150 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Is there an advantage to having the same combat mechanics and art style as the previous game?

[Il Divo]

I guess it depends on how much you like the old mechanics/art style vs. the new one. If we want to use KotOR and KotOR 2 as an example, I think Obsidian played it pretty safe in terms of visuals/gameplay. Of course, I also think it takes more time/energy to create an entirely different art style than it would just to update visuals a bit. 

[BansheeOwnage]

Yes, Bioware definitely overcompensates. Just look at their balance changes (This ability was a tad too good? Well, now it's useless). There are a lot mentioned already, and if I thought about it, I could probably think of tons more examples too. Oh, this was bad? DO THE OPPOSITE.

 

Oh, healing magic needed some tweaking? We don't have time for that, REMOVE IT COMPLETELY but add barrier which does the same thing

 

Hawke was too emotive for some people? MAKE THE INQUISITOR BORDERLINE TRANQUIL

 

People didn't like DA2's dialogue icons? REMOVE THEM COMPLETELY, EVEN THOUGH WE WILL ADD A TOGGLE

 

Giving people gifts to make them love you was silly? PRESS THIS HEART BUTTON INSTEAD

 

People had enough of the zones and wanted story content? LET'S ADD ANOTHER ZONE IN DLC. (Hakkon was a good DLC though.)

 

ME3's ending pissed a lot of people off. BETTER MAKE THE SAFEST, LEAST RISKY ENDING IN A BIOWARE GAME

 

Had some problems with the Rivalry mechanic? REMOVE IT

 

People could carry too many potions before? LET'S MAKE THEM REFILL FOR FREE WHEN YOU FAST-TRAVEL

 

People didn't like music, maybe, I don't know? WE SHOULD BARELY HAVE ANY DURING COMBAT AND EXPLORATION

 

Something-something, hair and Skyhold outfit. Sorry, just needed to mention that, because I'm sure there was some weird logic going on

 

Etc.

 

Please note that those are tongue-in-cheek; I love the games. I do wish they would consider less drastic "solutions" though.

[Saphiron123]

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.

This. What relaly blew my mind was their answer to too much time spent in a city in DA2 was to remove cities entirely. What kind of RPG doesn't have cities?

[Saphiron123]

Is there an advantage to having the same combat mechanics and art style as the previous game?

Expanding on something and improving it is one thing, completely throwing out the good with the bad is another. Removing the tactical spells, removing large scale fights, removing the tactics menu? It's crazy.

[AresKeith]

This. What relaly blew my mind was their answer to too much time spent in a city in DA2 was to remove cities entirely. What kind of RPG doesn't have cities?

 

An RPG that doesn't have cities 

[Rawgrim]

This. What relaly blew my mind was their answer to too much time spent in a city in DA2 was to remove cities entirely. What kind of RPG doesn't have cities?

 

Very very very few. Can't think of any, actually. Except dungeon crawlers.

[Rawgrim]

Expanding on something and improving it is one thing, completely throwing out the good with the bad is another. Removing the tactical spells, removing large scale fights, removing the tactics menu? It's crazy.

 

This. Every title in a series should expand. Keep the options the first games has for the players and add more to it next time. Doing a complete remake every time just makes the whole thing feel messy and inconsistant.

[BansheeOwnage]

Is there an advantage to having the same combat mechanics and art style as the previous game?

Consistency is generally viewed as an advantage when it comes to a series. I would hope that they could have things be similar to previous installments while also adding to it and trying new mechanics out, like DA2 did. DA:I combat felt very different to me.

[Zinho73]

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)

I guess the idea was to tell the story of the world, with a different character every time - and it is a great idea, if your world is presented consistently. Fallout 1 and 2 had different protagonists and it worked beautifully.

 

Apart from some repeated names and a bit of lore, Dragon Age Inquisition and Dragon Age Origins are two completely different games in presentation, tone and in mechanisms.

 

If you think about it, Fallout 3 completely changed the perspective and gameplay and still managed to be more consistent than Dragon Age, not only in lore but in several mechanisms (like the character development system and the vats, simulating the turn based aspect of the game).

Modifié par Zinho73, 30 mai 2015 - 03:30 .

[wolfhowwl]

This. What relaly blew my mind was their answer to too much time spent in a city in DA2 was to remove cities entirely. What kind of RPG doesn't have cities?

 

Or it was a deliberate choice because cities are expensive to do well (Dragon Age has never done this).

[AlanC9]

Expanding on something and improving it is one thing, completely throwing out the good with the bad is another. Removing the tactical spells, removing large scale fights, removing the tactics menu? It's crazy.

Yep, devs should take out bad stuff and leave in good stuff. The trick is knowing which is which.

[AlanC9]

This. Every title in a series should expand. Keep the options the first games has for the players and add more to it next time. Doing a complete remake every time just makes the whole thing feel messy and inconsistant.

Really? So what ME1 needed was more inventory, not less? More pointless driving around, not less?

[Zinho73]

Is there an advantage to having the same combat mechanics and art style as the previous game?

The advantage lies in having the same philosophy, because you can improve on it.

 

In Fallout, the idea of the turn based system was to give time for the player to react and to take out a large number of enemies, with gory animations. It was translated to the VAT system and it worked.

 

In The Witcher the idea always was to mix timed based button presses with preparation before combat. The system got better end better with time.

 

In DAO the idea was to give unprecedented control to the player to his whole party, adding the option to move in real time, so you could have faster battles.

 

In DA2 the philosophy was to press a button for "something amazing happen", simplifying things to make it all console friendly.

 

In DAI the idea was to simplify even more, using an MMO style of combat, bringing back the tactical camera of the first game to not lose anyone, without having any idea on how to integrate it with the new engine and combat system.

 

When there is change, there will be always someone crying in the background, but if you have a clear idea of what you want to achieve, you will keep most of your fans. Bioware could not filter the background noise.

 

But the problem is not Bioware philosophy, but EA's. Their idea was to keep the name Dragon Age to sell copies and make a different, more accessible game, to sell more copies.

 

Art style can change, but art direction must remain consistent.

[Rawgrim]

Really? So what ME1 needed was more inventory, not less?

 

Better inventory.

[AlanC9]

In DAO the idea was to give unprecedented control to the player to his whole party, adding the option to move in real time, so you could have faster battles.
 
In DA2 the philosophy was to press a button for "something amazing happen", simplifying things to make it all console friendly..

I thought the idea behind DA2 was to deliver the faster combat that DA:O failed to deliver. And how is DA2 actually simpler?

[AlanC9]

Better inventory.

Like ME2?

[Rawgrim]

Like ME2?

'

ME2 had no inventory. So something in between the two?

[Zinho73]

Yep, devs should take out bad stuff and leave in good stuff. The trick is knowing which is which.

This is actually not difficult at all, they have lots of feedback on everything.

 

The problem is to try to make something "more accessible" or bring it "to a new audience". Some things are good because they are complex, and some things will always only be good to a niche.

 

There is also one important skill and it is called management:

If EA is pressing you for a game in two years, do not change the engine;

If you change the engine, do not change the scope;

If you change the storytelling, do not change the main mechanisms;

If something is not working, let it go sooner than later;

Plan to launch a good game soon while already planning a great game later.

 

And so on. Almost all great franchises followed at least one of those guidelines (and a few other stuff, like keeping the talent around - when you replace the talent, the new ones will want to do stuff "their way" - see Diablo 3 - and it can lead to changes without insight).

[AlanC9]

'
ME2 had no inventory. So something in between the two?

They could, but why should they? Personally, I would have gone further than ME2 and removed credits and shops. Really, why hasn't Cerberus bought all that stuff already, and hasn't the Alliance ever heard of expense accounts?

My point is just that this is all subjective, and what the orevious game did or didn't do doesn't really matter. Does anyone ever complain about a change when he thinks the change was an improvement? ME2 inventory isn't bad because it went too far, it went too far because it went to someplace you didn't like

[AlanC9]

@ Zinho73. Oh, sure. I never intended to imply that Bio's project management is competent.

[Zinho73]

I thought the idea behind DA2 was to deliver the faster combat that DA:O failed to deliver. And how is DA2 actually simpler?

"Another wave!" So simple that placing enemies is not even a consideration.

 

Jokes on the side, though, DAO did not failed to deliver something it was not intended to do. It was only intended to be a better version of Baldur's Gate - more responsive, with more options, better path finding and so on. It was too slow for the console crowd, however, hence the changes in DA2. The innovative use of the AI customization would make things faster naturally because you would need to pause less.

 

That said I actually like combat in DA2. If they only had more time to make better arenas and better enemy placement... Also everything was straightforward: armor, weapons, spell trees, items. I liked my heavy armored mages and party of archers that I could build in DAO.

 

But there is something to be said that the decision to make everything more accessible was actually a sensible one, since the franchise grew a lot, and would not have lost too much if the rest of the game was better. I am not condemning the combat - I am quoting the developer and saying that it was different than DAO.

[Rawgrim]

They could, but why should they? Personally, I would have gone further than ME2 and removed credits and shops. Really, why hasn't Cerberus bought all that stuff already, and hasn't the Alliance ever heard of expense accounts?

My point is just that this is all subjective, and what the orevious game did or didn't do doesn't really matter. Does anyone ever complain about a change when he thinks the change was an improvement? ME2 inventory isn't bad because it went too far, it went too far because it went to someplace you didn't like

 

It removed inventory and skills from something they labeled an rpg. And replaced the inventory with different skins through DLC, and various ammo types instead of skills. Yes. I did not like that bit.

 

The rest of the game was great.

[Rawgrim]

"Another wave!" So simple that placing enemies is not even a consideration.

 

Jokes on the side, though, DAO did not failed to deliver something it was not intended to do. It was only intended to be a better version of Baldur's Gate - more responsive, with more options, better path finding and so on. It was too slow for the console crowd, however, hence the changes in DA2. The innovative use of the AI customization would make things faster naturally because you would need to pause less.

 

That said I actually like combat in DA2. If they only had more time to make better arenas and better enemy placement... Also everything was straightforward: armor, weapons, spell trees, items. I liked my heavy armored mages and party of archers that I could build in DAO.

 

But there is something to be said that the decision to make everything more accessible was actually a sensible one, since the franchise grew a lot, and would not have lost too much if the rest of the game was better. I am not condemning the combat - I am quoting the developer and saying that it was different than DAO.

 

They actually dumbed down the puzzles in DA:O from the PC version to the console version, actually. Noticed it since I bought a console version later (I only play the DA games on console now, for the record). No clue why but that bridge puzzle during the sacred ashes quest was vastly simplified on the 360 version.

[In Exile]

Expanding on something and improving it is one thing, completely throwing out the good with the bad is another. Removing the tactical spells, removing large scale fights, removing the tactics menu? It's crazy.

 

Throwing things out is fine. The issue is replacing it with something worse, but that doesn't always happen. The example here is ME3 over ME1.