Dragon Age 2 - Mike Laidlaw Interview

As for the demo: from what I have seen on YouTube, it's the same demo EA showed last Gamescom in Cologne, with a few added features (more freedom regarding classes). I didn't play all of it, but I remember being very disappointed by the demo. So yes, I am part of the "dumbed down" camp. I am not saying that the game is bad, but it either is, or the demo represents the game very poorly. In any case I think the demo was a bad move from Bioware/EA.

I only frequent gaming forums with people who mostly consider themselves to be RPGers. I both forums, the demo was received generally poorly. I am not following Bioware's extended target audience (Call of Duty players, GTA players). It would be interesting to see whether they are attracted by the demo.

Let's all take a deep breath, please. No more personal attacks and no more fanboy comments, either.

Grandor Dragon said:

I am not following Bioware's extended target audience (Call of Duty players, GTA players). It would be interesting to see whether they are attracted by the demo.

Click to expand...

The idea of Dragon Age 2 being anything like Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto is absurd.

DoctorNarrative said:

The idea of Dragon Age 2 being anything like Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto is absurd.

Click to expand...

True, but I think he is referring to Bioware's "new target audience," i.e., when Mike Laidlaw discussed designing the game in a manner to appeal to (or not "scare off") fans of those games.

That's what I was referring to.

Rune_74,Im sorry if i didnt explain . I understand if you are on this site you are probably not a casual gamer and if you are thats ok. But i am only saying is i understand that you enjoyed the demo and can expect to like the entire game . The gamers that didnt enjoy it are not out of line or being close minded to the changes . Why are you trying to convince us to like the game . I dont like the game and all of the points you have may be valid to you but we still dont like the direction of the game. Im not trying too hard . Its ok that you like the game i would have liked it if i was 13 too. Why cant it be ok ? that those who think its an embarrassment to RPGs and you say, Ok i understand why you might feel that way instead of shoving all your arguments of comparing down our throats . To change yourself is an act of courage.To change another ,is an act of violence. Again , Enjoy the game.

rich ruffo said:

Rune_74,Im sorry if i didnt explain . I understand if you are on this site you are probably not a casual gamer and if you are thats ok. But i am only saying is i understand that you enjoyed the demo and can expect to like the entire game . The gamers that didnt enjoy it are not out of line or being close minded to the changes . Why are you trying to convince us to like the game . I dont like the game and all of the points you have may be valid to you but we still dont like the direction of the game. Im not trying too hard . Its ok that you like the game i would have liked it if i was 13 too. Why cant it be ok ? that those who think its an embarrassment to RPGs and you say, Ok i understand why you might feel that way instead of shoving all your arguments of comparing down our throats . To change yourself is an act of courage.To change another ,is an act of violence. Again , Enjoy the game.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to convince you to like it. I could care less. I just find it funny you don't see it as agressive part on those that do not like it trying to tell us "13 year olds"(even though I am most likely older then you.) that we should not voice or comment on statements from others. Obviously you think this thinly veiled attack was pretty clever, guess you were wrong.

Who is this "we" you speak of? Do I go against the grain of rpg watch and should not state what I feel or like? Get in line, don't say anything against the power.

rune_74 said:

I'm not trying to convince you to like it. I could care less. I just find it funny you don't see it as agressive part on those that do not like it trying to tell us "13 year olds"(even though I am most likely older then you.) that we should not voice or comment on statements from others. Obviously you think this thinly veiled attack was pretty clever, guess you were wrong.

Who is this "we" you speak of? Do I go against the grain of rpg watch and should not state what I feel or like? Get in line, don't say anything against the power.

Click to expand...

Yes you are there are three of you on rpgwatch forcing your ideas on anybody who says they hate the game. What you three are doing is saying were right and your all wrong. You know that is what we call a hypocrite.

Couchpotato said:

Yes you are there are three of you on rpgwatch forcing your ideas on anybody who says they hate the game. What you three are doing is saying were right and your all wrong. You know that is what we call a hypocrite.

Click to expand...

Yeah, um ok…don't like it, that's your thing, you don't have to…we clear now? I can however comment on comments and say what I think, do you have to agree? Um no. Funny, it is just the ones who like it who are forcing their opinions huh?

EDIT: Read this entire thread, cuz I just did to make sure….and find where I am forcing anyone to do anything.

EDIT 2 not in this thread either: http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12755&page=6

rune_74 said:

Yeah, um ok…don't like it, that's your thing, you don't have to…we clear now? I can however comment on comments and say what I think, do you have to agree? Um no. Funny, it is just the ones who like it who are forcing their opinions huh?

EDIT: Read this entire thread, cuz I just did to make sure….and find where I am forcing anyone to do anything.

EDIT 2 not in this thread either: http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12755&page=6

Click to expand...

And there allowed there opinions also without people telling them they have no reason to hate the game. It works both ways you know. Its not just you its a couple of posters who seem to have a problem with hating the game for good reasons.

People will either love or hate a game its natural and cant be explained. It just comes down to personal taste in how you like to game. Bioware knew they would piss off there fan base but dont give a damn. Liadlaw even mentioned it.

In a perfect world everyone would think the same and love everything but it will never happen. You can try to please everybody but you never will.

There that's all I'm going to say as talking about DA2 is getting boring. Just realize people wont like the game.

Couchpotato said:

And there allowed there opinions also without people telling them to shut up. It works both ways you know.

People will either love or hate a game its natural and cant be explained. It just comes down to personal taste in how you like to game. Bioware knew they would piss off there fan base but dont give a damn. Liadlaw even mentioned it.

In a perfect world everyone would think the same and love everything but it will never happen.

Click to expand...

I'm confused here...what is your personal crusade with me about? No where have I told them to shut up...I did get after a guy for calling me a fanboy...or a couple personal rants like yours. But no where did I say shut up. Think you may have me mixed up with someone else, sorry.

rune_74 said:

I'm confused here…what is your personal crusade with me about? No where have I told them to shut up…I did get after a guy for calling me a fanboy…or a couple personal rants like yours. But no where did I say shut up. Think you may have me mixed up with someone else, sorry.

Click to expand...

My above post is not just targeting you and I revised it if it offended you. I just used it as an example of how people cant have negative opinions. And to prove a point people can hate the game its reasonable. Others will love or hate it and I wont criticize or point out its illogical like other posters try to.

Nerevarine said:

True, but I think he is referring to Bioware's "new target audience," i.e., when Mike Laidlaw discussed designing the game in a manner to appeal to (or not "scare off") fans of those games.

Click to expand...

Laidlaw is just rambling about players of those games enjoying the character progression elements though, I do not think he is saying actual gameplay is or should be similar.

For all the hate being thrown at it Dragon Age 2 is amazingly similar to the first game considering all the talk about changing it. Yes it is streamlined, but it's still a tactical RPG, you still need to use tactics in that second ogre fight. I honestly assumed from early info and comments that it would be a true hack n' slash game.

In other words for all his talk of recruiting Call of Duty players he still made a tactical RPG that very, very few people who didn't like Dragon Age: Origins would be turned around by.

DoctorNarrative said:

Laidlaw is just rambling about players of those games enjoying the character progression elements though, I do not think he is saying actual gameplay is or should be similar.

For all the hate being thrown at it Dragon Age 2 is amazingly similar to the first game considering all the talk about changing it. Yes it is streamlined, but it's still a tactical RPG, you still need to use tactics in that second ogre fight. I honestly assumed from early info and comments that it would be a true hack n' slash game.

In other words for all his talk of recruiting Call of Duty players he still made a tactical RPG that very, very few people who didn't like Dragon Age: Origins would be turned around by.

Click to expand...

I agree, in no way did Bioware make "Call of Farmville: Grand Theft Dragon Age." But Bioware did design the game to not "scare off" players of those games, and in my opinion, this choice has been detrimental to DA2 in terms of quality from what I've seen based on the evidence and brief hands-on, even though it certainly is still a (quasi)tactical game and not an utterly mindless hack-fest.

Even though it sort of feels similar to DA:O, I think that what throws people off in regards to the sequel (myself included) is the new atmosphere. And I'm not talking about just the graphics and new art design, either (though the exaggerated, "cartoony" style plays a part). It just seems as if DA2 is trying way too hard to be edgy, epic, and dramatic, and to me it just feels forced and cheap instead of feeling well-thought out or elegant. So for some, the lack of an appealing atmosphere - which is highly subjective to each individual of course - can really hamper one's enjoyment of a game, especially when that atmosphere is at the absolute forefront of everything in a game. So it might feel similar to DA:O, but to me, it doesn't retain the atmosphere and personality that I found to be appealing, and that's a huge deal for me in an RPG. The toned down RPG mechanics and unappealing design choices don't help matters, but for me it's the atmosphere that has been the big deal-breaker.

rune_74 said:

Can you explain to me how this helps anything? I get it, anyone who says otherwise is a fanboy, the simpletons way of winning an arguement.

Click to expand...

How about at least learning how to spell "argument" before trying to call someone else a simpleton.

JDR13 said:

How about at least learning how to spell "argument" before trying to call someone else a simpleton.

Click to expand...

Rune wants to punch you in the face now

rune_74 said:

This is funny. This happens all the time here. It is easy to shift blame to others who do no t share your opinions. Fanboy stuff? Complete crap and not a intelligent way to argue your point…He has used it quite a lot in more then just this thread. Pretty much lost any respect I had for his opinion now.

Click to expand...

No, actually I haven't, but it's predictable that you would attempt to make it sound that way.

For the past week you've done nothing but basically attack anyone who has an opinion that differs from your own.

rune_74 said:

One more thing guys, remember how everyone freaked out here about fallout 3? It didn't turn out half bad, even got refined to be great in new vegas.

Click to expand...

Yes, I do remember.

It was in interesting experience to witness.

Nerevarine said:

"Call of Farmville: Grand Theft Dragon Age"

Click to expand...

:lol:

Exactly. "The Lord of the Rings" doesn't start with an introduction to the ABC either. Tutorials are good and well, but if you overdo the "easing in" (and don't make it optional) you are in great danger of boring (and thus pitentially loosing) your more advanced players.

Click to expand...

Mmmm, the thread has moved on a bit but I just want to respond to this. The lord of the rings (and many good novels) use the principle of 'in media res' to begin their story. Ie, they hurl you right into an event without much explaining the context, characters or backstory. Those elements are gradually sketched in as you continue reading.

Which is the narrative equivalent of what laidlow is talking about for RPG game design. You don't throw the world backstory at the player in the start of a novel, you reveal it as they continue reading. Laidlow is talking about not throwing all the RPG game mechanics at the player to start but sketching them in as you go along, after the starting point.

Just saying, LOTR or novels aren't a good example. They almost all start with the 'narrative ABCs', focusing on core characters and their relationships as well as the basic plot hook before spinning out the rest of the exposition and backstory. If novels worked like RPGs are structured, the first 3 chapters would be a long exposition on the history and mechanics of the gameworld.

The idea that you can or should build a game only for people who are already familiar with the mechanics is just elitism. How the hell do people ever learn to play DnD then, of any edition? Do they just appear out of the ether, fully aware of the rules? Does it completely ruin a game campaign for the experienced players if the DM allows a new guy to join and spends some time helping them get up to speed?

People are being pretty silly about this. Played the DA2 demo, the 'easing in' is what, 20 minutes? And it's not like you can't have a hardcore RPG without an initial character creation screen. Gothics, anyone? Even the Witcher IIRC started you off with a set character and only let you make choices when you had levelled up for the first time.

The only unusual "easing in" element in DA2 is the exaggerated section.
Player picks gender and class and kills some trash mobs while having more abilities at his disposal and being unkillable.
Then he proceeds to character creation and begins the game at level 1, which isn´t any different from DA:O and majority of RPGs out there.
The only real difference is the preview of combat before character creation, period. Of course, this preview is kinda deceptive since it´s played in god-mode.

So when Laidlaw says: "Then you level up and you start spending points, and the RPG mechanics are introduced in a way that's gradual, in a way that welcomes someone who would otherwise maybe go, "Whoa! Too complex!" and shut it off immediately", he´s actually rather on bullshitting side, because majority of RPGs is like that, DA:O included.

Now, things like removed skills, companions having one set armor only changeable once via their personal quest á la ME2 or FF only on nightmare, those are some of the "welcoming" changes I´d be more concerned about.