Dragon Age 2 - Ray Muzyka Interview @ Eurogamer

Comparing sales of a new game based on an original IP with a sequel is not acceptable, because a sequel is expected to sell even more, thanks to its established fan-base and the new fans who are attracted to the game by many means, including 'the word of mouth' of millions of fans.
Some say DA:O sold 3.2 million copies while DA2 sold only 2 million, as if it was a success for DA2 to sell 3.2 million copies.
First, DA2 was supposed to sell much more. (1) because it was a sequel, (2) because it targeted a broader audience and so on.
Second, DA:O spawned an expansion pack and some non-0day DLCs, while DA2's DLC horizon does not appear as bright.

Fraper said:

A rushed job is not always a good explanation for a poor game, just take a look at Gothic 4, over 4 years of development and what the fans got ? (rethorical question)

Click to expand...

Of course, but when I say I think the rush caused most of the game's problems I mean l literally think it's the root cause. The enemy waves are there for padding and to avoid time-consuming battle design. The area re-use is an obvious time issue. The lack of impact from choices, especially the ending, is likely due to not having time to design more outcomes and branches. Those are my main issues with the game and they all fall back on time.

The only other problem I had with it was not equipping your whole party, which I blame on Bioware focusing more on cinematic storytelling than gameplay. That's something they have done since KotOR though, and arguably a style choice that makes their RPGs unique.

Other changes like the art style, faster combat and pre-defined PC I didn't really have a problem with. I do prefer RPGs where you make the character from scratch, but I also like when you roleplay an established badass like in Deus Ex or The Witcher.

They have said for years that BG2 was a mistake and that they made it too big and added too much content and that is exactly why we loved it.

Click to expand...

In a way they are right, but also wrong. It is true that BG2 set up a such high expectation from fans like myself, however in saying that, if there was no BG2, Bioware wouldn't have so many core fans. BG2 is what makes me go back to Bioware games again and again no matter how much I get disappointed by their recent titles.

Also, I'm sick of buying games only to play through it once or twice. I want something I can go back to. Maybe a mission I've missed out on. Maybe trying out new NPCs. I want massive game content minus repetition. I got so furious about DA2 dungeons, cycling same area/battle over and over again.

Manga looking animation didn't help either. I preferred realistic looking DAO graphics. But what made me frustrated the most was, realising just how much potential it had and didn't end up delivering it. I love DA universe. So much new lores, new things to discover. All DA2 flashed out was tension between mages vs templars. What about Flemmeth? Eluvian? Origins of Darkspawn? Archtect? Where are all the answers I was expecting since DAO? And DA2 in generall didnt feel like Dragon Age game at all. DAO and DA2 feels like completely different game. If there were no cameo appearance of NPCs from DAO, it can be a completely different game created in same universe.

It was decent game, no doubt. But it could be better. Much better.

It's also worth noting that the lead designer of DA:O quit Bioware in part because of where the company is heading (mass market), and "the doctors" were already preparing for that long before EA entered the picture.

hishadow said:

It's also worth noting that the lead designer of DA:O quit Bioware in part because of where the company is heading (mass market), and "the doctors" were already preparing for that long before EA entered the picture.

Click to expand...

Preparing? More like executing really. KotOR, Jade Empire and Mass Effect were all made before EA and were all console-focused games with mainstream concessions.

And honestly where is Troika now? Where is Black Isle? Bioware has thrived while others died by making mainstream console-friendly titles. Same with Bethesda. It might not be what we want to hear, but they likely made the right choices as far as keeping their companies profitable and running.

DoctorNarrative said:

Preparing? More like executing really. KotOR, Jade Empire and Mass Effect were all made before EA and were all console-focused games with mainstream concessions.

And honestly where is Troika now? Where is Black Isle? Bioware has thrived while others died by making mainstream console-friendly titles. Same with Bethesda. It might not be what we want to hear, but they likely made the right choices as far as keeping their companies profitable and running.

Click to expand...

Who can say they did the right thing. The thing is the gaming population in general never cared for rpgs. So Rpg developers had to find a way to evolve the genre to cater to the mass market. They have to brain wash us into believing the change was good but any of us who are 25 or older know its bullshit.

The general population doesn't want RPGs. They want romances, bromances, gay romances and action. So the developers are going for the mainstream.

Selling your soul to make greater profits doesn't seem worth it. What happened to passion and creativity or hell love of the job. All a thing of the past.

Not only it is very likely at present times the general population does not want RPGs, but also players who say to want RPGs are not interested in RPGs, they are interested in tactical turn based games allowing them to powergame.

M&B is one game that would support being reviewed from a RPG angle and looking at the mod communauty that is quite large, it appears that mods offering to deepen the RPG aspect are nearly absent. Most mods offer new combat options, tactical deployment, rebalanced weapons system, added management options etc

Bioware has made the right decision imo. People do not want to play RPGs but they are not certainly not against pretending they play RPGs so keeping a RPG label on their game will be enough.

People do not want to play RPGs but they are not certainly not against pretending they play RPGs so keeping a RPG label on their game will be enough.

Click to expand...

Outed for the truth. Cant deny it.

ChienAboyeur said:

Not only it is very likely at present times the general population does not want RPGs, but also players who say to want RPGs are not interested in RPGs, they are interested in tactical turn based games allowing them to powergame.

Click to expand...

Some, yes. And it annoys me as much as anyone to see people whose sole interest in roleplaying is that aspect. We've had the whole "what is an RPG?" debate a million times on the internet and for some people it will always be that character creation and finding the perfect build aspect.

For me it's choice and consequence and exploration. Modern games dumb down even those aspects though, so I still get to complain.

I want it all, though

DArtagnan said:

I want it all, though

Click to expand...

That's the problem you cant. Its like the soup Nazi from Seinfeld. When is said no soup for you he meant it. Just replace him with the developer.

Couchpotato said:

That's the problem you cant. Its like the soup Nazi from Seinfeld. When is said no soup for you he meant it. Just replace him with the developer.

Click to expand...

I know I can't have it, but I can't change wanting it

Having it all within the confines of a single game could be overkill.

I want it all too, but I'd be happy if I can get it all in five games instead of in a single unfocused one.

holeraw said:

Having it all within the confines of a single game could be overkill.

I want it all too, but I'd be happy if I can get it all in five games instead of in a single unfocused one.

Click to expand...

Well, it was mostly a joke. I DO want everything, but such a thing is obviously not going to happen - even under the most ideal circumstances.

But my point was, essentially, that just because I prefer things like strong exploration and deep character mechanics - it doesn't mean I want to do without a powerful narrative or story-based C&C.

I think people tend to forget that even if you like one thing more than anything, it doesn't mean you don't want other great things.

DArtagnan said:

I think people tend to forget that even if you like one thing more than anything, it doesn't mean you don't want other great things.

Click to expand...

Sure, but since I like action games as well my need for turn-based stuff is on the low side. I like turn-based, I know why it can be better from a roleplaying perspective, but at the same time I like shooters and melee combat games. Thus a shooter or melee combat game with the roleplaying aspects I most enjoy turns out to be quite awesome.

Mass Effect is a poor RPG but as a space exploration/dialogue choice/shooter game it's pretty awesome. Oblivion sucks at damn near everything but it has great exploration. Fallout: New Vegas is my RPG of the decade at the moment because it did two things EXTREMELY well, exploration and C&C, and those two things are what I most look for.

It's all relative.

DoctorNarrative said:

Sure, but since I like action games as well my need for turn-based stuff is on the low side. I like turn-based, I know why it can be better from a roleplaying perspective, but at the same time I like shooters and melee combat games. Thus a shooter or melee combat game with the roleplaying aspects I most enjoy turns out to be quite awesome.

Mass Effect is a poor RPG but as a space exploration/dialogue choice/shooter game it's pretty awesome. Oblivion sucks at damn near everything but it has great exploration. Fallout: New Vegas is my RPG of the decade at the moment because it did two things EXTREMELY well, exploration and C&C, and those two things are what I most look for.

It's all relative.

Click to expand...

That's true, but I'm not really sure what we're talking about now?