812 réponses à ce sujet

[Giantdeathrobot]

I don't think it's about trying to adhere to social norms per se (though that's definitely a part of it.) It's more that devs these days are deathly afraid of offending people, especially in the last couple of years in North America since the perpetually offended social justice brigade has been decrying what seems like every game under the sun for the most minor of details.

 

CDPR have been staunch in the belief that videogames don't need to be handled with kiddie gloves, sex, bigotry and dark themes can be a part of the world, and it isn't a crime to show these things to gamers. Not making the world an egalitarian one is also a sore spot for many, we don't see many if any female commanders (a distinct difference to DA where it seems 8 of every 10 people in a position of power are women.) They also have a very European attitude towards sex, it isn't a big deal or any worse than violence here. They've also garnered a lot of hate because they've been pretty unapologetic for not representing every race/gender/sex/sexual identy under the sun, which is a ridiculous demand in the first place, as it isn't feasible for most games to do so. Especially games working from existing IPs.

 

Another game that isn't even out yet that gets this treatment is Kingdom Come: Deliverance, because it's a historical rpg set in Medieval Bohemia. Tumblrinas took issue with it because there's a distinct lack of "diversity" in the characters. Game director Daniel Vávra was very uapologetic and said they had always intended to be historically accurate, and they weren't going to jeopardise their artistic integrity to prevent some oversensitive types being offended. The game (and Vávra himself) have been under attack ever since.

 

I think it's important to note that these are both European devs/made games, and for the most part Europe isn't yet under the thrall of the social justice crusade that has besieges the North American games industry. The  "critiques" of the likes of Sarkeesian and Mackintosh aren't going to affect the way they make games, not yet anyway.

 

Thanks for the generic social critique, but A Song of Ice and Fire is ten times worse than The Witcher and it's a staple of modern fantasy written by an american and highly popular in the US, as is Game of Thrones.

 

I'm not even american. But I've seen the whole americans = politically correct sheep drivel several times already, and it simply does not hold up to reality. Neither does The Witcher as some kind of ultra edgy and mature setting when it's really barely worse than Dragon Age and less worse than a myriad of existing settings. 

[SnakeCode]

Thanks for the generic social critique, but A Song of Ice and Fire is ten times worse than The Witcher and it's a staple of modern fantasy written by an american and highly popular in the US, as is Game of Thrones.

 

I'm not even american. But I've seen the whole americans = politically correct sheep drivel several times already, and it simply does not hold up to reality. Neither does The Witcher as some kind of ultra edgy and mature setting when it's really barely worse than Dragon Age and less worse than a myriad of existing settings. 

Nice lecture that addressed nothing I wrote. Typical BSN reply. I never said Americans are politically correct sheep. I said that the social justice in gaming movement is an American centric movement, all of the major players are from North America. It's their videogame media that constantly writes about this kind of thing instead of writing about, y'know, the actual games. As for TW setting being "worse" than the DA setting, that's entirely your opinion, please try not to state it as fact.

 

Edit- Ignore the last part, I misread the last part of your post

[AlanC9]

We actually have a social justice movement here? Most of what I see is Gamergate types whining about SJWs and so forth.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Nice lecture that addressed nothing I wrote. Typical BSN reply. I never said Americans are politically correct sheep. I said that the social justice in gaming movement is zn American centric movement, all of the major players are from North America. It's their videogame media that constantly writes about this kind of thing instead of writing about, y'know, the actual games. As for TW setting being "worse" than the DA setting, that's entirely your opinion, please try not to state it as fact.

 

Worse as in terms of harshness, not quality. 

[Eternal Phoenix]

How is giving the cards a justification not a bias on favoritism? they were awful, Gearlt is not a fuckboy, that is Dandelion department. Witcher are promiscuous, hummm...... the word on the street is that they have living weapons without emotions, can you source that information for me? I am really curious about specific lore that supports their sexual appetites.

"No, CDPR is not misogynistic and their games don't reflect that." Oh this is hilarious and defensive where did I said that? can I do a hyperbole of your post too? Also where did I said Geralt was bi? I have some of the books and watched the TV series so... I kinda know who he is. I was talking about side characters.
Both companies make mistakes, I am here because I still like them enough to care. Of course I am not on the witcher forum because it has lost the capacity for intelligent discussions, people wanting a Yen/Ciri/Triss thing is a really big sigh to run way.
 
I just hope CDPR does not lose themselves like Ubisoft a long the way, the season pass is a big step for that and I disagree, the best company for DLC is Paradox or Obsidian actually, Bioware should take notes on that, CDPR is too mainstream at this moment.

CDPR's season pass is for two major expansions. It's also offering 16 free DLC's. Obsidian is just like most other developers when it comes to DLC save that the DLC they developed for New Vegas was actually good and content heavy.

So I'd rather see more developers take CDPR's approach with offering free DLC (and this is something they did with The Witcher 2 as well).

As for Inquisition, I would like to see Bioware develop an expansion similar to Hordes of the Underdark for NWN.

[9TailsFox]

We actually have a social justice movement here? Most of what I see is Gamergate types whining about SJWs and so forth.

White men should never hold elected positions in British universities again.

http://whitegenocide...ersities-again/

Smiling is considered rape.

Men must not sit with their legs wide open.

School should have programs to teach jong boys not to rape.

If this not enough.

#killallman.

You should read more articles I didn't expect it's so bad in England. At least I live in country there my mother and mostly women say "I never asked for equality women's job to sit at home , and man's job just to bring money home so women can spend it".

[Mihura]

White men should never hold elected positions in British universities again.

http://whitegenocide...ersities-again/

Smiling is considered rape.

Men must not sit with their legs wide open.

School should have programs to teach jong boys not to rape.

If this not enough.

#killallman.

You should read more articles I didn't expect it's so bad in England. At least I live in country there my mother and mostly women say "I never asked for equality women's job to sit at home , and man's job just to bring money home so women can spend it".

 

[Shechinah]

You may want to rerail this train back onto its tracks before a Mod steps in to prevent the oncoming calamity.

[LinksOcarina]

You may want to rerail this train back onto its tracks before a Mod steps in to prevent the oncoming calamity.

 

At this point I welcome the sweet embrace of calamity, most of the thread has been disastrous to begin with.

 

As an aside, the issue of "expansion pack vs DLC" is still mired purely in labels and heresay, what one person determines as one or the other is variable, despite the fact it is, in effect, the same thing.

 

Take Jaws of Harkon, we get a new region that is the size of the hinterlands at least, a new questline to follow. Several high level challenges to fight, new ingredients, schematics, weapons and enemies, backstory and lore, and around 7 hours of a main storyline quest.

 

How is that not the same as The Hordes of the Underdark, which added six prestige classes, a number of bonus feats and spells, a new, single player campaign with new areas to go to, and new weapons and challenges thrown into what is about a 10 hour main storyline?

 

If it is a question of length or content...obviously results vary, but it just seems like a superfluous argument to be making, not to mention a moot point since BioWare has said they would rather go the smaller DLC route.

[Hiemoth]

CDPR's season pass is for two major expansions. It's also offering 16 free DLC's. Obsidian is just like most other developers when it comes to DLC save that the DLC they developed for New Vegas was actually good and content heavy.

So I'd rather see more developers take CDPR's approach with offering free DLC (and this is something they did with The Witcher 2 as well).

As for Inquisition, I would like to see Bioware develop an expansion similar to Hordes of the Underdark for NWN.

 

So here's the reason why I cringe horribly whenever I see someone bringing out how other publishers should follow the example set by CDPR on DLCs. It's a blatant false equivalency, which CDPR has to be aware of as they continue to push it. By the way, when I googled Witcher 3 and free DLC, second hit was an interview from January where they take a stand against paid DLC.

 

In Witcher 2, and looking at the 4 current items listed for Witcher 3, all that magnificent DLC is really minor, some of it seemingly stuff that other publishers would probably just call patches. The resources required and invested in them is nothing in the scale what Bioware in any of the story DLCs, no matter how much one liked those DLCs or not. So if the idea is to push that all DLC should be free, then we would basically only be getting new outfits or something like that, as larger story DLCs requires so much resources that expecting them to be free is not just feasible.

[Heimdall]

Well, I've lurked long enough. Reading through this entire thread was torturous. In regards to the original premise of this topic:
 
Why would any fan of the Dragon Age universe actively discourage more reasonably priced, meatier content? Whether or not that content is labeled "DLC" or "expansion" should be irrelevant. (*should* be, although I will say there is a pretty clear difference IMO - a new throne for example is not called an expansion - and I feel like those who keep asking for more evidence of a distinction are simply feigning bewilderment in order to derail the OP and make them seem incompetent).

If anyone had actually managed to explain what this "pretty clear difference" was, beyond being some ambiguous size, that conversation wouldn't have gone on so long. My own issue in that argument was the OP's insistence that Expansions aren't just more content, but qualitatively better content than DLCs that isn't made anymore, and his general attitude that DLC is qualitatively inferior to expansions.

Nobody's argued against more content for less money, more are just annoyed that the OP thinks the world of CDPR for making this as yet undelivered promise (Because that's all it is at this point) and thinks Bioware should mimic this unproven business model.
 

Personally I liked Awakening. It gave more story, more chances to role play my character, more time in the setting I love, which is why I play these games. Others had a less enjoyable experience, I can totally understand that...but if it was done right, whatever your opinion of "right" is, and if there weren't as many bugs, wouldn't it be a great thing?? Better than a smaller, less engrossing quest or map, yeah? I realize it's hypothetical, but aren't all future projects hypothetical before becoming reality?

I like Awakening well enough, but it was also incredibly buggy and featured the least interesting companion characters I've encountered in a Bioware game. If it's done right, yes expansions can be fantastic, but I also enjoy smaller offerings with much tighter stories and focus. If I had to choose between one meaty expansion or three smaller offerings I'd be hard pressed to make that choice. Quality of content impresses me more than quantity.
 

So why is it a bad thing to urge Bioware to develop and fairly price something like that? A new, meaty experience with ties to the base game, something that lasts longer than the modern, average DLC/expansion/whatever the hell you want to call it. Sounds good to me...obviously I would hope it to be more appealing to those who were unimpressed with Awakening. Wouldn't that be great? What fan of DA wouldn't be excited if it were good?
 
That's what the OP is suggesting, TW and CDPR are just the impetus for the suggestion, one that has been made before and something I definitely wouldn't be against...

The issue is that Bioware has said they won't do more expansions because Awakening didn't sell as well as they had hoped. They presumably made this decision based on real sales data (Though the OP is convinced that it's just because EA doesn't like expansions, Mark Darrah is lying, and Awakening was a smash success).

The OP thinks they should reverse that stance based on the undelivered marketing promise of a developer that has never made an expansion pack before. Do you see how that is kind of silly? We don't even know if this strategy will be a success.

Now, if in some month's time the devs deliver on this promise and it's a rousing success, I will join the OP in hoping Bioware adopts such a strategy (Though I still think Expansion/DLC distinction is meaningless and arbitrary in this day and age), but as of now I have no inclination to do so.

[Hiemoth]

At this point I welcome the sweet embrace of calamity, most of the thread has been disastrous to begin with.

 

As an aside, the issue of "expansion pack vs DLC" is still mired purely in labels and heresay, what one person determines as one or the other is variable, despite the fact it is, in effect, the same thing.

 

Take Jaws of Harkon, we get a new region that is the size of the hinterlands at least, a new questline to follow. Several high level challenges to fight, new ingredients, schematics, weapons and enemies, backstory and lore, and around 7 hours of a main storyline quest.

 

How is that not the same as The Hordes of the Underdark, which added six prestige classes, a number of bonus feats and spells, a new, single player campaign with new areas to go to, and new weapons and challenges thrown into what is about a 10 hour main storyline?

 

If it is a question of length or content...obviously results vary, but it just seems like a superfluous argument to be making, not to mention a moot point since BioWare has said they would rather go the smaller DLC route.

 

The Hordes of the Underdark comparison is actually really weird, as both expansions in NWN were basically in response how weak the OC campaign in it was, with the expansions not even featuring the same main character than the OC. So they were essentially different games instead of expansions.

[Shechinah]

(to LinksOcarina) While many always enjoys a decently dastardly derail, crash and calamities of singular thread proportions are scheduled at Wednesdays with multiple thread crashes being Friday allowing people to recover to be ready for Monday so until tomorrow, you'll have to wait for that embrace. Until then, feel free to enjoy the Drinkquisition complimentary liquor now of 10% less questionable nature.

[AlanC9]

Take Jaws of Harkon, we get a new region that is the size of the hinterlands at least, a new questline to follow. Several high level challenges to fight, new ingredients, schematics, weapons and enemies, backstory and lore, and around 7 hours of a main storyline quest.

 

How is that not the same as The Hordes of the Underdark, which added six prestige classes, a number of bonus feats and spells, a new, single player campaign with new areas to go to, and new weapons and challenges thrown into what is about a 10 hour main storyline?

 

 

New companions and romances, maybe?

[Revan Reborn]

I'm sorta hoping to see character creation after we're done with Geralt, actually. If they're planning to do it in Cyberpunk, it seems they'd be open to the idea.

It could happen, although I think it's less likely as The Witcher Universe is more defined and fleshed out. CDPR has a lot more creative liberty with Cyberpunk 2077, so they can essentially do what they want. With The Witcher, even if we were to have our own custom character, there are still a lot of restrictions and considerations to factor in for the game to have parallels to the Geralt trilogy.

 

Well, I've lurked long enough. Reading through this entire thread was torturous. In regards to the original premise of this topic:

 

Why would any fan of the Dragon Age universe actively discourage more reasonably priced, meatier content? Whether or not that content is labeled "DLC" or "expansion" should be irrelevant. (*should* be, although I will say there is a pretty clear difference IMO - a new throne for example is not called an expansion - and I feel like those who keep asking for more evidence of a distinction are simply feigning bewilderment in order to derail the OP and make them seem incompetent).

 

Personally I liked Awakening. It gave more story, more chances to role play my character, more time in the setting I love, which is why I play these games. Others had a less enjoyable experience, I can totally understand that...but if it was done right, whatever your opinion of "right" is, and if there weren't as many bugs, wouldn't it be a great thing?? Better than a smaller, less engrossing quest or map, yeah? I realize it's hypothetical, but aren't all future projects hypothetical before becoming reality?

 

So why is it a bad thing to urge Bioware to develop and fairly price something like that? A new, meaty experience with ties to the base game, something that lasts longer than the modern, average DLC/expansion/whatever the hell you want to call it. Sounds good to me...obviously I would hope it to be more appealing to those who were unimpressed with Awakening. Wouldn't that be great? What fan of DA wouldn't be excited if it were good?

 

That's what the OP is suggesting, TW and CDPR are just the impetus for the suggestion, one that has been made before and something I definitely wouldn't be against...

 

Also: the insults on this thread are glorious. I liked a few posts based purely on the creativity of their comebacks. I'm gonna go back into hiding before any are directed at me xD

Thank you for this. I recognize some here have attempted to vilify me as some sort of hormone-raging CDPR fanboy trying to overthrow the BioWare "regime." In actuality, I love both franchises and I want to see them both become better. Just because I am critiquing BioWare's DLC policy doesn't mean I also don't critique CDPR. Growth can only come through trial and error as well as critical and constructive feedback. That is what the OP attempts to accomplish.

[Heimdall]

It could happen, although I think it's less likely as The Witcher Universe is more defined and fleshed out. CDPR has a lot more creative liberty with Cyberpunk 2077, so they can essentially do what they want. With The Witcher, even if we were to have our own custom character, there are still a lot of restrictions and considerations to factor in for the game to have parallels to the Geralt trilogy.

I'd definitely put it on the less side of likely, I agree. For one it'd have to be fairly limited just for the title to make sense (Witchers being always human males raised in the profession from a young age).

Could still be fun to toy with though.

[uzivatel]

So why not give gamers what we really want? CDPR is probably the best developer in the industry because of how gamer-friendly they are today. Not only are we receiving 16 free DLC/add-ons over the course of the game's life, but CDPR is making two expansions at the normal price of most season passes, and we are getting much more bang for our buck.

Gamers want content removed from the main game only to be distributed over the course of months to make them keep their copy in order to receive all the content they already paid for and to generate press coverage for the developer.
Gamers want to be milked on DLCs expansions and season expansion passes?

Do you listen BioWare?

[Gileadan]

Gamers want content removed from the main game only to be distributed over the course of months to make them keep their copy in order to receive all the content they already paid for and to generate press coverage for the developer.
Gamers want to be milked on DLCs expansions and season expansion passes?

Do you listen BioWare?

Give them some credit, they did that before it was cool.

[Revan Reborn]

Gamers want content removed from the main game only to be distributed over the course of months to make them keep their copy in order to receive all the content they already paid for and to generate press coverage for the developer.
Gamers want to be milked on DLCs expansions and season expansion passes?

Do you listen BioWare?

While I understand you are being facetious, that's just not how game development works. I won't get into it (again), but needless to say I prefer massive expansions with quality, rather than many smaller expansions with an emphasis on quantity. Not only is the former generally cheaper but I believe it's a better value for the gamer.

[uzivatel]

While I understand you are being facetious, that's just not how game development works. I won't get into it (again), but needless to say I prefer massive expansions with quality, rather than many smaller expansions with an emphasis on quantity. Not only is the former generally cheaper but I believe it's a better value for the gamer.

Maybe BioWare should start calling their additional content "massive expansions", as many of their DLCs seems to qualify as such.

[Revan Reborn]

Maybe BioWare should start calling their additional content "massive expansions", as many of their DLCs seems to qualify as such.

While that might be appropriate for some of their story DLC, such as Citadel, BioWare has already closed that door prematurely. As someone linked earlier in the thread, Mark Darrah, Executive Producer for the Dragon Age franchise, explicitly stated they weren't considering expansions for DAI.

 

Thus, the fact that BioWare has made a distinction on "expansions" for their DLC content would suggest they believe expansions are something more than what they offer. What that exactly means? That's anybody's guess as only BioWare knows. That being said, I'd like for BioWare to reconsider their position on expansions as they perceive them.

[Sanunes]

While that might be appropriate for some of their story DLC, such as Citadel, BioWare has already closed that door prematurely. As someone linked earlier in the thread, Mark Darrah, Executive Producer for the Dragon Age franchise, explicitly stated they weren't considering expansions for DAI.

 

Thus, the fact that BioWare has made a distinction on "expansions" for their DLC content would suggest they believe expansions are something more than what they offer. What that exactly means? That's anybody's guess as only BioWare knows. That being said, I'd like for BioWare to reconsider their position on expansions as they perceive them.

 

Until they make public their definition of what an expansion is I don't see why it makes any difference, for all we know for BIoWare the difference is that one is available on physical disk and the other is only available digitally, for I really can't see any other difference between something like Awakening for Origins and Jaws of Hakkor for Inquisition.

[o Ventus]

You may want to rerail this train back onto its tracks before a Mod steps in to prevent the oncoming calamity.

Let them come. I revel in the destruction.

 

*Joker smile*

[Revan Reborn]

Until they make public their definition of what an expansion is I don't see why it makes any difference, for all we know for BIoWare the difference is that one is available on physical disk and the other is only available digitally, for I really can't see any other difference between something like Awakening for Origins and Jaws of Hakkor for Inquisition.

We know that's not true based on what Mark Darrah said. The fact that Awakening is considered an expansion and Jaws of Hakkon is considered story DLC, in BioWare's eyes, shows there is a distinction somewhere. Obviously, Awakening is much larger in terms of content than what Jaws of Hakkon offers, so that's likely part of the equation. Either way, I'd like for BioWare to clarify on what they believe constitutes an "expansion" and just "story DLC."

[BioWareMod03]

Hello everyone. Let's keep it on topic in here.