Scientists discover blackhole located inside Laidlaw's head.

[RPGMaster]

I don't believe we need to straddle the fence, nor that there really need be a fence. I believe that there is a way to present rules-driven combat in a way that appeals to more people than it has in the past.

My thoughts are that we need to refine what we've done in terms of the game's overall presentation and responsiveness so that people who are expecting a more action experience are not immediately turned off by it. We need to continue to refine that presentation so that it continues to hold appeal to people that don't like the thought of dice being rolled and numbers flying off people's heads, even though that is exactly what is happening. I believe that there is a way to present deep RPG mechanics that will still hold immediate appeal for people who normally would not play RPGs, and I think that if we can find that sweet spot, we will be in great shape.

No, the end result is a product that has complexity and depth without a gigantic barrier to entry at the front so that someone who has never played an RPG before can gain those basic skillsets.

No, I do not think we did this perfectly in DAII. No, I do not think we got combats to be where we wanted them to be. So we have some work to do. And that work does not involve simplification.

There is a middle ground between Origins and II. Finding that middle ground is not an attempt to please the Call of Duty crowd. It is an attempt to let people who have never played an RPG and would never do so, normally, give it a whirl, without pissing off the old school RPG fans. And yes, I am well aware that there are many old school RPG fans who are currently pissed, and their assumption is that we will just get simpler and simpler until there's no RPG left in DA at all. Incorrect, but there's not much I can do to disabuse that supposition beyond posting here, at the moment.

Yes, I do. To use one example, I know that there are people who fire up a game like Origins, see either character generation or a big wall of stats to pick and they immediately turn it off again. I also am cognizant that there are people who see that big wall of stats and get really excited.

I believe that there are more of the former than the latter. It doesn't mean either side is wrong, and it sure as hell doesn't mean we should cut stats, it just means that, perhaps, opening the game with a big wall of them is not ideal.

This guy is mankind's next evolutionary step.

 

[Mastermind]

links to comments?

 

[RPGMaster]

Here you go: http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/315/index/7484603&lf=8

 

[Melcar]

Those comments are full of fuck.

 

[MMXI]

I will not have my love of RPGs called into question without retort. As I type this I am looking at my displayed original boxes of Wasteland, Ultima 4, 5, 6, and 7 and the original Phantasie for the C64.

Well, that's me convinced. All hail Laidlaw!

 

[Mister Arkham]

Re: Scientists discover blackhole located inside Laidlaw's h

Yes, I do. To use one example, I know that there are people who fire up a game like Origins, see either character generation or a big wall of stats to pick and they immediately turn it off again. I also am cognizant that there are people who see that big wall of stats and get really excited.

I believe that there are more of the former than the latter. It doesn't mean either side is wrong, and it sure as hell doesn't mean we should cut stats, it just means that, perhaps, opening the game with a big wall of them is not ideal.

There's at least one easy solution to this, and that's offering a selection of pre-rolled characters at the start of the game. It was an option for decades, and I have no idea how they can't figure out how to do it now. Let people build their own character if they want, and simultaneously offer a selection of characters that represent the primary gameplay paths (with alterable appearances/genders/names, obviously) and provide a short video or narration highlighting what each pre-rolled character specializes in and how to best use them/play them. Complexity remains intact, but the power-gamer or newcomer now has an easy way to get into the system and learn how to use their characters best.

Problem sorted. Call me, Bioware. You can pay me in yachts.

 

[MMXI]

That said, I think this area needs to be built upon even further. Increasing the amount of player initiated dialogue with companions would make many of the old school RPGers happy. Without driving away the more action orientated sorts since it would be optional.

Agreed.

So companion dialogue is now officially part of the old school?

 

[RPGMaster]

Re: Scientists discover blackhole located inside Laidlaw's h

Yes, I do. To use one example, I know that there are people who fire up a game like Origins, see either character generation or a big wall of stats to pick and they immediately turn it off again. I also am cognizant that there are people who see that big wall of stats and get really excited.

I believe that there are more of the former than the latter. It doesn't mean either side is wrong, and it sure as hell doesn't mean we should cut stats, it just means that, perhaps, opening the game with a big wall of them is not ideal.

There's at least one easy solution to this, and that's offering a selection of pre-rolled characters at the start of the game. It was an option for decades, and I have no idea how they can't figure out how to do it now. Let people build their own character if they want, and simultaneously offer a selection of characters that represent the primary gameplay paths (with alterable appearances/genders/names, obviously) and provide a short video or narration highlighting what each pre-rolled character specializes in and how to best use them/play them. Complexity remains intact, but the power-gamer or newcomer now has an easy way to get into the system and learn how to use their characters best.

Problem sorted. Call me, Bioware. You can pay me in yachts.

That is a very logical and well thought out idea.



It has no place in a Mike Laidlaw game.

 

[sgc_meltdown]

go ahead and post that solution on those boards

in fact refute all his other points cordially

maybe his nature can be changed with codexian love

 

[Mastermind]

mods shut that thread down.

 

[sgc_meltdown]

http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Forum ... mes_with...

I'm vey glad that Laidlaw has personally come out and said that there were problems with DA2. I wouldn't have minded the faults nearly so much if they hadn't been so heavily advertised as "improvements". And after Laidlaw defended DA2 immediately after launch (Damage control most likely) I just about lost hope for the Dragon Age series. But now that the team has admitted that they made a mistake with DA2 I'm looking forward to how they will use this feedback in DA3 so they can get the game just right. They might even be able to make it better than Origins now that they've stated that they recognize the mistakes they made. Congratulations to Laidlaw though, to be fair, for the amount of money he gets paid to say all bioware games are fantastic ( and most of them are)to come out and say that DA2 wasn't as good as they originally believed takes guts. Well done to him.

Now, I will admit I loved Origins quite happily, but there were always a few shortcomings for me. My main one concerned the combat, and I'm not talking about the tactical nature, etc. It was annoying to have so little input on combat; I mean, click once and your character will attack forever? That wasn't a very good system for console players. Origins felt to me like a PC game ported rather poorly to consoles, at least as far as combat went. Not to mention every attack was SLOW. I could run in a circle around someone wielding a two-hander in Origins. Add to that the fact that there were really only about three attack motions, and it felt like you could become the best swordsman in Thedas by blocking overhead and high on your sides and countering with a little urgency. This of course, brings us to DA2. I'm going to open by saying I thought DA2 was still plenty tactical, because I used the radial menu and activated companion powers exactly where I wanted them like last time. But my god, did the faster pace feel more satisfying--at first. Later on, it became hard to balance tactical play with the intense speed of combat, but that's the way it is in real combat, too. Hard to give orders while you're having to keep someone from gutting you. I wouldn't have minded making it a touch less intense and thus more tactical, but Origins just didn't feel right on a console. I suppose I'm rambling some, but I just felt like a lot of people have ripped on DA2's combat, and I felt the need to defend it.

There's some really negative people about on here. Kind of off putting really. Clearly it stems from a love of DA:O, and you're reacting to DAII not following the formula you wanted it to.

Like my fellow codexians I too look forward to Mike Laidlaw and the best rpg team in the buisness improve on the new features they brought to the award-winning dragon age franchise and make DA3 the genre defining masterpiece that DA2 should have been

 

[J1M]

Re: Scientists discover blackhole located inside Laidlaw's h

Yes, I do. To use one example, I know that there are people who fire up a game like Origins, see either character generation or a big wall of stats to pick and they immediately turn it off again. I also am cognizant that there are people who see that big wall of stats and get really excited.

I believe that there are more of the former than the latter. It doesn't mean either side is wrong, and it sure as hell doesn't mean we should cut stats, it just means that, perhaps, opening the game with a big wall of them is not ideal.

There's at least one easy solution to this, and that's offering a selection of pre-rolled characters at the start of the game. It was an option for decades, and I have no idea how they can't figure out how to do it now. Let people build their own character if they want, and simultaneously offer a selection of characters that represent the primary gameplay paths (with alterable appearances/genders/names, obviously) and provide a short video or narration highlighting what each pre-rolled character specializes in and how to best use them/play them. Complexity remains intact, but the power-gamer or newcomer now has an easy way to get into the system and learn how to use their characters best.

Problem sorted. Call me, Bioware. You can pay me in yachts.

That's not what powergamer means. Rest of post is ok.

 

[BLOBERT]

BROS I SORTA FEEL BAD FOR THE GUY MAYBE HE REALLY DOES LIKE THE OLD SCHOOL GAMES BUT I DONT THINK THE BRO REALIZES THAT THOSE GAEMES WERE NEVER MASS MARKET SHIT

POOR POOR BRO YOU WANNA MAKE A GOOD RPG IT WONT BE A MASS MARKET PROJECT

BUT BROS PUT YOUR SELVGES IN THE BROS SHOES HE JUST WANTS TO MAKE A DOLLAR AND IS PUTTING OUT SHITTY RPGS AND THE BRO IS TRYING TO JUSTIFY THE SHIT TO HIMSELFE I PROBABLY WOULD TO IF I WERE BRING HIM

 

[someone else]

Poor game developer gets quoted by rpg nerds, news at seven.

 

[sgc_meltdown]

we now bring you to a listless intellectual scuffle among beta males in self-ironic existential denial

 

[sea]

So first Laidlaw puts forth the argument that getting action gamers into RPG is a matter of interface - they don't want to see the die rolls, don't want to see the numbers, they don't want to think about it. That's fine, that's good for them. If it's an issue of how you're presenting information, then there's a very easy way around this problem: you simply reduce the UI elements, add pre-rolled characters and offer auto-leveling schemes that work for your game... oh, right, you already did all those things in previous games! Maybe the problem wasn't the game itself, then, but how you offered those options to players, hm?

Then, Laidlaw seems to backtrack and say it's a matter of game mechanics - that they tried to play with them in Dragon Age II and are trying to find a middle ground between Origins and the sequel, but ended up failing in Dragon Age II. The goal, in his words, is to offer complexity and depth, and I think Origins did a pretty good job of that despite its flaws; reducing the complexity of the game systems in Dragon Age II did nothing but damage combat and turn it into a boring grind. Its problem was just that - lack of depth and complexity.

Why is BioWare attempting to build RPGs for a mass market, for action fans, anyway? Here's a hint: if someone doesn't like RPGs, trying to hide the fact they're playing an RPG from them won't make them like your game any more; it won't trick them into thinking they're playing an action title; all it will do is damage your game for people who do actually like RPGs. You can find a middle ground, but you can't do it without compromising mechanics or the experience of players in some way... you can do a good job of hiding the stats, but sooner or later the player is going to run into them, just as offering a "casual mode" versus "hardcore mode" (or whatever) will split your fanbase in two and give both sides something to complain about. No matter how good a job you do, someone's going to be upset for some reason or your game is going to suffer for it in some way... but since Laidlaw seems so set on doing it anyway, I'll ignore that problem for now.

What it really comes down to is a failure of communication to the player. Allowing the player to understand game mechanics without outright hand-holding or reading the manual is not as hard as Laidlaw is making it out to be. There are many, many games which are able to ease the player into complex mechanics gradually, and if you provide an option which cuts out a lot of the visible numbers and allows for auto-leveling, even rolling them in throughout the game at a measured pace, I don't think there will be a single player who is left behind... unless that player is a moron, but then, you can't please everyone, and shouldn't (but again, don't let that stop you, Mike!).

Here's an easy example which works in action games, and doesn't result in any depth being sacrificed: let's say my warrior is hacking away at an ice golem with his sword, but the blade clanks off it and he gasps "my weapon isn't doing a thing!" The player can infer from this, both with or without numbers, that his or her weapon is ineffective. Perhaps, then, a party member, or even a tutorial message, can say "Certain enemies can only be damaged by certain weapons. Try using fire to hurt it!" Now, the player has an understanding of a game mechanic: certain creatures are damaged by certain elements. Once the player switches to a suitable weapon, uses the right attack type, casts a spell, etc., the creature dies quickly and a character might exclaim "Hah, you're no match for me!" or something similar to convey that fire is not just effective versus ice, but more effective than a regular attack.

You say that think ice vs. fire and light vs. dark is easy, and it is, but once you've established certain relationships in the game, players are able to take an initiative and figure things out for themselves. Gamers are not as stupid as BioWare seem to think - a learning curve is always required to get newbies into a game, but once they've got a handle on things it's not long before they can figure it out. Extrapolation is a powerful tool for developers to use in teaching concepts to players. If I am introduced to the elements of ice and fire, for instance, I will quickly infer later on when water enters the picture that water is effective against fire, but is trumped by ice. It takes a pretty damn simple-minded player, even among action fans, to think that they should be able to get through the game via simple button mashing, and such rule relationships are quite common across just about all genres of games.

It's this sort of thing that I don't think BioWare (or at least Laidlaw) have a firm understanding of. Rooting game systems in common sense logic is an easy thing to do and works wonderfully, plus provides the depth that players need. The problem with RPGs in terms of accessibility has always been presenting information in an easy to understand sort of way, but this is something developers from all over have already managed to tackle and I don't think BioWare have any excuse in lagging behind (and they can't even get the interface they currently have right - see Dragon Age II and "two star" items being more powerful than "five star" items in some cases). When action games have more depth than your RPG once you hide the numbers, you know you've got a major problem on your hands - again, hint to BioWare: numbers only serve a purpose if they mean something! I can have 50 ways to make my numbers go up, but if the end result is identical and requires no variation depending on the situation, I'd might as well just have one way!

Now, there's the other issue here, and that's trying to reconcile a turn-based system with action-style gameplay. The simple fact is that real-time-with-pause doesn't really work in a turn-based setting. Origins tried it, and it ended up being a bit confusing for players expecting something more action-oriented; it likely would have fared better if combat was less point-and-click and allowed for more responsive controls for a more action feel, or had just gone full turn-based (or RTS, but let's ignore that since it brings in a whole other dimension). The thing about making an action RPG is that you basically just need to make an action game outright, and then layer the RPG mechanics on top of that. If you can't make one, you have no place making action RPGs, it's that simple. The depth in such games comes from character development, skill selection, non-combat gameplay, and so on, so in actuality it's even more work to make a good action RPG than a good turn-based RPG, or a pure action game!

So yeah, tl;dr post, but in summary: Laidlaw and BioWare have two options if we ignore the obvious issue inherent to compromise. One is to increasingly simplify game systems overall in the name of a small player base who are probably not very interested in your game anyway, and in doing so upset many of your other fans. The other option is to do a better job of hiding certain information in the game while still making it easy to understand in more visual, obvious ways that are intuitive in the same way many action games are intuitive - this doesn't hurt the RPG gameplay in the least, but still lets more casual gamers and fans of action titles play without too much trouble. Obviously the second one is better, and actually executing on it is a big problem that I don't know if BioWare are up to, but it's not something that can't be done - it just shouldn't come at the cost of game depth, which it did in Dragon Age II and it will continue to if Laidlaw is so keen on finding that "middle ground" which really does not exist in any truly sound fashion. Ultimately you'll be best served making one of three things - a full-on RPG, an action RPG, or an action game - and while trying to hit three or more birds with one stone might result in a few glancing blows, you're probably going to have to end up using three or more stones to get the job done anyway.

 

[BLOBERT]

BRO HUGE POST I THINK YOU ARE RIGHTMOSTLY BUT THE POINT ISMORE SIMPLER

THE POOR MOTHERFUCKER PROBABLY LIKES RPGS BUT NEEDS OR WANTS TO MAKE A BIG MONEY GAME WITH MORE ACTION

HIS VIEWS ARE PROBABLY ALL CONTRADICTORY AND SHIT CAUSE HE KNOWS HE CANT DO WHAT HE WANTS BUT HE EITHER WANTS TO OR HAS TO TRY

BROS MOTHERFUCKERS WHO HAVE REAL JOBS NEED TO SAY STUPID SHIT ALL THE TIME SOMETIMES IT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE STUPID AND SOMETIMES IT IS BECAUSE THE BOSS IS STUPID AND THE MOTHERFUCKER NEEDS TPO TOE THE LINE TO KEEP HIS JPOB

 

[sea]

BRO HUGE POST I THINK YOU ARE RIGHTMOSTLY BUT THE POINT ISMORE SIMPLER

THE POOR MOTHERFUCKER PROBABLY LIKES RPGS BUT NEEDS OR WANTS TO MAKE A BIG MONEY GAME WITH MORE ACTION

HIS VIEWS ARE PROBABLY ALL CONTRADICTORY AND SHIT CAUSE HE KNOWS HE CANT DO WHAT HE WANTS BUT HE EITHER WANTS TO OR HAS TO TRY

BROS MOTHERFUCKERS WHO HAVE REAL JOBS NEED TO SAY STUPID SHIT ALL THE TIME SOMETIMES IT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE STUPID AND SOMETIMES IT IS BECAUSE THE BOSS IS STUPID AND THE MOTHERFUCKER NEEDS TPO TOE THE LINE TO KEEP HIS JPOB

I don't know. I've spoken with a fair number of developers. It's sometimes scary how many completely ass-backwards things they genuinely believe in, and refuse to believe don't work even in the face of sound arguments to the contrary.

 

[RK47]

Well, reading your post in a Fable 3 review, sea. What do you think about it? Does it successfully achieve action rpg status? I tried it out and didn't like it. But as you said, the setting helps.

 

[sgc_meltdown]

along with the well thought out internet argument along the lines of "games are as challenging as they have been what makes you think they've been dumbed down" because of the existence of aspergers modes like dante must die or witcher 2 on insane I don't see why they don't go ahead and include casual gamer modes that all but win the game for you

oh you say this game isn't accessible enough

why not make a super easy casuals mode it is for people who don't play this sort of thing and want to pretend they're great at it and set the baseline experience to seasoned players of the genre

how is it that the games are just as difficult now you just need to choose them to be argument doesn't work both ways when the other way is against the grain of accessibility

god is it that elitism thing again that comes from knowing a club won't have you as its member


the issue they keep dancing around is that making non rpg gamers understand the genre isn't going to be enough, it has to be like THEIR favorite pet genres as well

they're trying very hard not to say 'we're making it like the stuff you don't play rpgs for or made you like rpgs in the first place'

 

[sgc_meltdown]

No, the end result is a food that has taste and texture without a gigantic barrier to entry at the front so that a citizen who has never eaten an animal before can gain those basic cravings.

No, I do not think we did this perfectly in New Steak II. No, I do not think we got succulence to be where we wanted it to be. So we have some work to do. And that work does not involve botany.

There is a middle ground between New Steak and New Steak II. Finding that middle ground is not an attempt to please our vegetarian brothers. It is an attempt to let loyal citizens who have never eaten meat and would never do so, normally, give it a whirl, without pissing off the beef ration fans. And yes, I am well aware that there are many steak-loving citizens who are currently upset, and their fear is that we will just get leafier and leafier until there's no protein left in New Steak at all. Incorrect, but there's not much I can do to disabuse that supposition beyond posting here, at the moment.

 

[Shannow]

I've given up on Bioware for a while now, so it doesn't bother me if their games go further and further down the shitter. What I don't get is all the making excuses and all the lying. They want the Halo-crowd, or what they think the Halo-crowd is. Fine, but what's up with all the claiming that they want to keep their old fans?
D&D and Halo are different. You'll have people who like both, but you'll never get those who dislike Halo to suddenly like it, just because they liked older Bioware games (which where closer to D&D...). Why lie to them? What's the point? How stupid do they think people are?
You have some RPGs on your shelf, Mike? How does that affect your plans of removing most RPG elements from Bioware games?

 

[JagreenLern]

Bioware devs seem to be pretty pitiful. The people at Bethesda seem like their just inept, while Bioware not only makes mediocre games, they seem to write laughable bullshit on there forum on a pretty regular basis.

 

[CrimsonAngel]

I've given up on Bioware for a while now, so it doesn't bother me if their games go further and further down the shitter. What I don't get is all the making excuses and all the lying. They want the Halo-crowd, or what they think the Halo-crowd is. Fine, but what's up with all the claiming that they want to keep their old fans?
D&D and Halo are different. You'll have people who like both, but you'll never get those who dislike Halo to suddenly like it, just because they liked older Bioware games (which where closer to D&D...). Why lie to them? What's the point? How stupid do they think people are?
You have some RPGs on your shelf, Mike? How does that affect your plans of removing most RPG elements from Bioware games?

The reason they are begging for the "old school" fans is because DA2 never became the OMG MOST HAVE like DA became in many eyes and they are worried it will do like Fable and sell less and less every year.
Hell if you look through Steam Rankings DA2 is less played then Dragon Age 1.

 

[Shannow]

The reason they are begging for the "old school" fans is because DA2 never became the OMG MOST HAVE like DA became in many eyes and they are worried it will do like Fable dose and sell less and less every year.
Hell if you look through Steam Rankings DA2 is less played then Dragon Age 1.

Ok, I know "why", what I really wanted to know was "why bother?". Someone who detests rasberries liked your chocolate in the past although it contained hints of rasberry. Your newests creation consists of 95% rasberry and 5% chocolate and he despises it. What point in telling him he'll like your next creation that will contain 93 - 97% rasberry? Sure, it'll work with a few morons, but at the same time it'll generate a lot of bad word of mouth. Considering how thin-skinned Mike is, he might consider less lying.