Dragon Age 2 - Interview @ NowGamer and Gameplay Video from Igromir

Art isn't implicitly better than profit-oriented productions.

They're simply two different things, and the appreciation for art over profit - has little or nothing to do with how intelligent you are.

Also, art can be CRAP and profit-oriented productions can be great. In my experience, the latter is rare - but it happens.

I just happen to prefer art, and I happen to lament the lack of focus on art - but I'm just one guy and I'm not entitled to art, anymore than the mainstream consumer is entitled to profit-oriented material.

Just about the only "wrong" thing I can see with non-art, is if the creators or the developers are actually working against their own desires when developing these mainstream games. That would be a huge problem.

I have a theory that some (the artistically inclined) DO work against their own best interest when developing mainstream games - but I can't prove it. It doesn't help that I suspect many artists are in denial about this.

Money simply means too much to people.

Art is like anchor to keep the game leaning to much towards lowest common denominator. Basically...throw that anchor away , and you get game about big boobs and decapitating fatalities, that you can finish with your hands tied behind your back after a full brain stroke. (obviously there are many games like this :O )

And you can also say. Its okay to follow lowest common denominator because this is what masses want. Right ?

Well , no.

You can watch film called "Idiocracy" to see what happens if we follow that principle.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
481
Art is like anchor to keep the game leaning to much towards lowest common denominator. Basically…throw that anchor away , and you get game about big boobs and decapitating fatalities, that you can finish with your hands tied behind your back after a full brain stroke. (obviously there are many games like this :O )

And you can also say. Its okay to follow lowest common denominator because this is what masses want. Right ?

Well , no.

You can watch film called "Idiocracy" to see what happens if we follow that principle.

You present no argument, and simply a bunch of claims.

You prefer art in games, and you think of people who don't as stupid.

This means we strongly disagree about what stupid means.

It's possible for people to want a casual "dumbed down game" and yet still be extremely smart or informed. They could be doctors, astronauts, or scientists. Whatever you might consider smart.

It's that they simply don't CARE about art in games. Some of these people are obviously not interested in art AT ALL, but you have no way to prove that or know it about strangers - and you will never be able to prove that a lack of art appreciation is tantamount to stupidity.

If I was invited to, say, a horse show (or whatever), I would likely be able to appreciate even an averagely performing horse doing whatever moves/stunts in a very average way. Because I don't know about horses, I don't care about the intricacies, and I have no frame of reference - I'm just there to have a bit of fun. Just like the mainstream gamer wants a bit of fun from his games. That makes us stupid? Only the ignorant can believe that.

I haven't seen Idiocracy, but I assume it's an american film taking things to the extreme to entertain. You must be stupid to appreciate it, if that's case.

Oh, and note that I say stupid where you say "lowest common denominator". You could argue that's not what you mean, but you will have a hard time convincing me, I think ;)
 
Everybody has a hard time convincing you, D'artangan. Ever. Of anything. ;)
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
3,508
You didnt understand me.

When I say "art" in games. I do not refer to Van Gogh or Rembrandt.

I refer making games have mechanics that may be more complex or engaging than you would normally put in braindead summer entertaiment flick.

In this way i consider Morrowind or Gothic to have "art" , on other hand Modern Warfare 2 or Medal of Honor, do not.

There was a funny part in one of Douglas Adams novels (Hichhikers guide to galaxy) where he describes films in the future as unending video of cars exploding.

Lowest common denominator is dangerous thing.

Our Cerebellum is to primitive to let it have his way. Otherwise you may end as masturbating , hamburger eating , obese zombie , sitting in underwear in darkened pile of trash room.... (thinking of it ... its not that uncommon in some cultures) You must challenge yourself in order to better yourself. And its not easy.
Its something you must force yourself to do, or others must force it on you. In your best interest. And in interest of human race...

And this is what "Idiocracy"is about. Its a film that asks "What would happen in future if we stop challenging ourselves on go with our basic most primitive needs and wishes... rule of lowest common denominator"

Other than this , i really dont understand the angry reaction to my post?

I really didnt expect it from you, that I so far considered intelligent poster.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
481
You didnt understand me.

When I say "art" in games. I do not refer to Van Gogh or Rembrandt.

Neither do I ;)

Since the concept has never been objectively defined, I think it's probably a bit difficult to have a clearly understood debate.

My own personal definition:

Pure art = a 100% subjective vision.

This means that the creator (or creators) followed their own personal vision, doing absolutely ONLY what they think is best for the creation. A shared vision can be subjective, but in that case it's probably less pure. So, everything done to the game, or with the game - is about the game. Not about how the game will do financially, or how popular it will make you. EXCLUSIVELY about making the game that matches the vision.

Now, it's possible to actually have a pure vision about pleasing most people - and I would argue that Blizzard used to have that kind of vision. Now, though, I think they're forgetting what made their games great and they're imitating themselves instead of being themselves.

Now, such a 100% pure thing is exceedingly rare (if it ever exists anywhere) - and it's absolutely unheard of in the industry - because there will always be practical concerns, like time and money.

But, the closer a game is to a subjective vision - the purer it is, as art.

I refer making games have mechanics that may be more complex or engaging than you would normally put in braindead summer entertaiment flick.

In this way i consider Morrowind or Gothic to have "art" , on other hand Modern Warfare 2 or Medal of Honor, do not.

Oh, I think it's MUCH more complex than that. I would say, however, that Gothic is probably more subjectively visionary than Medal of Honor - but I could never prove it.

Our Cerebellum is to primitive to let it have his way. Otherwise you may end as masturbating , hamburger eating , obese zombie , sitting in underwear in darkened pile of trash room…. (thinking of it … its not that uncommon in some cultures) You must challenge yourself in order to better yourself. And its not easy.
Its something you must force yourself to do, or others must force it on you. In your best interest. And in interest of human race…

Oh, we agree - but games are not the only way of challenging yourself. Some people have real lives in which they challenge themselves, and only want to "blow off steam" when they get home to play a game.

This is key, and this is what you don't think of - when you conclude that profit-oriented games are implicitly bad.

Other than this , i really dont understand the angry reaction to my post?

I can be many things, but angry due to forum posts is NOT one of them ;)

I just speak very bluntly without much consideration for anything but the clear sending of my message.

I really didnt expect it from you, that I so far considered intelligent poster.

That's nice ;)

But I'm not really all that smart. We're all intelligent and we're all stupid ;)
 
Agreed.

There is good place for bots mindless blow off steam and complex games.

I am just sad that Bioware is slowly treading towards simpler game formulas :(
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
481
You know, I don't mind an increase in action, or more actiony combat, less stats etc.

What really turns me off about this game is the way they're telling the story. I don't think I like playing through 'what if' scenarios or replays of historical events. I want to take my character and experience a story from start to end.

This 100%

And I personally don't see the new graphic "style" as a move forward. I don't think that DAO was the beast they claim it was. I think they simply needed to streamline it to better accommodate the new "action" gameplay they're shooting for in DA2.

While DA2 may wind up being fun for what it is (more ARPG than traditional RPG) I don't think they should of pawned it off as a "sequel"...far too many changes imo

Would of been better to unveil it as another game set in the DA Universe...then rolled out a "true" sequel to DAO. (basically some improvements but the same general look and feel of Origins)

That would of been my wish...smoke in the wind now.

Will be interesting to see how it plays out with reviews and sales.

Regards
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
215
I think they went about this backwards -- should've released this first, then gradually introduced more RPG and hardcore elements in each installment to ease people into it.

Honestly I doubt the claim they'll make more money, at least by the time DA3 rolls around. It's a good short term money maker, but I doubt a good long term one.
 
Joined
Oct 13, 2010
Messages
78
for me the warning signs of imminent unhappiness include
- DA:O took many years to develop (this will take…1+ years?)
- DA:O introduced a new game milieu (which is always interesting!), rule set, enemies …. what's really changed in DA2? I really am sick of the darkspawn now - that by itself is almost enough for me to skip DA2...bloody darkspawn....
- DA:O included innovations (?) like Origins and an unknown story which unfolded in the future around you.. in DA2, we all known how it ends :-/

It is sad to see an RPG stalwart like Bioware 'mainstream'…hopefully some new aspiring company will takeover the reins from them. Fingers crossed!
 
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
2,137
Location
Cape Town, South Africa
There's a good reason for that ;)

But you don't learn if you don't accept other view-points.

At least you should be able to acknowledge that from a certain point of view, things are right there, too.

Like Obi-Wan explaining Darth Vader to Luke. ;)


Even as I'm biased, I can clearly see why people think of this and of that. And if I'm explained their points of view so that they seem logical to me, I might even give in.

And i think this is what logic in discussions is about : Presenting the own point of view in a way so that everybody else can understand it.

Even that I don't accept the Aztek religions, I can nevertheless see what they meant with sacrifying humans. Because I've read enough about it so that I can understand it.

And I can let it go and say : "It's okay, the way you look at it and believe it. I don't do, but I accept your belief as something original of you."

And even if I don't like it, I can still accept it.

And this is learning : To see what and how others see this world.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,908
Location
Old Europe
You were hit pretty early on with a lot of statistics, and I think there were number of people who were a little turned off by that element of the game. Trying to figure out if you need a high dexterity or not is a little daunting when you’ve seen nothing of the game so far.
What number? From what I remember, majority of complaints in regards to stats/skills was about their often nebulous descriptions.
By far the most prevalent complaint was about filler combat.

In other DA 2 news, a gameplay video from Igromir Game Expo has been posted on Youtube.
2vdkz2d.jpg


I think they went about this backwards — should've released this first, then gradually introduced more RPG and hardcore elements in each installment to ease people into it.
I think that DA:O was a great start. It wasn´t perfect, but feature-wise it was pretty much a complete cRPG package, which was quite a wonder for such an AAA title. Just refining existing systems and adding more complexity to character development, combat, itemization etc, seemed like a very viable route to make a sequel. Simply, the franchise had a good potential to skew the mainstream map a bit in what I perceive as more positive direction, which is why I admittedly may have been sorta pimping the game a bit more than it deserved on its own. Can´t say I really believed it would happen, but, well, the potential was there. And given how popular the game has become, it would be smart from an economical standpoint as well imo. Unlike Mike Ladlaw, I don´t have numbers, but I doubt majority of people wished for simplification in a sequel.
However, probably because of its long development cycle, DA:O now seems just like a fluke in the light of known changes for DA2, where paramount influence on most of game systems comes from animation department.
Imo, Bioware and co. are in for a big disappointment when it´ll come to DA2´s sales, they´re underestimating their potential customer pool here, at least judging by the info available so far.

Fortunately, it seems like a bit of that positive "skewing of mainstream map" is happening anyway, as Bethesda's shipped five million units of Fallout: New Vegas and ArcaniA bombed hard.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
2,437
Location
Prague
It have already been commented on, but it must be quoted for emphasis.

"We understand that Origins is actually BioWare’s best selling game to date."
"You were hit pretty early on with a lot of statistics, and I think there were number of people who were a little turned off by that element of the game."
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
eh-

You weren't hot early on with a lot of statitics in DA: Origins. You could pretty much just in and a) combat your way thorugh the game or b) read everything or a combination =
c) dombat your way, walk around, read the tool tips where you'd learn that rogues need dexterity and warriors need strength or you could read the freaking manual.
Or d) go to the Bioware Social Forums and find the forum for DA: Origins and ask for advice. A lot of noobs (that's what they called themselves anyway) did this - and they all said that they absolutely loved the game, the story, the characters etc. They just needed some help to figure out the combat system. And people gave them this help.

So why change a winning formula? Maybe because, as one of the good (or bad?) doctors once said: this game, DA2, needs to sell 10 millions SKUs (or copies). Why they have set the bar so high, I really don't know. Especially considering that a Bioware game never sold over maybe 2-3 million copies in total. (DA: Origins may have sold or shipped a bit more than this, I'd guess?)

And as Obsidian and Bethesda have showed, there's are room in today's gaming world for deep, explorative, challenging and choice and consequence games. It feels as if EA and Bioware still think we're living in say 2004 or even 2001-2002 where these action oriented rpg games became popular. It as if it hasn't yet dawned on them that we live in 2010 and there are room for a modern version of Baldur's Gate as DA: Origins and Fallout: New Vegas clearly has shown.

I was like this :rolleyes:- when I read Laidlaw's comments since I didn't remember any statitics at all. Well, maybe in the character creation screen. But then, read the freaking manual or think a bit. Logically, it would make sense that a warrior will need a high STR, CON, while a Rogue will need a high DEX, and STR.

And yes, the stat/skills were often very vaguely described so instead of fixing this, Bioware and EA apparently just decided to get rid of the stat and skill stuff...
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,147
Location
Denmark, Europe
Since it's their most successful game to date they should make it more hardcore since they have a big audience willing to buy DA2. Cater even more to old school players yet still attract the lol-kids with marketing hype about blood, sex, action, big swords, even bigger swords and grittyness. Then make some of those hardcore features optional for the casual console kiddies out there and you have a smash hit. Like what Obsidian did with FNV.
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
999
Location
The Great White North
So why change a winning formula? Maybe because, as one of the good (or bad?) doctors once said: this game, DA2, needs to sell 10 millions SKUs (or copies). Why they have set the bar so high, I really don't know.

They set it so high because they know KOTOR Online is going to bomb big time ;)

Seriosly, I have no idea why they set the bar so high, but with KOTOR coming out relatively soon I don't think it's a coincidence.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
5,347
Location
Taiwan
It's a common greed mindset.

EA and the top Bioware people are obviously about the money, and only the money - so this kind of thing will be the norm.

It's when making great games loses its flavour, and it simply becomes a matter of how far you can go, and how big you can grow. Money is what you use to measure success in modern society - so that's most likely the overall goal.

I'd say it's either active or dormant in all human beings.

The only issue is that big isn't implicitly better - and in terms of art - I'd say the opposite is most often the case.

Too bad - but there will always be art somewhere else. Bioware died in that way a while ago, and it's about time we accept that and move on.

At least, that's my position.
 
They set it so high because they know KOTOR Online is going to bomb big time ;)

Seriosly, I have no idea why they set the bar so high, but with KOTOR coming out relatively soon I don't think it's a coincidence.

I know it under the name of "SW: TOR".
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,908
Location
Old Europe
I know it as "WHY?????????????" ;)
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
5,347
Location
Taiwan
Back
Top Bottom