DA2 Bioware's Stanley Woo on the rushed dev cycle

You should first play the game at hard difficulty and then we will debate about the same game. Currently we are debating about two different games, this making the debate quite obscure.

In no way the waves match the definition of trash mobs, saying that means that any fight need only strong opponents and weaker taking part of a fight are trash mob. this makes no sense.

I'm a hardcore player of fights in RPG, that's my primarily focus, my first point of interest, so really you have no chance to make me believe I'm dreaming the depth of fights in DA2 and that I'm dreaming the tactical possibilities, if you can't find those qualities in this game, too bad for you.

Oh well, as I said before we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'd certainly call it trash. To me, it boils down to the amount of enemies at any given time - if 20 enemies can't even rival 1 boss, they're trash mobs. Whether or not it's a difficult fight is irrelevant.

In Gothic, for example, there are no trash mobs. You'll die if you ever face more than a few enemies at any given time. In Baldur's gate, some monsters can be considered trash mobs - typically goblins, kobolds and similar that attack in swarms. Most enemies, like golems, are not trash mobs.

And so on and so forth.

DoctorNarrative said:

In the article the author mocked people who thought Fallout 3 was a poor sequel and he mentioned that Fallout 3 "has that real-time action combat you just have to have in the post-Oblivion era." I remember thinking that was so odd… why does one HAVE to have it because a successful game had it?

Click to expand...

This could be an explantion why there are o few TBS games out there … I often write here that we "live in an Age Of Action", and I mean with it that Action is just the current fashion in this current age of gaming …

What comes next ?

Lucky Day said:

Not sure if its been said or not but rushed development cycles have been the main complaint of developers at EA.

[…]

This is a mistake when marketing RPG's because traditionally, a decent RPG can sell for years. It just doesn't fit into a convenient SWAT analysis.

Click to expand...

The rush is a long-time known fact, at least since the "EA Spouse" incident.

And I assume it is a problem that rather comes from the upper positions within the compan - which apparently seems to entirely consist of people who are lawyers and/or accountants, but they don't know even the slightest thing about gaming … All they can do - as I presume - is listen to councelors/consultants.

Who have their data … I don't know where from.

azarhal said:

Somebody need to go check his facts:

DA:O is BioWare best selling title of all time and they started working on DA2 8 months before Origins was released.

Click to expand...

How far was the development in that point ? At that time ?

DoctorNarrative said:

I don't think they expected DA:O to sell 10 million, which is part of the reason they changed some things up for DA2. Unfortunately while they made the combat more mainstream it was at the expense of a lot of other stuff that went down in quality.

Click to expand...

This instantly reminded me of hat JoWood did out of Gothic to become Arcaia … And yes, I see similarities there … In the aim to gain a broader audience …

Is Dragon Age 2 what Arcania is to the Gothic series ?

The focus on sales ?

Dasale said:

But a Hardcore player can notice that and then will try level up the difficulty level.

Click to expand...

The question is in how far you define "hardcore player".

Me, for example, I'm "hardcore" in that respect that I focus in/on story , not on action.

In combat, however, I'm - depending on the game - rather a casual gamer : I clearly prefer turn-based combat, bu not any level of difficulty that makes a game too hard (aka not winnable) for me.

I LOVED the difficulty of the Realms Of Arcania games, and of TOEE as well … Pools Of Radiance 2 was annoying in some points/places. There were too many fights (for my taste) where at least one or two heroes were dead after that … And in my case, this was almost every third fight …

And this is just an example of how complex people can actually be.

Alrik Fassbauer said:

This instantly reminded me of hat JoWood did out of Gothic to become Arcaia … And yes, I see similarities there … In the aim to gain a broader audience …

Is Dragon Age 2 what Arcania is to the Gothic series ?

The focus on sales ?

Click to expand...

Indeed. And Arcania did not sell well either, and Jowood are about to go out of business.

I would say there is a lesson to learn here, but I am sure some of these developers would counter by telling me Oblivion dumbed-down Morrowind and ended up selling tons more copies. The end point really is that there is no exact science, there is no formula for mass market success be it dumbed-down or deep and complex. You're gambling either way... all you can do is make good games, and games you want to make and have a passion to make. I don't think Bioware did that with DA2.

Well, I believe that Arcabnia and Dragon Age 2 are just too close to one another in terms of release dates.

There couldn't be no "lesson learned" from Arcania, because the development of Drago Age 2 was already in full swing - I assume.

Lol comparing Arcania pitiful crap with DA2. This craziness (I'm tempted to take back hysteria) around DA2 is reaching some incredible extreme.

Out of interest, do the people who really dislike it feel that it's more of an issue of the fights that they've set up with it or the underlying engine / gameplay itself?

i.e. do people think that they could have put in more boss orientated fights and have them work with the rules, and the main issue is that they didn't really put the time into varying the fights and gameplay.

I do wonder how much of the predominance of spam fights comes from the decision to give warriors stamina regeneration only from kills and the balancing requirement that comes from that. Shame really, it could have made for quite distinct experiences, i.e. warriors are screwed when it's just the one big opponent and rogues are screwed when there's loads of weak opponents due to their lack of AOE type options.

Maylander said:

I'd certainly call it trash. To me, it boils down to the amount of enemies at any given time - if 20 enemies can't even rival 1 boss, they're trash mobs. Whether or not it's a difficult fight is irrelevant.

In Gothic, for example, there are no trash mobs. You'll die if you ever face more than a few enemies at any given time. In Baldur's gate, some monsters can be considered trash mobs - typically goblins, kobolds and similar that attack in swarms. Most enemies, like golems, are not trash mobs.

And so on and so forth.

Click to expand...

Last two chapter I died two times, so according to the trash mob definition, there was necessary ton of trash mob.

If there something I noticed and enjoy in DA2 is it has much less trash fights than DAO. But it seems I'm playing another game because other players not only found no real tactics but also that fights are too easy and end in trash fights.

Dasale said:

If there something I noticed and enjoy in DA2 is it has much less trash fights than DAO. But it seems I'm playing another game because other players not only found no real tactics but also that fights are too easy and end in trash fights.

Click to expand...

If it's any consolation I'm with you, but I'm sure it's because I'm just a die hard fanboy.

I'm actually finding it quite interesting really, it's a different kind of gameplay to manage. Resource management is different (no spell memorising, not even a steady loss of mana over fights but a timing thing). Resistance management is different (seemingly not huge variation in vulnerability to different damages or kinds of attack, but quite a bit of variety in force effects). There's not much buffing but a lot more aggro management to keep your vulnerable players safe.

For me, different is at least interesting. I like a D&D type management and I'd be sorry to see everything of the sort go, but it's nice to be challenged by different dynamics sometimes.

Generally I've found that I can easily get at least an injury from most fights if I'm careless with my vulnerable players, and the pacing is such that the easy fights don't last long enough to be annoying.

Dasale said:

Lol comparing Arcania pitiful crap with DA2. This craziness (I'm tempted to take back hysteria) around DA2 is reaching some incredible extreme.

Click to expand...

I agree in specific - I have loads of criticism for DA2, but it isn't on the same level of suck as Arcania. I would call DA2 'average'.

But I think he was addressing the shift in core concepts - making the defaults of the game feel more like a console action game to cater to a certain audience in hopes of expanding the audience. If that is what was done, that is.

Benedict said:

Out of interest, do the people who really dislike it feel that it's more of an issue of the fights that they've set up with it or the underlying engine / gameplay itself?

Click to expand...

I think it is somewhat both, but largely the fights. If you have a 4 on 4 that has an equal chance of your party all dying as a 4 on 40, it is an inherently different battle. Same if you have 4 on 15 followed by 15 more and then another 10. It means that almost no enemy can have any true individual significance, because in *every* case they have brought at least a dozen of their friends to the battle.

In terms of gameplay engine the inability to zoom far enough back has definite implication on gameplay. Having spent too many hours this past year playing Kings Bounty, Elven Legacy, Majesty 2, assorted Total War, and other turn-based games ... I really appreciate the ability that Origins gave us to set up a truly strategic approach. You can use strategy and tactics in DA2 - and as Dasale says you need to do so at times - but it just feels different.

Dasale said:

Last two chapter I died two times, so according to the trash mob definition, there was necessary ton of trash mob.

Click to expand...

I think you are not clear on 'trash mob fights' - I would suggest you check Jeff Vogel's blog on that one. Basically, when you think of basic shooter or RPG enemies - rats, low-level goblins, Stormtroopers, etc - you know that even at the lowest level you can easily take them out. They are there as filler content and to help you gain levels.

Generally speaking a game designer will balance the occasional need to simply throw easy enemies at you to allow for leveling and loot collection (also known as 'grinding') with more interesting and challenging enemies. These are often named enemies with significant strengths who either fight alone or have a small group of minions / summons. These fights are memorable to the point that the name of the character will stand out for you. Fighting Tavion half-way through Jedi Knight II is one, and it is a fight that would have been completely altered if her power was diminished by 50% and replaced by sending in groups of Stormtroopers wave after wave ...

I mean, remember the Lich battle in that hidden area in BG2? Fighting Abazigal in Throne of Bhaal? In DA2 every single battle I have encountered has degenerated into fighting at least 20 enemies, with at least 18 being useless annoyances. And that is what I mean by 'trash' - replacing a challenging and memorable enemy with an equally difficult battle that is based on sheer numbers of no-name enemies.

Txa you wrote few posts before we should agree to disagree. I do agree with that, you are going nowhere with me. Play first DA2 at hard level and then it will worth a debate with you about fights in DA2.

Just a quote replay a fight, and check the waves, no random but for few using summoning, the captains special enemies use a special summoning that result in reinforcement ie waves. Check how some waves are to manage retreating, that some prepare a stronger opponent coming, that some are build in an increased strength with a clear thematic, and so on. It's weird how you can't noticed all the design put in DA2 fights. But I'm not surprise with a little pre hate and no love for fights up to play at a too easy difficulty level, this can lead quite far in non sense.

EDIT: Isn't it Icewind Dale that used waves a lot too? The cinematic was much better set than in DA2 but in term of fight structure it ends in similary design. ICWD also used waves in back to make retreat less good option, used reinforcement to setup a tension increase, use waves to add surprise, use waves to add the sense of reinforcement, and more and all of that is used in DA2 too. It's very long ago so there was perhaps not many in term of proportion but most I remember had waves.

Dasale said:

Txa you wrote few posts before we should agree to disagree. I do agree with that, you are going nowhere with me. Play first DA2 at hard level and then it will worth a debate with you about fights in DA2.

Click to expand...

Why the obsession over everyone playing on 'Hard'? Is the game broken otherwise?

txa1265 said:

Why the obsession over everyone playing on 'Hard'? Is the game broken otherwise?

Click to expand...

Now manipulation? I'm as Alrik on this point of view, but normal is too easy that's why I played on Hard. Well in fact I started on Nightmare because I end playing DAO in Nightmare. Then low down to Hard because Nightmare DA2 bored me because it was too difficult, and then Hard fits very well so I stick to it even if often I lost a fight and get irritated but think more and search more possibilities and most often solved it at Hard difficulty anyway.

Not about DA2 you can't comment the fights because you played it at too easy level. But in general, fights have three points:

• Difficulty level, there's no easy fight that are fun. For all fight from past games that you quote in your post, all offer you a very significant challenge… and you refuse admit you played DA2 at a too easy level? That is big, no that is huge or even gigantic, if not monstrous. But for sure some intermediate fights isn't pointless, but that's another point and I don't fully agree with Vogel on this, nor find Avernum series a top example of fights quality.
• Fight design, you need build a structure to fights, through placements, obstacles, enemies composition, and many more depending of the engine.
• Fight diversity, diversity is required, but also it's good to repeat a bit a same fights, it's a great way to make feel to players the feeling of achievement by giving a point to notice their improvement.

For sure DA2 isn't perfect on all 3 points, for sure they abuse of waves but not that all waves are bad crap. But on all three points DA2 beat DAO, but is quite far from ICWD if my remembering is good. Mmmm ToEE also used waves in some most memorable fights now I remember it.

txa1265 said:

But I think he was addressing the shift in core concepts - making the defaults of the game feel more like a console action game to cater to a certain audience in hopes of expanding the audience. If that is what was done, that is.

Click to expand...

I still think the shift in core concepts is not uninteresting . . . there's a lot more focus on aggro / force / time management than on buffing / placement / resource management which I agree feels much more of an action rpg / non rpg / console type dynamic. On the other hand it's supported by skill trees that really give a lot of variety to different characters' ability to alter those dynamics.

I think it is somewhat both, but largely the fights. If you have a 4 on 4 that has an equal chance of your party all dying as a 4 on 40, it is an inherently different battle. Same if you have 4 on 15 followed by 15 more and then another 10. It means that almost no enemy can have any true individual significance, because in *every* case they have brought at least a dozen of their friends to the battle.

Click to expand...

I'd certainly agree on that, I would have liked more fights that were boss focused and required more buffing & nerfing play than crowd control play. I'd be interested to see whether an expansion could offer more of that.

In terms of gameplay engine the inability to zoom far enough back has definite implication on gameplay. Having spent too many hours this past year playing Kings Bounty, Elven Legacy, Majesty 2, assorted Total War, and other turn-based games … I really appreciate the ability that Origins gave us to set up a truly strategic approach. You can use strategy and tactics in DA2 - and as Dasale says you need to do so at times - but it just feels different.

Click to expand...

I've found the lack of zoom pretty inexplicable but not really that upsetting for me. With no need to place spells to avoid friendly fire I've not found it necessary, although I'd much rather have kept the friendly fire and the zoom.

I mean, remember the Lich battle in that hidden area in BG2? Fighting Abazigal in Throne of Bhaal? In DA2 every single battle I have encountered has degenerated into fighting at least 20 enemies, with at least 18 being useless annoyances. And that is what I mean by 'trash' - replacing a challenging and memorable enemy with an equally difficult battle that is based on sheer numbers of no-name enemies.

Click to expand...

I think that Lich battle is an interesting example . . . I found I needed to use specific strategies with particular buffs and items to get through that. I remember it because of having to do that. I miss the loss of the depth and detail that would drive the occasional battle where I needed to use my scarce resources carefully like that, but on the other hand I do really like the fact that the inventory management unintentional mini-game that's an unavoidable part of RPGs is very painless indeed for DA2 (a significant improvement even over DAO). Dumbing down is not always without some offsetting silver lining, even if not enough of a silver lining for some given their tastes.

One other weakness of DA2 is the fact that the loot isn't tied well enough to the difficulty of the battle. If I get a difficult battle and a freaking sweet piece of loot then I'm likely to remember the battle even if the tactics weren't massively distinct.

DA2 has action fights, I am dreaming, Torchligh is action fight, DKS is action fight, in both you keep a constant control of a character to action any little movements and action, and you don't pause constantly as in DA2. DA2 fights are hugely different.

Placement are important in DA2, keep control of a door can be a huge tactic to minimize enemies fought at same time. Block a passage, door or not, can also be very efficient for having your long range taking agro on the other side. Spread companions or regroup them can be major choice at some key points. Move to help a companion instead of continue killing asap current opponent is often a good alternative, and many more.

I don't understand the buffer thing, if it's about the awful failure where ended D&D implementation rules in NWN2 with ton of boring buffering to constantly redo, then yeah thanks this boring crap is over and replaced with sustained states this is also including an auto mechanism of limitation (no more 100 buffer to cumulate, you need choose few).

I also don't understand the resources management point. Myself I consider it's a huge improvement of DA2 through much better cooldown design in general, that is good resource management. If it's just a reference about limited number of spells in D&D well never a point I enjoyed, not to mention players often forget they have scrolls and end anyway the game with ton of money.

For the nerfing, again I don't understand, there are plenty control possibilities and that's nerfing of opponent moves. But there are also many pure nerfing that are very efficient. And there are the combo that are more complex nerfing but very powerful, I don't use them yet but it's there available. And I consider all this nerfing a major part of managing strong opponents in a fights and I don't mean bosses.

The crowd control is a great point of DA2, DA2 tune down a bit the overpowerful points in DAO, lost few great element in the process but gain many interesting crowd control much better balanced. In particular the power specialization is a sort of complete tree of crowd control, very well designed.

Boss battles with just one boss don't work very well in DA2, for most very soon you enter in an automatic loop showing the fight is a bit long for its contents.

Few strong opponent generate much better fights but there are many fights like that in DA2. For example two strong assassins build that sort of fight, and possible additional waves can add some diversity by adding some crowd control elements but don't remove the fun element to manage two strong opponents.

The non tactical view seems has its source from cost (one more) and technical limits of the engine. To implement it well ie far enough it requires a complete new set of textures for the tactical view, otherwise it's too much stress to the engine. I suppose they could have implement one anyway with a closer view but probably gave up because too close was involving unpleasant. Is Drakensang has any tactical view? I don't remember that at all nor remember so many whining about that.

You're dreaming Dasale - that or you live with Mike Laidlaw . The enemies have almost no variety, save for a few special fights. You want to dismiss everyone who hasn't played on hard? Ok, well when I borrowed a friend's copy this past week, I played and beat the game as a mage mostly on the hard difficulty. I finally turned it back down to normal in the third act out of sheer boredom thanks to how repetitive and arbitrarily strung out the battles had become on that difficulty - it simply didn't challenge me in an enjoyable way. The game is full of trash mobs, and bumping the difficulty up simply makes the trash more annoying, not more challenging from a tactical standpoint.

Difficulty can either change how the A.I. functions in order to make enemies utilize their abilities more efficiently and counter the player's strategies, or higher difficulty levels can simply boost up the hp of every enemy unit, as well as nerf certain player abilities. DA2 features the latter version of difficulty. The game certainly does require tactics and can't be played as a pure button-masher, but that does not negate the fact that fights are built around attrition instead of strategy thanks to the absurd wave mechanic and endless trash mobs. It's a shame too, because there were a seldom few fights that were very enjoyable because they didn't have wave reinforcements, and featured a variety of enemies that required quite a bit of strategy to take down. These rare fights managed too avoid the usual battle against cooldown timers and waves of repetitive trash mobs. I think the game would have been much more enjoyable if it had featured these types of fights throughout the entire game.

For the fights and my dreaming, it's one of the rare good points often quoted by players, much more than any other, from companion to story and quests. Yes there are players that didn't enjoyed them too, but less than those complaining about other elements of the game.

So DAO fights was better for you? There was ton more of fillers in DAO for me. And for enjoying DAO for its strategy level, ouch hard to read. Nope, none are strategy games. And for fight diversity I also wish better, including more diversity and less abuse of waves, but DAO is less good on that points too.

At least you recognize "game certainly does require tactics and can't be played as a pure button-masher". That hugely different than txa "console action-RPG game".

About cooldown:

• Learn use more talents and you'll never rely on waiting some cooldown. Why do you think I never wait a cooldown?
• Remove some of key talents/spells from tactics if you use any, and then you'll have the key attacks for your control at the right time, and right time is better than spaming. Not to mention in DAO this wouldn't be a solution because of mana/endurance at zero after few seconds or almost.
• I'm surprised you waited cooldown and found it easy at hard. Well if your solution to fights was to run in circle waiting a cooldown I understand you found it boring, but you can do better.

For the waves:

• You just throw them all in trash which make me smile because in some fights it's waves that will bring some tough opponents forcing fights less oriented to crowd controls.
• It's also waves that setup counter element to make quite more complicate simple retreat.
• And very often there's waves but also two tough opponents to manage with caution, and in those case waves make it just more complicate to make you mix crowd control and manage special tough opponents.
• And yes they abuse of waves. But no, waves aren't a bad design, replay ICWD to refresh your memory about waves.

txa1265 said:

But I think he was addressing the shift in core concepts - making the defaults of the game feel more like a console action game to cater to a certain audience in hopes of expanding the audience. If that is what was done, that is.

Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. That's what I had intended.

This approach to make a game appeal to a wider audience in order to get more sales.

This has nothing to do with the actual outcome - it's just a philosophical view on it.