther than that in the design aspect. There's just so little of it.

DAI is like BG1 and ME1. There's a structure of a good game hidden in there but just not enough of it.

[dlux]

This is my favorite lie: "Made for PC Gamers by PC Gamers"

 

 

EA doesn't seem to give a **** if we are happy gamers, but it is good to know that like our money. 

[Terodil]

Fair enough, In Exile. I personally put more emphasis on the RP aspect I think; for me the choice between Bhelen and Harrowmont was actually quite important. An innovative tyrant vs. a friendly but weak traditionalist makes a world of difference for my "internal world state", even if I don't see its direct impact on game content. I'd wager that it'd be even more important for somebody maining a dwarf warden; putting your murderous brother on the throne should have quite some impact on your "world state" as opposed to instating an old friend, even if the former could potentially be considered a better leader (although I'd argue that morals are not just obstacles, even for regents).

Same with ME3: You could argue that all of Shepard's previous choices were irrelevant when she stood on the Catalyst. Barring the synthesis ending, though, the universe will be a vastly different place depending on those choices (even if they are not directly visible during game-play). It's this impact that is enough for me.

However, DA:I had no such impact, sadly. Even the mage/templar choice ended up doing nothing, really, since the game would tell you that you only got the "main faction" behind you, with the apparently vast majority being renegades and still making trouble non-stop for everybody.

[Draining Dragon]

The sad thing is that you can easily see where features were cut.

For example, keeps were supposed to be actually useful. In the main game, they're just fancy camps.

[Fiery Phoenix]

One thing that bugs me is the inability to have helmets appear during cinematic conversations and cutscenes. Meanwhile, all promotional material (including the very recent launch trailer) shows the Inquisitor wearing a helmet during cutscenes. In the game we have, that is simply not possible, as headgear is automatically omitted in cinematics.

[Frenrihr]

Yep they did lied i remember those videos, everyone complained about Dark souls 2 changes but i see a few people complaining about this dick move Bioware/EA made, maybe there are more fanboys here than people with common sense, the multiplayer is actually fun to play, at least more than the stupid side content in the main game.

[In Exile]

Fair enough, In Exile. I personally put more emphasis on the RP aspect I think; for me the choice between Bhelen and Harrowmont was actually quite important. An innovative tyrant vs. a friendly but weak traditionalist makes a world of difference for my "internal world state", even if I don't see its direct impact on game content. I'd wager that it'd be even more important for somebody maining a dwarf warden; putting your murderous brother on the throne should have quite some impact on your "world state" as opposed to instating an old friend, even if the former could potentially be considered a better leader (although I'd argue that morals are not just obstacles, even for regents).

Same with ME3: You could argue that all of Shepard's previous choices were irrelevant when she stood on the Catalyst. Barring the synthesis ending, though, the universe will be a vastly different place depending on those choices (even if they are not directly visible during game-play). It's this impact that is enough for me.

However, DA:I had no such impact, sadly. Even the mage/templar choice ended up doing nothing, really, since the game would tell you that you only got the "main faction" behind you, with the apparently vast majority being renegades and still making trouble non-stop for everybody.

Don't get me wrong - I've always loved the flavour choices. I found that DAO had problems conveying some of those choices well in comparison to DA2 but I lost this fight a long while ago.

I personally find that DAI doesn't have an issue though because a lot of what you can do is done via your willingness to do quests. And how you deal with agents, whether you recruit them or not, etc.

And especially how you interact with NPCs. To me the personal characterisation - what does my PC think, what does he believe - matters more than story choices and DAI is the best at that part.

[Frenrihr]

Again, DA:I has more in-game consequences to a choice than any other Bioware game, including (and especially, in fact) DA:O. There's a lot less meaningless flavour choice, but that's Bioware's response to all the hate that DA2 got for having empty choices. Of course, since all that criticism was completely hypocritical since it just targeted the same design as in DA:O but now in a less-liked game, it makes perfect sense for Bioware to be perplexingly told to put back in the feature they didn't invested as much in after being told to cut it with DA2. 

 

OMG you are trying sooo hard.

[Frenrihr]

Is dumbing down some kind of a new trend nowdays ? Because many games suffer from this, and I don't understand what's the point... Skyrim was a total idiocracy compared to the previous TES games and it was a massive success, which says a lot about players and their expectations of a game.

 

I know many players here want immersion, a great story.. drama and losing themselves in the game, but that's not what the average gamer wants. People buy whatever they throw at them, so what's froms stopping them making dumbed down games ?
 

As for the features being cut.. Well welcome the world of marketing.

 

Because the world needs more dumb people and they are educated to be one, so this trend of dumbing down is seen all around us, because people periodically get more and more dumb because of how they educate the masses, easy to control dumb people that think the same stuff (stuff you teach them to think) so you dont have to deal with individuals with high intelectual capacity you are bassically dealing with sheeps.

[cotheer]

I'm more surprised that people are still...surprised by this.

I mean, did you forget the pre ME3 PR BS-storm?

[Bioware-Critic]

OMG you are trying sooo hard.

Yeah!

 

And he is failing even HARDER

 

(I have got the in-game choice to decide in which of the beautiful and lush environments of the varied maps I'd like to get bored in ...

Talk about meaningless flavour!)

[Zered]

One thing that bugs me is the inability to have helmets appear during cinematic conversations and cutscenes. Meanwhile, all promotional material (including the very recent launch trailer) shows the Inquisitor wearing a helmet during cutscenes. In the game we have, that is simply not possible, as headgear is automatically omitted in cinematics.

This and having the gear from these trailers cut out. Inquisitor longsword? Nope. Then maybe shield? Yeah a lvl 1 item you can use for 10 minutes.

[Vader20]

Because the world needs more dumb people and they are educated to be one, so this trend of dumbing down is seen all around us, because people periodically get more and more dumb because of how they educate the masses, easy to control dumb people that think the same stuff (stuff you teach them to think) so you dont have to deal with individuals with high intelectual capacity you are bassically dealing with sheeps.

Have you seen the movie Idiocracy ? If not, you should...

[Rizilliant]

We as the consumer hold all the cards.. Anyone older than 30 should know this.. Pre millenium, consumers could, and would ACT when taken advantage of.. Unfortunately for us nowadays, we have parents who purchase for their children, and care not for whom their dollar is supporting.. Effectively ruining any chance of any consumer backlash outside internet forumns, and social media. 

 

Until we, the consumer, hold accountable this terrible trend, we have no one but ourselves to blame. Ive stated several times, Bioware was the one and only exception to my Full on EA boycott, and after DA2, i was on the fence.. This is quite literally the final nail in EAware coffin for me.. If we want change, i suggest you all do the same.. Im willing to bet you have, at some point, stated you would "never buy another EA game again", yet here we all are! 

 

Voicing our opinion on social media, (un)official websites, and with-holding our funding(by far the loudest) is how **** gets changed! It can, will, and does work!

[AlanC9]

OMG you are trying sooo hard.

Huh? It's simply true. Bio's never been into having much in the way of in-game consequences for your choices. Not ever. DA:I's on the high side for Bio.

[Rolenka]

Chalk it up as a lesson in how actual game development works.

 

Yes, things get cut from every game. Big things. But it's wrong and shady to cut something that's been talked about publicly. It's still wrong if you then release it as free DLC, though that would be much less wrong than not including it at all. We'll see what happens.

 

Hey, remember when they said ME3's ending wouldn't be a choice between A, B or C?

 

I am far from finishing DA:I and I didn't come anywhere near reading every prerelease interview. I'm just saying that what the OP is describing is not acceptable, if that's what happened.

[DavianBurke]

This is my favorite lie: "Made for PC Gamers by PC Gamers"

 

 

EA doesn't seem to give a **** if we are happy gamers, but it is good to know that like our money. 

 

 

I haven't seen this until today. Prior to release I avoided videos and such to keep my experience as untainted by expectation as I could. 

I'm already mad at the callous disregard for quality they've exhibited. Yet this video is an outright assault upon truth

 

Shameful. 

[Epyon5757]

What you're suggesting is that developers/publishers can say anything they want--dream up any game they like--and sell copies of said game safe in the knowledge that "we told them it was subject to change." There's no accountability in that, and that's exactly how they like it.

Maybe if there were better recourse for the consumer, this sort of behavior would be less aggravating, but the industry is already so anti-consumer that it's difficult to feel any sympathy for these people. We're limited in our refund options (EA's "gracious" 24 hr return policy on games that take 100+ hrs) and our media outlets are completely dysfunctional and often at-odds with the consumer (paid reviews and exclusives). While all that continues to be industry practice, we should feel okay demanding that when they start telling us about their game, they at least advertise what they know for certain will make it to launch.

Put another way:

"If you can't be sure a feature will make it to launch, don't talk about it."

"But how will we advertise our game?"

"So you admit you're advertising your game as containing features you can't honestly suggest will be a part of the paid release?"

"Well, I guess, but that's how game development works."

"No that's how marketing works and the sooner you stop perpetuating that nonsense, the better. Talk about your game when it's set in stone. That, or you need to start offering your customers some options for recourse; it might be time to loosen up refund and return policies so your fans don't feel burned when they drop $60 on something that doesn't quite match the idea you sold them."

Don't get me wrong - I don't particularly care for the tactics of game marketing. I would love to see it change to where we actually get the features shown in promo materials, but this kind of change would likely require all gamers to stop buying games and force the industry to it's knees. We all know that won't happen anytime soon.

My argument is that this kind of tactic has been, like r or not, industry standard for at least a decade, probably longer. Accusing BioWare of false advertising for an induatrywide problem is absolutely crazy, as is refusing to understand the fact that if it's labeled as pre release, alpha, beta, etc, it is subject to change.

We all know the industry embellishes it's features during promotion...so why would we actually choose to believe all those features will be there at release, given that there's no track record of NOT embellishing?

[Maverick827]

"I think with Inquisition...we've done a pretty good job of keeping a lot of the surprises under wraps."

 

[Sartoz]

 

70 hours into the game and just a huge grindfest, its linear but the story isn't good, its 80% filler fetch quests. There is too few skills and actual varied things to do. There is a huge lack of features that were in promotional videos for the game.

 

I remember when they said there would be stuff like keep customization for military/spy/commerce, or actual things that can change the inquistions position. All that stuff was total lies. The game is mostly linear with stupid little mini quests that you just click on to do with no involvement.

 

They couldn't implement all that but they spend their time on a tacked on boring multiplayer.

 

This is the first bioware game where I just don't feel like finishing the game. Bioware just getting progressively worse with their games.

 

That was the PR marketing team, not the devs.