Anti-Dragon Age 2?

[Volourn]

Whinme all you want DA2 is betetr than both KOTOR and BG1 combined. This is undisputable.

[Guest Slinky]

Whinme all you want DA2 is betetr than both KOTOR and BG1 combined. This is undisputable.

 

I'd like to add NWN to that list. This is undisputable.

[alanschu]

Would them providing in game examples have really helped?

 

What exactly is an average game? What exactly is a horrible game? Can you provide some context, perhaps with comparative examples, so I can understand the framework with which you are dealing with?

 

When I think horrible game, I usually think "Big Rigs" or "Extreme Paintbrawl." Average games are along the lines of "average" in that they are playable, enjoyable on some level but ultimately nothing mind blowing nor particularly memorable. I am currently playing Inquisitor. It has a neat setting, decent writing, very shoddy combat which sadly underutilizes what could be an interesting character stat system. It seems like an average game (but worth the $15 I paid for it)

Edited November 2, 2012 by alanschu

[anubite]

A game which doesn't work (like VTMB on release day) "doesn't work" - it can't be called a horrible game because it doesn't work; it's simply not a game then. You might say it's a "horrible product" but you can't determine the worth of a game because you cannot play it due to poor programming.

 

A game which is horrible usually meets some of the following criteria to some extent, though not always all nor can all games be expected to stand up to all the same standards, but as a general list:

a) low replayability*

b) low level of craftsmanship (this is very vague, of course, but refers to the technical details such as lightning effects, texturing, particle effects, etc.)

c) low level of refinement (as in, balancing - a multiplayer shooter or RTS with awful balance is not a good game)

d) low quantity of content (the game is very short, has few modes, options, or things to do)

e) low development of narrative context (there is no narrative or explanation for what you are expected to visualize, or that narrative fails to set out to do what it is intended to do [such as in the case of DA2, when your suspension of disbelief is ruined in a /fantasy setting/; 'epic fantasy settings' need to allow for a suspension of disbelief in the audience])

f) low fidelity of game systems (this means game systems which function outside of finite parameters; the difference between Assassin's Creed and Mount and Blade is that Assassin's Creed has a linear story and scripted events that only occur within the confines of their scripting, Mount and Blade has /systems/ which are /always running/ and are designed to handle 'emergent behavior' of other systems within a game)

g) low quality of peripheral content (CGI movies, music, sound-effects - things which probably aren't impacting the game itself, but impact your experience with the game)

 

Note I'm talking specifically about video games in the modern, popular context and not necessarily just 'games' as some accepted game theory meant to envelop all kinds of games; because a game is very, very broad thing and I've little interest in attempting to tackle such a broad thing in a forum post. I also acknowledge that this list is hardly scholarly, complete or well-defined, but my hasty attempt to explain what is a 'bad game' in such a broad context.

 

Some very brief comparison qualifiers:

 

Games I would consider horrible: Superman 64, FF-13, Diablo 3, League of Legends, Heavy Rain, any recent Sonic Game, Fable 3

Games I would consider bad: Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3, Starcraft 2, Uncharted 3, The Sims 3, Tales of Symphonia 2, Battle for Wesnoth, Kingdoms of Amalur: Age of Reckoning

Games I would consider mediocre/deeply flawed: FFT:A, FFX-2, Age of Empires 2, Warcraft 3, World of Warcraft, Portal 2 / Portal, The Witcher 1, any 'pure' Pokemon game (a non-mystery dungeon game or spin-off)

Games I would consider good: Starcraft, FFT, Super Mario 64, Diablo 2, Sim City, Europa Universalis, Mount and Blade: Warband, Legend of Grimrock, VTMB

Games I would consider incredible: Jagged Alliance 2, Deus Ex, Path of Exile, Unreal Tournament/Quake/Doom

 

Now, you can have /fun/ with a horrible game. But from the technical aspects that make up that game, one can argue that game is still bad or horrible. To attempt to narrow down what I'm trying to say, I guess I rate games from 3 core elements: balance, replayability, and immersion.

 

1) Is a game balanced? If a game is balanced, then there are many viable purposeful actions that can be made in most instances of a game (ie, there are multiple strategies to win said game, using the systems programmed into the game)

2) Is a game replayable? Are the things that happen within the context of a game repeatable while still feeling fresh/exciting/inviting? Or are they so scripted/linear that you quickly master the game, quickly learn how to anticipate exactly what is going to happen next? Is the game something you can continue to interact with, to get different stimuli?

3) Is the game immersive? Can you "play" with it? Is there room to explore inside the game's systems? Can you "obsess" over a game? Can you be totally submerged in the experience it offers? Or are you constantly being dragged out of it?

 

I think, when 3) arises, we're having fun. And 3) can usually only occur if 1) and 2) are present in sufficient amounts.

 

I mean, we can design a game however we want to. And those whom don't require much mental stimulation may enjoy it - one such example in exploring a basic computer algorithim might be "Grundy's Game" (http://en.wikipedia....undy's_game). I assure you this game is not fun to play but there maybe such people who find it amazingly fun. A game being fun to some particular person does not make it a good game. For instance, I love Age of Empires 2 and still play it today, but it has many flaws with prevent it from being 'incredibly well designed'.

 

And of course I can't pretend that my attempts at some kind of formal analysis are anything but informal. My opinion inevitably seeps into my perception of these games and my classifications of them.

 

You can like and have fun with Dragon Age 2 but it doesn't change the fact it is a bad game.

Edited November 2, 2012 by anubite

[Guest Slinky]

A game which doesn't work (like VTMB on release day) "doesn't work" - it can't be called a horrible game because it doesn't work; it's simply not a game then. You might say it's a "horrible product" but you can't determine the worth of a game because you cannot play it due to poor programming.

snip

 

Well damn anubite, you are well on your way in my list of favorite posters, have another +1.

[alanschu]

A game which doesn't work (like VTMB on release day) "doesn't work" - it can't be called a horrible game because it doesn't work; it's simply not a game then. You might say it's a "horrible product" but you can't determine the worth of a game because you cannot play it due to poor programming.

 

That would maybe take care of a game like Big Rigs (although how do we define "doesn't work"), but perhaps not Extreme Paintbrawl.

 

 

Note I'm talking specifically about video games in the modern, popular context and not necessarily just 'games' as some accepted game theory meant to envelop all kinds of games; because a game is very, very broad thing and I've little interest in attempting to tackle such a broad thing in a forum post. I also acknowledge that this list is hardly scholarly, complete or well-defined, but my hasty attempt to explain what is a 'bad game' in such a broad context.

 

That's fair. I was operating under the same assumption too, but to make sure it's clear lets define a game for this discussion as a product designed to provide some level of entertainment for someone to utilize as a pastime?

 

 

It seems clear from your list that the weighting can be allocated in a somewhat "per game" manner. For example, I am pretty surprised that you rate Starcraft 2 and MW3 as low as you do, based on your criteria. Unless you are using the "reviewer bias" in that you don't find the game very fun (I don't find them fun either, even if technically I think they are pretty good), I'm surprised you rate these games as "bad" games.

 

Which then leads me into, how much should "fun" be a factor? If someone has fun with a "horrible game" are you talking about "I like this in spite of the issues?" or more of a "Check out how I can exploit the crappiness of this game in order to laugh at the game" (think Skate 3 physics videos). I see a game like StarCraft 2 and MW3 as games that technically are very good, but ultimately are not games that I find fun. I can totally understand why a lot of people may enjoy this type of game, even though I may not.

Edited November 2, 2012 by alanschu

[Volourn]

"You can like and have fun with Dragon Age 2 but it doesn't change the fact it is a bad game."

 

You can hate and not have fun with DA2 but it doesn't change the fact that it is a good game.

[Hurlshort]

Anubite, you seem to be very passionate about this, and I appreciate you taking the time to go into great detail with your responses.

 

Comparing Dragon Age 2 to a recent Adam Sandler film actually seems pretty fitting.

 

 

I do think you should work the target audience into your lists though. I'm more prone to agree with your rating of DA2 as a bad game because it seems like it missed its audience. That's why I typically say Bioware has changed its target demographic, it is no longer going after the people that bought Baldur's Gate. However a game like Starcraft 2 and MW3 seem to be designed very successfully for a certain audience, and so are harder to justify as bad games.

[anubite]

"You can like and have fun with Dragon Age 2 but it doesn't change the fact it is a bad game."

 

You can hate and not have fun with DA2 but it doesn't change the fact that it is a good game.

 

Stop being a troll and ****ing contribute. You can make all the opposing statements you want but you'll get nothing but swear words from me if you can't back them up in any substantial way.

 

I see a game like StarCraft 2 and MW3 as games that technically are very good, but ultimately are not games that I find fun

 

The issue I have with rating games based on fun, is that it's impossible, utterly impossible to have a meaningful discussion about fun. It is much easier to relate a game to its systems and explain why those systems might be fun or why they might not be.

 

In the case of SC2, it's NOT fun because of its poor balance and overall design. In the case of MW3, it has severally flawed design... I can't remember the name of this video I watched, I have to find it, but it basically shows how infinitely-respawning enemies and corridor level design force you to run through a level. There's also multiplayer...

 

Anyway games such a broad thing that it's hard to stay on one track if we try to discuss them in a scholarly manner. I agree you need to lay out definitions to work from because otherwise everything dissolves into a mess of opinion and tripe.

 

What I've been trying to get at is that

 

 

1. Dragon Age 2 is not replayable

2. Dragon age 2 is not immersible

3. Dragon age 2 is not balanced

 

Because it lacks these three qualities, it can't be a good game.

 

OF COURSE{/b] people always want to make the argument into, "Why can't I enjoy what I enjoy? If a game is fun, let those fun games be made."

 

Sadly, the reality, is that games are a product; an industry. I like playing games. I like playing a specific kind of game. A specific kind of game that isn't being made anymore. The reason why it's not being made anymore is because of a lack of standards and an overall failure of the industry - one that needs to be addressed by laying down the lines of what is a good game and what is not. I think a majority of people would enjoy Baldur's Gate 2 if they gave it the proper chance. Comparatively more than what we have playing Angry Birds currently - Angry Birds is shallow drivel which is fun for all of five minutes; it is not something I enjoy and negatively impacts the quantity of things I can enjoy in the future. It will also negatively impact the amount of people playing and supporting the video game industry 20 years from now. Economics is about butterflies and tornados and while it might be fine to have a leisurely opinion of this sort of thing, it's that leisurely opinion that is all too widespread; it is apparent even in the minds of game designers and CEOs, and the result is overwhelmingly negative right now. Month by month, game sales are dropping and a massive amount of money is being burned to create faulty products that cumulatively hurt the industry.

 

I imagine we have lost at least one or two triple A potential RPGs BECAUSE of the lack of sales and utter failure that was DA2. That is a snowball effect, where RPGs are made less and less 'because they don't sell' - but they don't sell precisely because they aren't made - precisely because people refuse to make them how they're supposed to be made. Economics and industry are not a stable thing at all, the world economy is fickle and we've almost had total meltdown economic global crises far in the past before our latest economic woes; these kinds of things bubble up quickly and quietly and I don't think a lot of suits, the people who run the video game industry, realize the long-term ramifications of their designers or their bottom-lines.

Edited November 2, 2012 by anubite

[alanschu]

I'm still tripping on the word "objectively" however.

 

Would DA2 have been received just the same had it been released by a small indie group? If the faults are objective, then the creator is irrelevant. I ask because I'm of the opinion that part of the reception of DA2 is in large part due to it being a game from BioWare, and also a sequel to a game that was very popular (and quite different). I commonly see people state that they'd have had less issues with DA2 if it wasn't a sequel, but because it was it came with additional expectations. Though if the game is objectively horrible, then these people would be mistaken.

[anubite]

Well, I suppose I'm of the philosophical opinion that there is nothing "objective" - everything comes from one's perspective, even "fact" must be viewed from perspective; there isn't any truth which simply is. Or if truth does exist, we as humans will never quite grasp its "whole objectiveness" - only pieces of it. So I can understand that hangup, especially as what I'm probably implying in my earlier posts is an idea of "this game is bad so I decree it objectively" - which is me being perhaps a bit too snarky.

 

I can acknowledge there are tastes and perspectives. My view of the world is not one I can expect everyone to subscribe to. But at the end of the day, you have to make a stand, unfortunately. Decisions come from the latin root, "cid" or 'to cut'. We need to cut things, we can't leave them as they are. I make the stance that Dragon Age 2 is utterly unmistakably bad, I can could prove it with lengthy analysis according to my three points of contention, but I know I can't expect everyone to accept my perspective on things.

 

But you have to admit, anyone with a developed taste of RPGs will not be satisfied with Dragon Age 2 - Dragon Age 2 does not have qualities RPG afficianados are looking for:

 

great story

great characters

tactical gameplay

variety of character development

exploration

drama

action

romance

philosophy

other-worldly-ness

consequences of player choice

dynamic living worlds

 

These things are all missing from DA2.

 

As for DA2 being released by another company - well, the fact it's called DA2 impllies it's a sequel to something. We all have expectations about sequels. I don't think the company matters. Sure, if DA2 were a game in a vacuum it would be received differently, but by the nature of it being a sequel, which by the way, is a spiritual sequel to Baldur's Gate AS WELL as a sequel to DA:O - invites many, many expectations. None of which were met.

 

So while I can agree to an extent with what you're saying - perhaps our expectations were misplaced, and we fault the game too deeply for what we dreamed it would be - it's not our fault those expectations were placed there. It's also not our fault to expect that BioWare couldn't eventually deliver on a true successor to BG1 and BG2, even if DA:O and DA:A failed to deliver what we truly wanted, either.

 

Our expectations were not out of line and to judge the game based on those expectations, no, on those demands we have on the gaming industry as a whole, is not wrong.

 

There hasn't been a game like BG2 or FO2 or even VTMB in years now. The companies that serviced people who liked these titles, are expected to continue producing products like their previous ones - why would you discontinue a profitable, successful, good line of product of which there is great demand for? Why would you turn your BMW luxury vehicle production line into a budget vehicle line? Wouldn't you upset those customers who want that expensive luxury vehicle? Wouldn't you expect those people to be upset when they purchase a BMW, only to find out it's a "common" vehicle? With all the features missing that were expected from that product in the past? Perhaps the "common" vehicle is suitable to others, but the original customer base is deeply dissatisfied.

 

To add insult to this injury, DA2 isn't a suitible vehicle. It's a piece of crap. A lemon.

Edited November 2, 2012 by anubite

[NOK222]

Would DA2 have been received just the same had it been released by a small indie group?

 

Probably not, you're Bioware, backed by EA, you had the funds and manpower to make this a top game, you didn't.

Edited November 2, 2012 by NKKKK

[Majek]

Stop being a troll and ****ing contribute. You can make all the opposing statements you want but you'll get nothing but swear words from me if you can't back them up in any substantial way.

Why should he? He's not out to change anyones opinion nor trying to debate this silly subject, he's just showing you that your opinion is just that, your opinion. Not a fact.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Majek

[alanschu]

Well this went downhill pretty fast....

 

anyone with a developed taste of RPGs

 

This is where you and I start to go down irreconcilable paths. To the point where I find myself starting to seethe.

 

It's cool that you see yourself as some sort of connosieur of RPG. Though there are plenty of people that I interact with on a daily basis that don't like DA2, love games like the IE games, that explicitly contradict your list of ALL the things that are missing from DA2. While I obviously have a bias, I'll straight up disagree with the idea of great characters (in particular since characters like Varric, Aveline, and Isabela are some of my favourites in general), and there's a ton of DA2 critics that would also disagree with you. Of course, I suppose they just don't have your developed tastes for what an RPG should be. Though in spite of my bias, I'll still agree that DA2 lacked with exploration, tactical gameplay, and player consequence (the last one in particular I very, very highly consider in what makes a great RPG).

 

What you've done, however, is make the same mistake that is always done. You've assumed consensus, and then assumed that the consensus is of all the things you are disappointed with. And anyone else that thinks otherwise, just doesn't have as developed a taste for RPGs that you do. The same things happened with ME3 (where people foolishly assumed there was consensus over why there was outrage over the endings). Hell, the same thing is happening on PE forums, where you see giant rifts between groups over what it means to be a game "in the spirit of the IE games." Then the insults come out and those that disagree with what someone really likes about a game are now no longer true RPG fans, or true IE fans. It's stupid but it happens all the time. About the only thing there is consensus on is that it should be isometric.

 

Of course, it's easier for someone to go "Whoa, this person loves all the IE games, but still liked DA2!? There's obviously something different between he and I!" Obviously he's easily satisfied or has some other reason, because we are human and bias our preferences to our own perspective to prevent cognitive dissonance.

 

 

As for DA2 being released by another company - well, the fact it's called DA2 impllies it's a sequel to something.

 

This is just pedantic. Obviously if the game was released by someone else, it probably wouldn't be titled a sequel to another game. But if we're even reasonably attempting to look at something objectively, this type of nitpick is irrelevant. Evidently I made an error in judgment in this regard. Because if it's objectively bad, it could be called "Fart monsters of Land Lore" and the criticisms would all be the same.

 

 

So while I can agree to an extent with what you're saying - perhaps our expectations were misplaced, and we fault the game too deeply for what we dreamed it would be - it's not our fault those expectations were placed there. It's also not our fault to expect that BioWare couldn't eventually deliver on a true successor to BG1 and BG2, even if DA:O and DA:A failed to deliver what we truly wanted, either.

 

I'm not saying it is the player's fault for having those expectations. It makes sense for them to have those expectations, and it's entirely fair for a gamer to be upset at DA2 because they were expecting more. What I'm drilling down is, is the game "objectively bad" or are there aggravating circumstances that could cause someone to feel more letdown by the game. Especially given that you decide to talk down towards people for having a differing opinion than yourself, all while attempting to mask your bias and the subjectivity of your position by authoritatively declaring that it's "objective" because it's that thing that scientists try really hard to do to make sure that their perspectives are taken more seriously.

 

 

 

Probably not, you're Bioware, backed by EA, you had the funds and manpower to make this a top game, you didn't.

 

That's fair. I expect people to have higher expectations of us than some indie group. What it means is going around saying that something is objectively bad in an attempt to undermine the positions of those that don't share the same viewpoint is not accurate, however.

Edited November 2, 2012 by alanschu

[NOK222]

A broken pedestal is a powerful thing, Alan.

[anubite]

That's fair. I expect people to have higher expectations of us than some indie group. What it means is going around saying that something is objectively bad in an attempt to undermine the positions of those that don't share the same viewpoint is not accurate, however.

 

Woah woah woah woah woaaaaaah nelly there parnter.

 

*glances at your location*

 

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

 

 

You are/were with BioWare? Well now! I'd not noticed that. Fascinating.

 

 

And anyone else that thinks otherwise, just doesn't have as developed a taste for RPGs that you do.

 

Yes, I believe this is the case. Someone who likes DA2 for what it is - "objectively" what it is - not the things it may or may not stand for or claim to be - has not a finer taste. I don't think you should take offense to this, but perhaps it is rude to suggest it. I mean, it's not like I've played every RPG or every game or every table top PnP game in existence - but I can name just about any other RPG and demonstrate its superiority over DA2.

 

Can I call such demonstrations fact? Of course not. I wouldn't even try. But I'm absolutely tired of people defending the game. It leaves me no choice but to be completely and utterly negative and absolutive about it. I'm angry. Certainly, there's bias to my posts - I don't think I've ever claimed to be "objective" in any serious manner and I think a statement like "something is objectively bad" is stupid, but the game /is/ bad. And we can dance around it by saying, "Well, that's your opinion. Not everyone agrees!" That's great, and I've acknowledged that. That's my main problem with it. People wiggling their hands in their ears and refusing to discuss it. I know I can't always be right, hell, I'm usually not right about a lot of things, but I'm /tired/ of people using that argument to ignore my criticisms about the game. About my expectations about this industry. About my expectations of game designers and the suits behind them. I'm thoroughly and utterly tired of BioWare or its devoted followers trying to suggest that maybe I don't like fun, or maybe, I don't have taste - when it's pretty clear to me that many of the people who 'liked' or defend DA2 never ever even played BG2 - they didn't even have any expectations going into the DA series because they had absolutely no experience in the genre to begin with.

 

These people encapsulate people like Hepler. They don't want a game. They want a dating simulator, or a slightly interactive story book. Or they're the Call of Duty demographic. And BioWare is catering to these people, instead of me - the customer who supported them over ten years ago. Their faithful little drone. It's baffling and confusing, and to say it's justified because it's only my opinion - it may be right, but it reeks of simplistic drivel. Like, nobody is sitting around and consciously making these decisions for any reason but whim. Or maybe they are thinking this stuff through, and just think I'll be dumb and support their awful attempt at an RPG.

 

I could construct a better RPG even if I only got one shot at it. I mean, a computer game is best developed via iteration (you iterate on concepts and mechanics and build them up through trial, error and testing), but I could do it in one iteration better than Dragon Age 2 came out. Can I claim such a statement is "factual" or "objective"? Of course not - it's my ****ing opinion - but if you disagree with it, you'd better have a more substantive response than, "Oh well, that's your opinion." Everything is everyone's opinion when you get to the heart of the matter. Facts don't exist, because I can choose what facts I want to display, and I can make your facts seem shaky and weak. Facts are ****ing opinion. In the end, we're arguing our point of view, it's frivilous to bring this up as though it should be a rebuttal to the argument.

 

What I've demonstrated in my previous posts is my best attempt to get to the heart of the reason why Dragon Age 2 is a horrible, bad, awful, ****ty, lame game and an equally rotten experience. Perhaps you can enlighten me why I'm wrong, but so far, all I'm getting is that you're just a little miffed that my attitude is stark. I'm sorry, but the product I got at the end of the pipeline was a /sore/ disappointment that I CALLED the moment I read that stupid headline, "BIOWARE SEEKS CALL OF DUTY AUDIENCE". It was what I was dreading. The masses - coming to tell me how I should enjoy my RPGs, after I was told how I should enjoy my FPSes.

 

And I can hardly be blamed for feeling this way, when it's clear to me upon starting up Dragon Age: Origins that the combat system was designed to look familiar to someone who picked up ****ing World of Warcraft and not Baldur's Gate. I mean, is it my fault for getting the mental image of a suit with a focus group asking them whether they think Snooky is "in"? Or what's their favorite soft drink? And when 56% of focus grouped teenage boys say yes, they decide to spend development time in ME3 on Diana Allers and Macho McBeefArms instead of actually developing the existing core characters to the series, or some of the clear monumental choices made through the game's life cycle, like the Rachni. You can't blame me for being so thoroughly fed up that I'm no longer entertaining dissenting opinion because I know it's all a troll, or a post made by someone who can't even comprehend what I'm talking about, because they've demonstrated in the past that they haven't even played a classic like VTMB or Wasteland 1. You can't have any moral righteous fury here over some of my rough, grating comments - because I'm sick of being treated like a child. I know what makes a good game, because I've played them in the past.

 

No, I will not buy your legless dogs. I know they're like cuddly throw pillows. But, I don't really want one. I want a dog with legs. I like them more. No, really - that's what you sound like to me BioWare - a shady legless dog salesman.

 

This is just pedantic. Obviously if the game was released by someone else, it probably wouldn't be titled a sequel to another game. But if we're even reasonably attempting to look at something objectively, this type of nitpick is irrelevant. Evidently I made an error in judgment in this regard. Because if it's objectively bad, it could be called "Fart monsters of Land Lore" and the criticisms would all be the same.

 

It's bad because it is what it is. If you change the company that made it, it's no longer the same thing. It wasn't a pedantic response - it was a stupid question. Hypotheticals generally don't illuminate anything - because I can spit on the ground in another universe and suddenly the world's ending. Things spiral out of control so differently, in a theorhetical 'other realm where BioWare didn't develop DA2'. Dragon Age 2 was what it was because it was a sequel, if it were made by another company, it would be a totally different game with completely different expectations - so of course it would be ****ing different. Another company COULD NOT HAVE MADE THE SAME GAME. A game is the product of everyone involved.

 

And I'm sorry if some of my statements seem like "cut off opinions dressed as fact" - obviously I haven't typed out a novel here explaining specifically what I find so atrocious about every living, breathing detail of the game. I might have to at this rate, but when I say, "the characters were ****" - don't take it as though I'm stating the color of the sky, but that I could back this statement up if I had the time to do so, but for the sake of brevity, I didn't. And without a sufficient response from you... I mean -- "Well I think Isabella is swell!" -- I'm not particuarly motivated to try and explain why I think she's completely nonsensical, backwards, shallow, poorly designed, hideous and inconsequential to the game when all you can state is an opinion of your feelings for the characters. Why are they good for the setting, the RPG? Is there some depth beneath those pixles that I'm missing? Illuminate me here, because I've done enough contemplation on this issue and I've stated I think, enough basic rudimentary statements, to solidify my stance - and why you should agree - that Dragon Age 2 is the epitome of how to not design a game.

 

Really, what makes the game greater than the worst AAA RPG to ever live? What parts of it are good? Develop a stance for me, something for me to attack - because otherwise, you're asking me to develop a 20 page paper stating a blanket of ideas and theories you may not even agree with from the get-go, so it would probably be a waste of my effort anyway, because you won't want to discuss such theories or formulations. I mean, if you are/were a member of BioWare, you would probably be set in your ways already - you're probably at peace with Dragon Age 2, writing it off as something that's simply, 'underappreciated' - even though it got universal acclaim according to those metacritic scores, and stands as a sham of a product to everyone who didn't drink the kool-aid, with the same cave repeating probably well over 6 or 7 times. You can't attack me on the expectation that I should have a well-detailed argument in <20 paragraphs over a piece of work which is well over 10 hours in length to consume - that my statements are brief enough to be labeled 'arrogant opinion'.

Edited November 3, 2012 by anubite

[Hurlshort]

There hasn't been a game like BG2 or FO2 or even VTMB in years now. The companies that serviced people who liked these titles, are expected to continue producing products like their previous ones - why would you discontinue a profitable, successful, good line of product of which there is great demand for? Why would you turn your BMW luxury vehicle production line into a budget vehicle line? Wouldn't you upset those customers who want that expensive luxury vehicle? Wouldn't you expect those people to be upset when they purchase a BMW, only to find out it's a "common" vehicle? With all the features missing that were expected from that product in the past? Perhaps the "common" vehicle is suitable to others, but the original customer base is deeply dissatisfied.

 

To add insult to this injury, DA2 isn't a suitible vehicle. It's a piece of crap. A lemon.

 

There are a lot of problems with your analogy, but the main thing I want to say is that Bioware is a business, and they aren't going to grow by simply releasing 90's style RPG's. I think you are overestimating the amount of people interested in such games. Heck, Project Eternity is targeting that audience, and people are even paying way over market price for the game, but they still only managed to get 80,000 people to pay for it. That just doesn't come close to the numbers of more mainstream titles.

 

We might as well go take a swim in a tar pit at this point

[anubite]

There are a lot of problems with your analogy, but the main thing I want to say is that Bioware is a business, and they aren't going to grow by simply releasing 90's style RPG's.

 

No, I perfectly understand that BioWare is a business. It's why my analogy works at a basic level. I don't expect it to hold up under literal scrutiny - cars aren't video games - but no analogy really does to a certain extent.

 

I think you are overestimating the amount of people interested in such games. Heck, Project Eternity is targeting that audience, and people are even paying way over market price for the game, but they still only managed to get 80,000 people to pay for it. That just doesn't come close to the numbers of more mainstream titles.

 

They got 80,000 English-speaking, US-residential people* with credit/debit cards to pledge >25 USD for a thing that doesn't exist yet. A product they won't receive for well over a year from now. A product they may not ever actaully get. A product, at least in my opinion, was poorly pitched until the last week or so (the details are still very vague about PE - they could have been way more concrete with the time Obsidian had from March until September).

 

I would say that's a pretty ****ing good amount of demand to make a sufficiently cheap RPG. What other market place has such things happening?

 

The problem with BioWare, is that while it is a business, you can't get people who buy CoD to buy an RPG, without making said RPG into a CoD game. Such audiences are mutually exclusive.

 

Skyrim was the second most selling title this year, I believe. It has a ridiculous following. The market exists. It has exsited. BG2 was ridiculously financially successful AND COULD BE REPLICATED TODAY AT A FRACTION OF THE COST. Please - you could run a business that was entirely about making old-school isometic RPGs and you could make a killing, with the right talent. Hell, you can make a lot of money off free games these days - with the right ingenuity, I bet you could make a single player RPG under the same basic schema. But I don't think anyone at BioWare has had any vision for a long time, which is why they decided to play "follow the leader" by going after the COD market.

 

*kickstarter has lots of restrictions

 

The other thing I think BioWare completely never takes into account, is the ****ing fact that good games can sell for well over a decade. How many people are buying Fallout 1 off GOG? A good PC game is revenue for a very long time. In the current way DDL is being developed by Steam, GOG, etc. - you could create a massive constant revenue stream by releasing digital distribution isometric RPGs of similar quality to BG2. You could. Don't even try to imply that it's not feasible - because it would be so feasible it would probably be more economic than trying to ****out a blockbuster COD-Mt.Dew-Doritos-appealing WOW-inspired mass-marketed-up-the-ass DA3. If DA3 doesn't flop harder than DA2 I'll be a monkey's uncle! They could make so much money if they dropped the act and studied what made themselves successful back then, in stead of trying to redefine their market.

 

The market is here. I'm their market. Listen to me. I've programmed games. I know what makes them fun. Just sit down and let's talk games. Not marketing, not call of duty, not "press a button awesome happens" - just good old fashioned stuff that worked only a few years ago. Please, I'm not crazy. Don't act like I'm speaking Mandarin here. Does everyone get what I'm saying? This kind of thing isn't rocket science - at least, it seems so obvious to me, I don't see how EA doesn't see this stuff. They launched Origin - do they not see what made people switch to Steam? Quality! It was quality! It was not "follow the leader" - it was "I am the leader. I'm unique. Look! I'm doing unique things! I'm Valve! See? We're hip! We're like Coca Cola! Or something! You pirate games? Why?! It's easier to get games on Steam than the pirate them!" And then the people came. Instead, EA thinks it can compete... by what? Making drivel? Crapping out a sequel in 11 months? No! No! Valve spends months iterating on a game. It's so logical. It's exactly how computers work. They iterate. They don't spit out the first thing they get - that never works.

Edited November 3, 2012 by anubite

[Hurlshort]

So Skyrim is an example of a good RPG?

[Guest Slinky]

There hasn't been a game like BG2 or FO2 or even VTMB in years now. The companies that serviced people who liked these titles, are expected to continue producing products like their previous ones - why would you discontinue a profitable, successful, good line of product of which there is great demand for? Why would you turn your BMW luxury vehicle production line into a budget vehicle line? Wouldn't you upset those customers who want that expensive luxury vehicle? Wouldn't you expect those people to be upset when they purchase a BMW, only to find out it's a "common" vehicle? With all the features missing that were expected from that product in the past? Perhaps the "common" vehicle is suitable to others, but the original customer base is deeply dissatisfied.

 

To add insult to this injury, DA2 isn't a suitible vehicle. It's a piece of crap. A lemon.

 

There are a lot of problems with your analogy, but the main thing I want to say is that Bioware is a business, and they aren't going to grow by simply releasing 90's style RPG's. I think you are overestimating the amount of people interested in such games. Heck, Project Eternity is targeting that audience, and people are even paying way over market price for the game, but they still only managed to get 80,000 people to pay for it. That just doesn't come close to the numbers of more mainstream titles.

 

We might as well go take a swim in a tar pit at this point

 

You just hit the bullseye.

 

There is good business and intelligent games, the problem is, they don't mix. The question is which is better, to make money with brain dead games or make do with truly good games with smaller audience?

 

If the answrer is the first one, I'd say all hope is lost.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Slinky

[Hurlshort]

Well I doubt many developers actively pursue brain deadening their games. But it is very difficult to make a game that really appeals to the hardcore fans but still manages to attract the much larger casual (not a very good term, I know, but I try not to belittle people) audience. I think Bioware failed with DA2, but the ME trilogy as a whole satisfied me and I plan on giving whatever they do next a careful look.

 

Every once in awhile we get a developer willing to take some risks, like Firaxis with Xcom, and it can be enough to give me some hope. Still, I worry that the sales of Xcom will simply backup my worst fears.

[anubite]

Xcom was "profitable" - they announced that yesterday. You needn't worry.

 

Is Skyrim a good RPG?

 

Oh hell no, but it demonstrates the potential market. Skyrim COULD have been a much better RPG and still made the sales it did.

 

I think your opinion that money must be made off the "casual masses" is reflective of most suits, but I think it's entirely mistaken. Yes, you can develop shovelware and feed it to the masses - look at Zynga. It got where it did because of that. But I don't think such market practices have any longevity, as also shown by Zynga and other smaller studios that produce iOS titles.

 

Diversity I think is important, firstly, but secondly, making games to appeal to the 'hardcore' market is harder - but the potential rewards are far greater.

 

And if you throw shovelware at the market place, eventually we're going to have a crash JUST like the Atari 2600 ET crash. There is a limit on the amount of **** you can try to feed the masses with.

 

There are plenty of hardcore games that sold well in the past. There are also plenty of hardcore games that defy "market expectations". Let's look at EVE Online - the hardcorediest of hardcore space spreadsheet sims. It has LINEAR GROWTH to this DAY and is running on an engine that is 10 years old next year and in a market where every major game released in it has been a "disappointment" or a "flop". CCP is a technology company with a brain, it has very talented developers and designers who identify what their audience wants and gives it to them. They made a game work incredibly well despite its initial small run.

Edited November 3, 2012 by anubite

[Nonek]

Does anybody think that the game they experienced immeditely prior to playing Dragon Age 2 influenced their perception of it, for me it was the Sith Lords so the female caricatures such as the incompetent guardswoman and porn star pirate seemed especially juvenile next to the nuanced, strong and philosophical Darth Traya. That and the subtle gradual introduction of the Exile's past rather than the tacked on nature of family Hawke, really served to alienate me from the game I think.

 

I suppose my objectivity was compromised in that regard.

[anubite]

Obviously, Kreia is a fantastic character. Hell, a fantastic antagonist. I asked Chris how they came up with her. His response was sorely lacking - but it goes to show what the right people can do when you give them the helm.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

So Skyrim is an example of a good RPG?

 

It meets my requirements of "never contradicting any character design the player comes up with for the PC", so in that respect, yes it is. However it has a combat system that relies on the player's skill rather than the characters, doesn't allow much ability customization at character creation, and has overly simple progression. In those respects it is pretty damn bad.

 

Back to the point.

 

Look, I thought DA2 sucked. From everything that has been officially confirmed about DA3, I will loathe it with a passion. I donated more money to PE than I usually would have in part because Bioware games can no longer scratch my western party based-RPG itch anymore. With their damn dialogue wheel(which IMO is the worst dialogue system I have ever seen) I simply can not roleplay in the manner I like to in RPGs. I don't think that words can express the hatred I have for their cinematic direction that results in games I watch more than play.

 

I don't think that PE really had anything to do with Bioware or DA3 though. Obsidian had already been working on Wasteland 2, several of the more notable people at Obsidian had expressed a desire to make a game like the great IE games. I believe Obsdian just said "**** all these damn publishers, lets make the game we want to make".