Dragon Age II - Final Thoughts (Bioware interview)

[Soveru]

If they want more distinctive characters, how about having more armour textures? Problem solved

 

[Wolfram23]

I've talked to Origins players who said, "As soon as I moved it to hard, I totally see where Origins is again."

I like this statement. So many complaints directed at the combat, but my guess is they just left the game on Normal. So silly, they said normal would be a little easier than in Origins, and it was already easy! For all the people who ***** about not needing any tactics in combat, I say it's your own fault. Turn up the difficulty!! (omitted insult =P)

But seriously, playing on Hard there's been fights I had to redo 5 times, even around 15 times for one fight against templars. I'm always having to carefully use crowd control tactics and carefully choose who to tank and who to try dpsing fast, etc. The only complaint I can understand is for those who bought it on console and don't have auto attack. That would suck.

 

[godofallu]

Yeah pretty much what I expected. If that guy admits he made any wrong choices he loses his job, so obviously he is going to talk about how he did everything right.

I want a free floating camera, I want armor in my RPG, I want decent companions, and a real story. Maybe DA3 will have some of that stuff, they have a fair shot considering new story/characters are guaranteed.

 

[Haydyn]

This guy comes of as if his lines were written. Like a team of people got together and said "We need somebody to overlook any flaw the game has and explain it in a way that sounds like we did everything right, and that nobody who matters disagrees." It was painful to read.

"We already did stuff people liked in Dragon Age Origins. So we thought we would just do the opposite of what people like. We are developing depth by doing this, and that's a good thing. Remember those wacky characters from Origins? well, these guys don't have as much personality because they don't have to. But they still have better story arches. I think Aveline's wonderful story about being guard captain beats the shit out of everything in Origins. We didn't want people changing the character's outfits because then you couldn't have Isabella's or Varric's cleavage, so you are basically stuck with underarmored characters, but it's okay because you are not just wearing the same armor as Hawke. Plus hey, you can just sell that armor and buy jewlery instead. Fire resistance, you know, for the rare times when you actually get to fight a dragon in Dragon Age II. Plus it saves animating time so you can notice that Aveline stands up with correct posture while Isabella has her hip sticking out. This is serious depth people. Besides, don't you want more dialoge options, even though it is in smaller font, and you can't tell what you are actually going to say? But it's okay, because all you need to know is what icon you are chosing. So rather than feeling like you could say a hundred different things, you have the safety of saying one of 3 things.

We didn't want returning characters to just show up. So we were very careful about who we brought back. Isabella was a minor characetr in Origins, so we made her look completely different and gave her a boob job. Remember everybody's favorite character Anders? Well, he's back, but instead of having a kitty, he is possessed by Justice, only he is now Revenge. Also, Anders wants to take a ride on your disco stick.

We feel that we have really expanded on the moral delemas in the game. Want to have both a Mage and a Warrior in your party? Well you can! But one is going to love you, and the other is going to hate you, because you have to choose whether Mages or Templars are bad every 5 minutes. We feel as though we expanded on evil coming from nowhere by just making everybody giant douches. Rather than that evil guy from Origins, we just have Quanari around for no reason. Because miscommunications are the reason for all the evil in the world."

I. Want. This. Man. To. Suffer.

 

[RuralGamer]

snip

This sounds suspiciously like Groupthink (yay, education is paying off! Fivez to Norman Maier) Tell me if this sounds a bit like the Dragon Age devs;

Illusion of invulnerability; they think that the series has great potential, despite the possibility that Dragon Age 2 will not outsell its predecessor by a significant quantity

Rationalisation; they are ignoring the criticisms of the game by fans, to the point at which they publicly act as if they don't exist or its just a vocal minority.

Assumption of morality and negative stereotyping; sure, I think the fan moaning about the homosexuality was a bit stupid, but the Bioware guy's response was pretty strong. The whole people getting their accounts banned too for criticising and such would suggest they are pretty angry and excessively defensive at people being negative about it. He keeps saying 'I think' in the review, possibly indicating that he believes his opinion to be above those of the fans (rationally its the other way around, because happy gamers = $$$$$$). Plus, his language is pretty strongly defensive.

If this is Groupthink (not being an expert, I can't say), then whats to stop them from going further and making an even worse next game unless someone intervenes?

I agree with the OP; this sounds more like its coming from a PR than a LD.

snip

Second that.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

So, I just read this:

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6305575/index.html

My impressions:

-Mike Laidlaw is incredibly dismissive of any criticism of DAII. The whole thing has a very strong ?If you weren?t happy with DAII you can just F off and die? vibe to it.

-At no point does he admit that there was anything, in particular, that could have been done better or that was a mistake.

-Depth simply isn?t important. Being able to outfit your party just isn?t worth them not looking the way the artist wants them to look. Being able to move the camera so that real tactical combat is possible isn?t as important as having nice scenery.

-Mike Laidlaw, in general, sounds more like a bad PR man than a lead designer. There?s shockingly little insight into development here and a whole lot of spinning and apologetics.

Most importantly of all, there?s this:

I think the big key is to not adjust 180 degrees again, because we've done this. I think, as a team, we're quite happy with what we've done with Dragon Age II, and this is establishing a solid foundation that keeps a lot, in fact almost everything I want to keep about Origins, but still has tons of room to grow and, frankly, a more viable future for the franchise.

Unless DAII sales are low enough to make Bioware bring in a new lead designer and commit to a new direction, this is final. Bioware is pulling out of the RPG market, and you can expect an increasingly thin veneer of ?RPG? laid over increasingly generic action games.

I didn't see any of the stuff the OP was commenting about.

He never said they didn't make mistakes, he simply defended the choices the design team made. He even admits that a lot of things still need a lot of tuning. He simply states that the team is happy with the direction they're going, and are going to incorporate fan feedback without doing another 180. He even explicitly says at the end of the interview that player feedback is very important to them.

He says a number of things need improvement to continue the game's growth, especially in the combat area. Saying he's happy with where the game is going =/= not thinking anything needs to be changed or tuned.

The OP's definition of depth is different than other people's. What makes this so difficult is that the fan base tends to be fairly evenly divided (from actually talking with people, and not just reading the slams on forums). For every person that loves that companions have a unique, signature look rather than all looking the same, there's someone that really loved the control over companions' armor. And the OP seems to be completely ignoring the fact that Laidlaw said they are exploring ways to get the best of both worlds, where companions get a signature look and the player has some control over what they wear.

As for the tactical camera, it was a mechanics issue, and again, I didn't see him disregarding people's outcry to the changes, just standing by the direction the game is taking. I can see their point. I loved the more vast areas, and catering to (a) only PC/Mac players, and (b) only those that extensively used the tactical camera is not the way to go when you're dealing with a wide player base on multiple platforms, not all of whom use the tactical camera.

Game designers can't please everyone. There comes a point they have to say "This is where we're taking the game." This is not disregarding fans that dislike the changes, it's simply impossible to make everyone happy. What I gathered from the interview was "We're happy with where we're going, but we're taking everything into account. While we won't do another 180 and revert back to Origins, we're taking criticisms under advisement and looking for ways to create a middle ground that will bring the two sides together."


I really feel that people that react to this as "Just more proof the DA team sucks" are those that feel that their concerns override others who enjoyed the changes.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

He never said they didn't make mistakes, he simply defended the choices the design team made. He even admits that a lot of things still need a lot of tuning. He simply states that the team is happy with the direction they're going, and are going to incorporate fan feedback without doing another 180. He even explicitly says at the end of the interview that player feedback is very important to them.

There isn't a single "Yeah, we did this, and it didn't work. It was a mistake" in the whole interview. There are a lot of very common complaints about DAII, and he doesn't address a single one other than to dismiss it. The only feedback that is important to them is the feedback that they're going to cherry pick to justify what they're already planning on doing.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Already read it, but did he have to put down Origins to make DA2 look better?

 

[Jaded Scribe]

He never said they didn't make mistakes, he simply defended the choices the design team made. He even admits that a lot of things still need a lot of tuning. He simply states that the team is happy with the direction they're going, and are going to incorporate fan feedback without doing another 180. He even explicitly says at the end of the interview that player feedback is very important to them.

There isn't a single "Yeah, we did this, and it didn't work. It was a mistake" in the whole interview. There are a lot of very common complaints about DAII, and he doesn't address a single one other than to dismiss it. The only feedback that is important to them is the feedback that they're going to cherry pick to justify what they're already planning on doing.

And again, for every common complaint, there's a fair-sized group of players that like the change. And you have no idea how the feedback is going to be used. Yeah, you feel like they're picking things that only justify what they're doing. You don't know that.

When looking at forum posts, they have to be taken with a grain of salt. Saying "I hate x, y, and z" is going to net more responses that agree with the OP than detraction, as people who disagree either (a) won't bother looking at a topic titled something to the effect of "Why I hate , or (b) won't feel like getting drawn into major arguments. For this same reason, threads about "Why I love will have mostly agreement as well.

And this early in the development of DA3 (if official development has begun at all) they simply aren't going to say "we're completely scrapping this system". They're going to look at the feedback, and see if they can improve the new system first, and figure out what the gameplay mechanics of the new game require before they choose to do major re-overhauls.

I'm not saying DA2 was perfect, or that there isn't tuning that needs to be made. But I think they know the direction they want to take the game, and there are, in fact, a number of people who like where it's going. In my own circle of friends, for example, most like DA2 as much or better than Origins. BioWare is going to look at all of the feedback, and not just instantly cave to the detractors.

 

[DVS Storm]

That arrogance is just stupid. I love DA2 and I think that it succeed in linearizing a game(though I see no point in doing that). Personally I would have delayed the game for a couple of months. And well he is not the only arrogant developer out there.

This might be a little of topic but wasn't Jade Empire pretty linear too? I mean the enviroments were basically as linear as in DA2. Yet I haven't seen many people complaining about that. And yes, I think Jade Empire is an awesome game.

 

[DustyDrB]

This might be a little of topic but wasn't Jade Empire pretty linear too? I mean the enviroments were basically as linear as in DA2. Yet I haven't seen many people complaining about that. And yes, I think Jade Empire is an awesome game.

And environments were reused just as much in the first Mass Effect.

 

[darth.pixie]

Way I see it, he wanted to keep Dragon Age in the way the designer/writer/artist thought of Dragon Age. And it should have left a choice. That's the point. Leaving it to the player.

On the companion armour...I never changed Morrigan's robes. But I had the choice to do so if I wanted to. They could have at least made a wardrobe of two or three outfits to pick from.

If he wouldn't have defended his game and admitted to mistakes, that would either have been bad publicity or he would have lost his job. So that's fine I suppose. Still wish they wouldn't continue with the "streamlined" RPG formula though...

 

[BloodSquirrel]

And again, for every common complaint, there's a fair-sized group of players that like the change. And you have no idea how the feedback is going to be used. Yeah, you feel like they're picking things that only justify what they're doing. You don't know that.

Yeah, it's not like he flat-out says that he's going to ignore people who didn't like it. I mean, he certainly didn't say anything like "I think the big key is to not adjust 180 degrees again, because we've done this. I think, as a team, we're quite happy with what we've done with Dragon Age II, and this is establishing a solid foundation that keeps a lot, in fact almost everything I want to keep about Origins, but still has tons of room to grow and, frankly, a more viable future for the franchise."

When looking at forum posts, they have to be taken with a grain of salt. Saying "I hate x, y, and z" is going to net more responses that agree with the OP than detraction, as people who disagree either (a) won't bother looking at a topic titled something to the effect of "Why I hate , or (b) won't feel like getting drawn into major arguments. For this same reason, threads about "Why I love will have mostly agreement as well.

And this early in the development of DA3 (if official development has begun at all) they simply aren't going to say "we're completely scrapping this system". They're going to look at the feedback, and see if they can improve the new system first, and figure out what the gameplay mechanics of the new game require before they choose to do major re-overhauls.

This is flat-earth level denial. The internet is on fire with DAII criticism, mostly from Bioware's formerly loyal fanbase. But, hey, your opinion is the only important one, so everyone should just pretend that people who don't share it don't really exist.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

This is flat-earth level denial. The internet is on fire with DAII criticism, mostly from Bioware's formerly loyal fanbase. But, hey, your opinion is the only important one, so everyone should just pretend that people who don't share it don't really exist.

The internet is on fire?

Hey, here's a project for you. Pick a subject that interests you. That subject could be anything from "I like Pizza" to "Dragon Age 2 Sucks". Type it into Google. OMG! Look at all the results! The internet is ON FIRE! Now go find an average guy on the street and ask him what he thinks of the Dragon Age 2 controversy that has set the internet on fire! ON FIRE!

One way you can make your opinion seem more palatable is if you don't resort to ridiculous hyperbole and logical fallacies (please see "appeal to popularity") whenever challenged by a contradictory viewpoint.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

And again, for every common complaint, there's a fair-sized group of players that like the change. And you have no idea how the feedback is going to be used. Yeah, you feel like they're picking things that only justify what they're doing. You don't know that.

Yeah, it's not like he flat-out says that he's going to ignore people who didn't like it. I mean, he certainly didn't say anything like "I think the big key is to not adjust 180 degrees again, because we've done this. I think, as a team, we're quite happy with what we've done with Dragon Age II, and this is establishing a solid foundation that keeps a lot, in fact almost everything I want to keep about Origins, but still has tons of room to grow and, frankly, a more viable future for the franchise."

Not like there's a difference in saying "we're not completely reverting our changes, but going to tweak the current system to find a happy medium" and "anyone who doesn't like our game can suck it"

It's always valid. You have to take a read of what the fans are saying, what reviews are saying, and what the non-fans are saying. Are there people out there who are saying, "I could not play Origins, but love Dragon Age II" or "I couldn't play Origins and this is more of the same." You have to keep your ear to the ground. Look at forums. Take a look at what comments are coming up. What are the common concerns? What are the common perceptions?

Just because you feel x, y, and z sucks, and BioWare says they are happy with the general direction of the game doesn't mean they feel your concerns are invalid, or that they aren't going to draw on those for future installments. He evenly discussed some base ideas for a middle ground on companion armor.

Those that are complaining very much give off the vibe of "there is no compromise. If BioWare doesn't completely revert any design choice I didn't like means they're assholes who don't care about the player base and they just fucking suck."

From everything I read in the article, BioWare is trying to incorporate the best of both worlds and reach a compromise. They don't want to do a complete 180 because that's moving backwards in development. Better for them to continue moving forward while striking a balance.

When looking at forum posts, they have to be taken with a grain of salt. Saying "I hate x, y, and z" is going to net more responses that agree with the OP than detraction, as people who disagree either (a) won't bother looking at a topic titled something to the effect of "Why I hate , or (b) won't feel like getting drawn into major arguments. For this same reason, threads about "Why I love will have mostly agreement as well.

And this early in the development of DA3 (if official development has begun at all) they simply aren't going to say "we're completely scrapping this system". They're going to look at the feedback, and see if they can improve the new system first, and figure out what the gameplay mechanics of the new game require before they choose to do major re-overhauls.

This is flat-earth level denial. The internet is on fire with DAII criticism, mostly from Bioware's formerly loyal fanbase. But, hey, your opinion is the only important one, so everyone should just pretend that people who don't share it don't really exist.

No, it's not denial. The internet is on fire, yes. But how much of those criticisms take on the exact attitude you accuse me of having: "your opinion is the only important one, so everyone should just pretend that people who don't share it don't really exist."

That's exactly how you're coming across right now. I disagree with you and think the changes they're making are for the better and that the game is benefiting, and therefore you immediately dismiss me as being wrong.

BioWare has to look past the flame wars. A lot of people are happy with the change. You can try to ignore that as much as you want. It doesn't change that fact. Is there more or less than those that criticize? I don't know. It gets furthered muddied by people who say "I hated changes x and y, but loved z" balancing with "I loved z, but hated x and y." BioWare has to take everything under consideration.

With only a month of being out, and most of the feedback degenerating into flame wars and the oh so useful "BioWare sucks", of course they aren't going to make a statement about reverting systems.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

One way you can make your opinion seem more palatable is if you don't resort to ridiculous hyperbole and logical fallacies (please see "appeal to popularity") whenever challenged by a contradictory viewpoint.

You mean like trying to pretend that everyone who disagrees with you is just a tiny minority that should be dismissed and ignored? "No, no, everyone is fine with DA II. Anyone who says anything else is just LIES!"

 

[BloodSquirrel]

"we're not completely reverting our changes, but going to tweak the current system to find a happy medium"

Where in the interview does he ever enterain the idea of a happy medium? Seriously, give a specific example.

No, it's not denial. The internet is on fire, yes. But how much of those criticisms take on the exact attitude you accuse me of having: "your opinion is the only important one, so everyone should just pretend that people who don't share it don't really exist."

Let's take a look, and see if we can find any:

Those that are complaining very much give off the vibe of "there is no compromise. If BioWare doesn't completely revert any design choice I didn't like means they're assholes who don't care about the player base and they just fucking suck."

BioWare has to look past the flame wars. A lot of people are happy with the change. You can try to ignore that as much as you want. It doesn't change that fact. Is there more or less than those that criticize? I don't know. It gets furthered muddied by people who say "I hated changes x and y, but loved z" balancing with "I loved z, but hated x and y." BioWare has to take everything under consideration.

With only a month of being out, and most of the feedback degenerating into flame wars and the oh so useful "BioWare sucks", of course they aren't going to make a statement about reverting systems.

One way you can make your opinion seem more palatable is if you don't resort to ridiculous hyperbole and logical fallacies (please see "appeal to popularity") whenever challenged by a contradictory viewpoint.

There we are. Two quotes that treat the very idea DAII was a bad game as inherently uncivil and unworthy of consideration.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

There we are. Two quotes that treat the very idea DAII was a bad game as inherently uncivil and unworthy of consideration.

How does my quote imply any such thing? I indicated that there was an issue with how you were expressing yourself. That you have chosen to take wild offense and completely misread what I said instead of simply correcting the issue is hardly surprising, I suppose, but disappointing nonetheless.

You mean like trying to pretend that everyone who disagrees with you is just a tiny minority that should be dismissed and ignored? "No, no, everyone is fine with DA II. Anyone who says anything else is just LIES!"

I'm not sure what your logic is here. You found a post you disagreed with, found it used sloppy and infantile logic to support its claims, and thus sped off to compose an equally sloppy and infantile reply? That was your solution, was it? If this was your intent...to have a conversation where everyone exaggerates, and makes idiotic claims, and talks past each other, and presents their opinion and ONLY their opinion as "The Truth", then by all means, forgive me and continue. I'm certain great things will come of it.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

And another thread about DA2 devolves into a flame war. White Knights and Flamers do make for good entertainment, though.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

I didn't see any of the stuff the OP was commenting about.

He never said they didn't make mistakes, he simply defended the choices the design team made. He even admits that a lot of things still need a lot of tuning. He simply states that the team is happy with the direction they're going, and are going to incorporate fan feedback without doing another 180. He even explicitly says at the end of the interview that player feedback is very important to them.

He says a number of things need improvement to continue the game's growth, especially in the combat area. Saying he's happy with where the game is going =/= not thinking anything needs to be changed or tuned.

The OP's definition of depth is different than other people's. What makes this so difficult is that the fan base tends to be fairly evenly divided (from actually talking with people, and not just reading the slams on forums). For every person that loves that companions have a unique, signature look rather than all looking the same, there's someone that really loved the control over companions' armor. And the OP seems to be completely ignoring the fact that Laidlaw said they are exploring ways to get the best of both worlds, where companions get a signature look and the player has some control over what they wear.

As for the tactical camera, it was a mechanics issue, and again, I didn't see him disregarding people's outcry to the changes, just standing by the direction the game is taking. I can see their point. I loved the more vast areas, and catering to (a) only PC/Mac players, and (b) only those that extensively used the tactical camera is not the way to go when you're dealing with a wide player base on multiple platforms, not all of whom use the tactical camera.

Game designers can't please everyone. There comes a point they have to say "This is where we're taking the game." This is not disregarding fans that dislike the changes, it's simply impossible to make everyone happy. What I gathered from the interview was "We're happy with where we're going, but we're taking everything into account. While we won't do another 180 and revert back to Origins, we're taking criticisms under advisement and looking for ways to create a middle ground that will bring the two sides together."

I really feel that people that react to this as "Just more proof the DA team sucks" are those that feel that their concerns override others who enjoyed the changes.

Wow. This. Well said, very well said. Thank you for a very well stated and articulate position, Jaded Scribe.

If I could remember where I put that link the to guy slow-clapping, I'd post it here. Anyone who agrees, feel free to post it. Because this deserves a slow, thoughtful clap.