150 réponses à ce sujet

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I've really enjoyed all the Dragon Age games so far. But when I look at the areas that Bioware really could have improved on in DAI, it kind of seems like a list of things that seem like a direct response to criticism for Dragon Age 2. 

 

DA 2 consisted of a single area and a huge amount of reused areas and zones. That probably felt like it got them the most complaints from fans of the series. 

 

And as such sooo much effort went into DAI's vast expanse of terrain. Which is beautiful but often felt like it was empty and meaningful content kind of spread very thin, especially with the fact that the cinematic camera was so rarely used. I remember feeling like the lead up to and fight with Imshael for example should have felt more important that it did because the camera angle never changed out of normal gameplay mode.

 

I can't say I know enough about game design to know if these two things are related, but the fact that the main plot felt short does seem kind of reminiscent of an Elder Scrolls style game. And the fact that the devs were supposedly drawing inspiration from the hugely successful Skyrim was one of the first things we ever learned about this game as I recall.

 

There were also complaints that Hawke was just a passive reactor in his or her own story and doesn't actually make a difference to anything, and that even Anders made a bigger difference to the world. And then the Inquisitor's story involved proactively and systematically dealing repeated blows to the enemy standing with little reply and thus making him seem weaker and less dangerous as the game progressed. 

 

In both cases they seemed like they made a point of being the complete opposite of DA 2, but that still resulted in something that was a problem.

 

I think there was a certain criticism of the endings of DA 2 and ME 3 in part for being bittersweet or not giving enough closure to our companions. But although they added a post coronation type scene that I think I had really missed from Origins, they for some reason decided seemingly to cut out the entire concept of a final mission except the final boss. I'm not sure I've ever played a Bioware game that did that. It made the whole victory feel pretty very anticlimactic.

 

It sort of reminds me of when people complained about the elevators in Mass Effect 1 and so Bioware got rid of 90% of character banter in the second game. Almost as if they thought that's the part people wanted gone. 

 

I almost wonder if they address the specific fans complaints that the story was too short for a future game, will they do so by making it longer by removing or diminishing some other feature or content that people are going to badly miss, like companion quests or something?  

[In Exile]

Bioware has overcompensated with every criticism in the past few titles. You can just pick a series, note the top criticism, and see the game get revamped on that front. The thing is that while we remember the misses Bioware's also had some hits. For example, scraping the combat from ME1 to get to ME3, or the way they've evolved the dialogue wheel from DA2 to DA:I. There are misses too.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

i don't think overcompensation is a direct result of feedback. not from fans anyway.

- bigger world is a result of skyrim's success (new engine)

- lack of cutscenes - i don't think it was design decision, i think it's combination of lack of time and inadequate tools

- fetch quests have exactly the same mechanics as radiant quest system but aren't infinite. lack of branching - which was present in DA2's side quests. i don't recall any complaints about side quest branching. not sure what was the reason of this. probably lack of time... and fb's flexibility

- combat and class overbalance is a result of multiplayer inclusion (and we know it was developed first to 'test drive' combat)

- main protagonist is a centre of the world - this allowed to introduce high quality narrative at little cost: poor war table mechanics (aka the facebook game)

- lack of AI tactics... never seen any complaints in that area either. probably caused by new engine (which obviously lacks that feature) and prioritized multiplayer

 

it seems BW is filled with artists, writers, people with ideas, PR managers... and one or two engineers to do the coding.

 

i don't want to start another CDPR comparison. they've been working on new engine since TW1. the one that's designed to facilitate RPGs not FPSs.

[Ellana of clan Lavellan]

i don't think overcompensation is a direct result of feedback. not from fans anyway.

- bigger world is a result of skyrim's success (new engine)

- lack of cutscenes - i don't think it was design decision, i think it's combination of lack of time and inadequate tools

- fetch quests have exactly the same mechanics as radiant quest system but aren't infinite. lack of branching - which was present in DA2's side quests. i don't recall any complaints about side quest branching. not sure what was the reason of this. probably lack of time... and fb's flexibility

- combat and class overbalance is a result of multiplayer inclusion (and we know it was developed first to 'test drive' combat)

- main protagonist is a centre of the world - this allowed to introduce high quality narrative at little cost: poor war table mechanics (aka the facebook game)

- lack of AI tactics... never seen any complaints in that area either. probably caused by new engine (which obviously lacks that feature) and prioritized multiplayer

 

it seems BW is filled with artists, writers, people with ideas, PR managers... and one or two engineers to do the coding.

 

i don't want to start another CDPR comparison. they've been working on new engine since TW1. the one that's designed to facilitate RPGs not FPSs.

 

I'm no software engineer, but the above seems to be true, at least from my observations in the game. There seems to be an overabundance of level design, but also a lack of technical prowess to pull off good execution.

[TheOgre]

Bioware has overcompensated with every criticism in the past few titles. You can just pick a series, note the top criticism, and see the game get revamped on that front. The thing is that while we remember the misses Bioware's also had some hits. For example, scraping the combat from ME1 to get to ME3, or the way they've evolved the dialogue wheel from DA2 to DA:I. There are misses too.

 

Would like this post because of how true the entire post is.

[Ahriman]

it seems BW is filled with artists, writers, people with ideas, PR managers... and one or two engineers to do the coding.

You made me watch DAI credits.

No, it's not that bad. Developers ratio is something like 2 animators: 2 programmers: 3 designers.

[Panda]

This is 100% my views on the subject, quite suprised to have some similar view than my own

 

I really think they are overcompensating lack of variety of environments in DA2. Even so much that they started cut things that made DA game so good in order to make room more and more space and map. They changed majority of side quests to fetch quests. When I first played DAI and found letter about templar and mage brother wanting to fight each other in certain location I thought I was going to get dialogue options to stop them or side with one, but really some dialogue and some choices. Instead I just went there and got hostile brothers or brother (I can't remember clearly) attacking me and I killed them/him and looted. No dialogue, no choices, no feelings. I was stunned.

 

Same with lack of cinematic dialogue. I find myself not that intrested on what NPCs have to say when there is no cinematic dialogue. I just roll around with camera trying to find some angle to see characters faces. But really I want see some expression when I speak to people. I want to feel like I'm talking to them.

 

These aspects, the lack of cinematic dialogue and fetch quests without much choices compined to semi-open world really reminded me of Elder Scrolls games. But my favorite game series is not Elder Scrolls, it's Dragon age and Mass Effect so I'm not happy at all about these changes.

[Zinho73]

They started the game with the focus on the bigger areas and the new engine.

Then they had to launch it for Christmas 2014.

 

It is a game with a lot of good stuff, none of them refined to the point of being great, with the exception of voice acting (which is possibly the best in the business and carries a lot of the game on its back).

[Bayonet Hipshot]

Bioware doesn't have a tendency to overcompensate. Overcompensation is Bioware. There is no tendency. 

[Kantr]

Did they overcompensate in the era before EA?

[blahblahblah]

Did they overcompensate in the era before EA?

Neverwinter Nights has a multiplayer content and a tool kit. KoTOR doesn't have any of those to have a better story since Neverwinter Nights story sucks.

[Il Divo]

Did they overcompensate in the era before EA?

 

Harder to say, because way back in the day, Bioware didn't have quite the extended reputation they do now. Not to mention, past Baldur's Gate, none of their titles were really sequels: Neverwinter Nights to KotOR to Jade Empire to Mass Effect 1 to Dragon Age: Origins. On the other hand, Neverwinter Nights (and its first expansion) did get slammed for a garbage single player campaign, which its second expansion, Hordes of the Underdark, is said to have fixed.

[Sah291]

Yes, kinda.... the good thing about bioware is that they are so open to listening to their fans and taking suggestions/feedback to heart. And the bad thing about bioware is also that they are so open to taking feedback to heart...to the point where, sometimes I feel like the devs let fan criticism get to them a little too much. And hmm, not just bioware. Social media has really opened up direct communication in general between writers/developers and fans, I think. But like an above poster said, it's not just fan criticism, but also response and competition with other popular games on the market (like Skyrim, etc). Or technical issues, like having to make games work across so many different platforms, both last gen and next gen.

[Bob Walker]

It's kinda like the fable "The miller, his son and the donkey".

 

[Dubya75]

Having followed Bioware and Dragon Age in particular since they first started talking about Origins, I've come to the conclusion that the problem is not really in trying to satisfy fan feedback. Yes, there is an element of that, as well as keeping up with the Jones'...err....Bethesda....

But the REAL problem with Bioware is the management. And EA.

 

Looking at the Dragon Age franchise, there are many many signs that these people simply don't know what they want to do. There is no singular vision for the game franchise. This is a great shame, because there is so much potential here with its rich lore, which is the only solid element remaining.

 

Dragon Age: Origins was a critical success in the RPG franchise. What they should have done, was to build on that: Keep what works and improve what doesn't work.

But instead, with every game they try to re-invent the wheel. As a result, the franchise has no identity.

 

Don't understand what I'm getting at? Go look at the Elder Scrolls games, from the original through to Skyrim.

Go look at Ubisoft's Assassins Creed 

Look at CD Projekt RED's Witcher series. 

 

Why are these franchises so hugely successful? Because they have vision. They know what games THEY want to make.

 

Bioware does NOT know what kind of games they want to make, so they are confused and basing all their design choices purely on fan feedback and looking at what other game companies are doing.

 

Bioware may sell games because of EA. On their own, they are an utter FAILURE.

[Zinho73]

Having followed Bioware and Dragon Age in particular since they first started talking about Origins, I've come to the conclusion that the problem is not really in trying to satisfy fan feedback. Yes, there is an element of that, as well as keeping up with the Jones'...err....Bethesda....

But the REAL problem with Bioware is the management. And EA.

 

Looking at the Dragon Age franchise, there are many many signs that these people simply don't know what they want to do. There is no singular vision for the game franchise. This is a great shame, because there is so much potential here with its rich lore, which is the only solid element remaining.

 

Dragon Age: Origins was a critical success in the RPG franchise. What they should have done, was to build on that: Keep what works and improve what doesn't work.

But instead, with every game they try to re-invent the wheel. As a result, the franchise has no identity.

 

Don't understand what I'm getting at? Go look at the Elder Scrolls games, from the original through to Skyrim.

Go look at Ubisoft's Assassins Creed 

Look at CD Projekt RED's Witcher series. 

 

Why are these franchises so hugely successful? Because they have vision. They know what games THEY want to make.

 

Bioware does NOT know what kind of games they want to make, so they are confused and basing all their design choices purely on fan feedback and looking at what other game companies are doing.

 

Bioware may sell games because of EA. On their own, they are an utter FAILURE.

I somewhat agree with this. Somewhat

 

I think that being bold and try to revamp a series is great, but you have to have a firm grasp on what make the series tick or you will alienate the old fans (no matter how good you are in getting feedback).

 

Ubisoft milked the franchise, varying it too little to the point of making the same game over and over. That's terrible.

Cd Projekt is a great example because they improved their games, adding new gameplay styles without losing identity.

 

With ME2, they threw away a lot of good stuff, but they managed to polish what they added and the end result was good. With DA 2 they went the same way, but the game was clearly rushed and the reused assets and bonkers third act killed the game. It was still good, but very flawed.

 

With ME 3 and DAI I think they completely lost it. The games are good because of fan following, the amount of money thrown at them and the real talent at Bioware that can create some good stuff even without a clear focus. But there are things in those games that are not just rushed, they are amateurish and that's sad.

 

Diablo 3 has the same problem with this design by committee, trying to please everyone. The design of that game is not finished to this day, they are still moving things around trying to understand what went wrong.

 

The problem is that they are too worried in making a successful game. I understand it, because of the money involved they have to aim at the lowest denominator to sell more.

 

But I have the feeling that, if they tried to build a good game, success would follow. I think, for example, a game with less areas and more interesting things to do on those areas would make for a better game, for example.

[Captain Wiseass]

I thought this was about the one throne that looks like a penis.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

Bioware's games, especially Dragon Age, has no identity. Dragon Age is effectively a shapeshifting chameleon. 

 

Let us compare Dragon Age to other RPG franchises.

 

Elder Scrolls has its nuances that make it an Elder Scrolls game. You always start as a prisoner, you have 9 races, you can play as anything and wear anything and use anything you want, you can mod it to your heart's content and you are always a powerful deity-rivaling person in terms of power. You will always have quests involving Daedra, Aedra and some apocalyptic event that involves Elder Scroll/s to solve. The races and their respective racials and their passives have also evolved instead of radically changing. The economic system, discounting Elder Scrolls Online, has remained pretty much the same with its currency of Septim. The magical schools have evolved instead of undergoing drastic changes. The guilds have also evolved instead of undergoing drastic changes. Its humor concerning specific things such as sweet rolls, guards, skooma, Ma'iq the Liar has also remained constant.

 

The Witcher is likewise has its own unique identity. It is a franchise based off a series of books by a renowned Polish author Andrzej Sapkowski. You play as Geralt of Rivia, who is a Witcher, an order or group of mutated warrior monks who specialize in eliminating harmful monsters as well as humans, sometimes. You use two different types of swords, three different combat styles, potions, signs, traps, and grenades to fight monsters. You always end up getting tangled into complex sociopolitical settings of nations and sorceresses and otherworldly conflict as well as parochial humans. The games are mature meaning blood, gore, horror, sex is all there. The setting and environment as well as the atmosphere is drawn heavily from Slavic mythology, Nordic myths and medieval northern Europe. 

 

By contrast, what is Dragon Age ? Is it the story of one particular person or a story of specific outstanding individuals or something else ? Why is the combat system so radically different and simplified and alien across the games ? Why are the magic schools across the games so radically different ? Why is the artwork, art tone and art style so different ? Why are the creature designs across the games so different ? Why are particular belief systems and ideologies whitewashed across the games ? Why did the economics and currency system change so drastically in the space of a decade ? Why did certain creatures vanish from one game to another without a lore explanation ? Why did certain magical schools and healing magic became all but extinct from one game to another without a lore explanation ? How come warriors suddenly lose their abilities to wear light armor, use crossbows and dual wield bladed weapons or clubs without a lore explanation ? How come Rogues suddenly forgot how to use swords and axes and maces and mauls without a lore explanation ? Why is there a severe dissonance between gameplay and lore that gets wider and wider with each game instead of narrower and narrower ? 

 

Then, there's the name itself :- Dragon Age. Sure it is named after the age we are in right now but what if the age ends ? What if they decided to do a game from the previous age ? Do we change the IP's name ?

 

Point is, where are the things that make a Dragon Age game, well, a Dragon Age game ? What are the things that make a Dragon Age game to be a Dragon Age game ? Is there any ? 

[Ahriman]

 

 

Point is, where are the things that make a Dragon Age game, well, a Dragon Age game ? What are the things that make a Dragon Age game to be a Dragon Age game ? Is there any ? 

Party of strong independent women and sexually progressive men. Almost kidding here.

 

Party, romances, grey choices, mages/templars, demons, spirits, darkspawn. These things you'll find in every game. And you know these will be in DA4.

[Kantr]

Party of strong independent women and sexually progressive men. Almost kidding here.

 

Party, romances, grey choices, mages/templars, demons, spirits, darkspawn. These things you'll find in every game. And you know these will be in DA4.

Yes, but aside from that? The overarcing theme of the series.

 

Now that they are committed to using Forstbite 3 maybe we'll finally see some consitency in art styles and combat (although I hope they make it smarter in the next game)

[Captain Wiseass]

Yes, but aside from that? The overarcing theme of the series.

Upheaval.

[ThePhoenixKing]

Yeah, it seems like Bioware has the tendency to throw out the baby with the bathwater. People were tired of spending most of DA2 in one city? Then let's not have any cities whatsoever! (Val Royeaux doesn't really count, as it's just a single market square in Inquisition). People tired of mages vs. templars? Then let's paper over the entire story arc we spent most of DA2 setting up, and replace it with some mustache-twirling Saturday morning cartoon villain as the main threat! People hated the cliffhanger ending of DA2? Then let's give them an ending which is so fluffy and pat, it doesn't require any effort to obtain!

[Darkly Tranquil]

Upheaval.

Sadly they have applied this concept to their game design philosophy also.

[Captain Wiseass]

Frankly, I find it admirable that they're willing, even eager, to avoid stagnation, explore new structures and mechanics, and make every game a fresh experience.

 

Mileage varies on the results, of course, but I can't fault them for being daring.