110 réponses à ce sujet

[jenncgf]

Uh, guys?

For those of you who have been saying that DA2 has been in development for a shorter amount of time than DAO, you might want to consider that they've most likely been working on DA2 since some time BEFORE DAO came out.

They didn't wait for DAO's release and then say, "Oh, gee, we should start on the sequel."  I doubt any game developer company will do that because it borks up the pipeline too much and pushes back release dates until the game is no longer relevant.  (see Jade Empire)

From a project management perspective, they would have started DA2 from *at minimum* a storyboard perspective three years ago, maybe longer, once DAO went to the 'let's find the bugs and fix them' stage.  They wouldn't have their writers and initial-code-drafters sitting idle for all that time with nothing to do.

DAO took 5 years to produce.  I don't think DA2 would take that long, given the points people made about having basic game engines and the overall world already designed, but it's entirely possible to have taken 3 or 4 years to produce the sequel.

[AlexXIV]

jenncgf wrote...

Uh, guys?

For those of you who have been saying that DA2 has been in development for a shorter amount of time than DAO, you might want to consider that they've most likely been working on DA2 since some time BEFORE DAO came out.

They didn't wait for DAO's release and then say, "Oh, gee, we should start on the sequel."  I doubt any game developer company will do that because it borks up the pipeline too much and pushes back release dates until the game is no longer relevant.  (see Jade Empire)

From a project management perspective, they would have started DA2 from *at minimum* a storyboard perspective three years ago, maybe longer, once DAO went to the 'let's find the bugs and fix them' stage.  They wouldn't have their writers and initial-code-drafters sitting idle for all that time with nothing to do.

DAO took 5 years to produce.  I don't think DA2 would take that long, given the points people made about having basic game engines and the overall world already designed, but it's entirely possible to have taken 3 or 4 years to produce the sequel.

Hehe my thoughts aswell. I had to laugh when I did read comments like 'they only had one year'. Like you could make a game in that time. Maybe DA:A took that long, and no need to say how disappointing it was. Anyway, I also guess DA2 had 3 years development time at least, that's rather standart for most games.

And in terms of content I hope it is either long or has a high replayability. Unlike DA:O I am not going to jump on this game blindly. The recent news didn't exactly improve my faith in Bioware, neither did the latest DLCs ...

[Wishpig]

jenncgf wrote...

Uh, guys?

For those of you who have been saying that DA2 has been in development for a shorter amount of time than DAO, you might want to consider that they've most likely been working on DA2 since some time BEFORE DAO came out.

They didn't wait for DAO's release and then say, "Oh, gee, we should start on the sequel."  I doubt any game developer company will do that because it borks up the pipeline too much and pushes back release dates until the game is no longer relevant.  (see Jade Empire)

From a project management perspective, they would have started DA2 from *at minimum* a storyboard perspective three years ago, maybe longer, once DAO went to the 'let's find the bugs and fix them' stage.  They wouldn't have their writers and initial-code-drafters sitting idle for all that time with nothing to do.

DAO took 5 years to produce.  I don't think DA2 would take that long, given the points people made about having basic game engines and the overall world already designed, but it's entirely possible to have taken 3 or 4 years to produce the sequel.

3 or 4 years??? Lol... not a chance. At best they started to make DA2 after they finished DA:O (there was a long period inbetween completion and shipping... in this period they also made Warden' Keep, finished up shale, and started working on awakening.)

[PanosSmirnakos]

jenncgf wrote...

Uh, guys?

For those of you who have been saying that DA2 has been in development for a shorter amount of time than DAO, you might want to consider that they've most likely been working on DA2 since some time BEFORE DAO came out.

They didn't wait for DAO's release and then say, "Oh, gee, we should start on the sequel."  I doubt any game developer company will do that because it borks up the pipeline too much and pushes back release dates until the game is no longer relevant.  (see Jade Empire)

From a project management perspective, they would have started DA2 from *at minimum* a storyboard perspective three years ago, maybe longer, once DAO went to the 'let's find the bugs and fix them' stage.  They wouldn't have their writers and initial-code-drafters sitting idle for all that time with nothing to do.

DAO took 5 years to produce.  I don't think DA2 would take that long, given the points people made about having basic game engines and the overall world already designed, but it's entirely possible to have taken 3 or 4 years to produce the sequel.

I think that in every company, a successful or not product is mainly defined by the sales... and you have to wait some months after its release to be sure about it. You must be confident enough that you have a successful product to start spending time and money for a sequel, no?
And if I remember well from a Bioware video about DA:O, it took 7 years to produce, not 5.

[Ashbery]

I would prefer a shorter game with less filler combat.

[AlanC9]

DA2's development cycle doesn't look that much shorter than BG2's was, and BG2 was substantially longer than BG1. Already having an engine gets you a lot of the way.

[Legbiter]

DA 2 has been in development since way before DA:O came out. DA 2 will be roughly similar in length as DA:O, maybe a little shorter. That's how I'm calling it at least.

[HTTP 404]

jenncgf wrote...

Uh, guys?

For those of you who have been saying that DA2 has been in development for a shorter amount of time than DAO, you might want to consider that they've most likely been working on DA2 since some time BEFORE DAO came out.

They didn't wait for DAO's release and then say, "Oh, gee, we should start on the sequel."  I doubt any game developer company will do that because it borks up the pipeline too much and pushes back release dates until the game is no longer relevant.  (see Jade Empire)

From a project management perspective, they would have started DA2 from *at minimum* a storyboard perspective three years ago, maybe longer, once DAO went to the 'let's find the bugs and fix them' stage.  They wouldn't have their writers and initial-code-drafters sitting idle for all that time with nothing to do.

DAO took 5 years to produce.  I don't think DA2 would take that long, given the points people made about having basic game engines and the overall world already designed, but it's entirely possible to have taken 3 or 4 years to produce the sequel.

I think you bring up a big point but I think you are exagerating to make it.  I agree that its dumb to think they made the game in less than a year's time.  But actual programmers working on the game? idk, my guess is closer to 2 and a half to three when the game is released.

[AlanC9]

By programmers you mean.... what? Engine guys? Level designers? Artists?

[Grommash94]

They probably started DA 2 around....a year, a year and a half ago. I don't think making a full game in a year is possible, tbh.

[rhautanen]

I think the length and re-playability of DAO was excellent. I've finished 5 characters (mostly on hard difficulty) with a longest time of 89:56:37 and a shortest of 62:50:05 (these times are straight from the post-coronation save). I have ~30 other characters that at least made it through their origin story. So that's about 1:30 per character for another 15 hours of play time. I'd say DAO was well worth the money for me;) I retract my previous snippy comment, and trust that DA2 will play out at a reasonable length for me. I may have to accept that DAO was a special case and I shouldn't expect that many games will ever hit that kind of "sweet spot" for me. I'd be reasonably happy with 40-50 hours, assuming they will charge $50-60. for it.



I can see how if I skipped a lot of dialogue (which I rarely do), and only did the main quest line I could cut the time way down. For me that wouldn't be any fun, and I don't think it's a fair way to rate the game's play time. As far as the claims of 10 hour play-through I find that very hard to believe. If someone were doing that, I think it's a clear sign that DAO is just not for them. That's fine, they probably should not buy DA2, and find something else that better suits their style. Not every game suits every player, and sometimes you just have to find that out the hard way (i.e. after you already spent your $).



I have completed DAA once in a time of ~29 hours, with the other DAO ports in various stages of completion, running at about the same pace.

[Vandicus]

A thing to consider in terms of development. Bioware, when they create games, creates toolsets and then makes the game out of the toolsets. While this takes longer the first time around, a lot longer, it allows them to release new content and create new games in a relatively short period of time. Additionally, DA2 was in production before DA:O was released. The toolset is now doing the majority of the work, as the only changes they've made were graphical while enhancing combat movement a bit. Those are all very simple changes and are nothing compared to creating an entire toolset.

DA:O was supposed to last 2 years, while DA2 is supposed to encompass ten years. A reasonable guestimate by that standard is three to five times longer

Modifié par Vandicus, 24 juillet 2010 - 07:06 .

[Faust1979]

I wouldn't care much about the length. Jade Empire took me under 20 hours to beat the first time and I did most of the side quests and I loved it. Just give me a good game with a great storyline and characters and let me level them up and I will be happy

[Faust1979]

I wouldn't care much about the length. Jade Empire took me under 20 hours to beat the first time and I did most of the side quests and I loved it. Just give me a good game with a great storyline and characters and let me level them up and I will be happy

[rhautanen]

DA:O was supposed to last 2 years, while DA2 is supposed to encompass ten years. A reasonable guestimate by that standard is three to five times longer

I don't think it works that way.

[rhautanen]

I wouldn't care much about the length. Jade Empire took me under 20 hours to beat the first time and I did most of the side quests and I loved it. Just give me a good game with a great storyline and characters and let me level them up and I will be happy

Good point. If the story is good, length is not such an issue. Of course I also didn't pay $50-60 for JE so ...

[Altima Darkspells]

elearon1 wrote...

Altima Darkspells wrote...

All signs point to DA2 being significantly shorter than DAO, both in terms of actual game time and replayability.

I actually got the impression you'd have better replayability, as each of your choices would effect how your history unraveled and send you in a somewhat different direction.  I expect it to at least provide encouragement to play it through twice - which was very difficult for me to justify with DA:O. 

You do realize that every (western, at least) RPG developer ever constantly states that your choices will affect your gameplay?  Which, while technically true, is mostly a blatant lie.  In reality, when BioWare--or, really, any company--cuts down the character options from a game like DAO and runs a preset type of character, it significantly lowers replayability.

After all, for each 'choice' you have in DA2, they will, when it all boils down, be two.  The 'good' choice and the 'evil' choice.  Despite BioWare having taken out any morality meter, they still cling to the whole black/white approach on the whole.

So, in essence, you can probably experience 98% of DA2 through two playthroughts--one male, one female, one warrior/rogue, one mage, one good, one evil.  Then, poof, you're done with the game, unless you like to replay for fun or achievements, or whatever.

Oh a side note, Alpha Protocol does a *really* good job of having your character's choices influence the game, and it has a pre-made character with a dialogue wheel (though Obsidian dumped the few-word description in place of stances--suave, aggressive, or professional with an occasional fourth option).  So, it can be done.  I just doubt it has been.

[In Exile]

Altima Darkspells wrote...

You do realize that every (western, at least) RPG developer ever constantly states that your choices will affect your gameplay?  Which, while technically true, is mostly a blatant lie.  In reality, when BioWare--or, really, any company--cuts down the character options from a game like DAO and runs a preset type of character, it significantly lowers replayability.

That depends very much on what it is that makes a game replayable. Alternate content isn't what makes a game replayable for everyone. I happen to replay games a lot (especially Bioware games) but I very rarely make different choices. There is a fair amount of content in these games I never see because I would never pick some of the options.

To me, it is the gameplay that makes the game replayable. Alpha Protocol had a lot of variability in their choice, but the game sucked. It wasn't fun to play, and so it had low replayability for me. ME was not that fun of a game; it has a great story but low  replayability for me. ME2 had good gameplay, so for me it is highly replayable.

Be careful in how you generalize replayability, becaue it is not the same thing for everyone.

So, in essence, you can probably experience 98% of DA2 through two playthroughts--one male, one female, one warrior/rogue, one mage, one good, one evil.  Then, poof, you're done with the game, unless you like to replay for fun or achievements, or whatever.

I can't understand this outlook. It's like you're saying you can't understand why you would replay a game for fun.

Oh a side note, Alpha Protocol does a *really* good job of having your character's choices influence the game, and it has a pre-made character with a dialogue wheel (though Obsidian dumped the few-word description in place of stances--suave, aggressive, or professional with an occasional fourth option).  So, it can be done.  I just doubt it has been.

Yeah, but Alpha Protocol also sucked as a game. It was broken, you had to be clever with the leveling to break it even more, and where is the fun in that? But apparently fun isn't grounds to make a game replayable.

[AlanC9]

Altima Darkspells wrote...
 In reality, when BioWare--or, really, any company--cuts down the character options from a game like DAO and runs a preset type of character, it significantly lowers replayability.

You sure? Plenty of people replay games that don't have many character options.

I certainly wouldn't have played KotOR any more if I could have made a Twi'lek PC.

And honestly,  how many players have time to spend 200+ hours with a single game anyway? I'm not certain when, if ever, I'll get in a fourth DAO run.

Modifié par AlanC9, 24 juillet 2010 - 07:52 .

[Altima Darkspells]

AlanC9 wrote...

Altima Darkspells wrote...
 In reality, when BioWare--or, really, any company--cuts down the character options from a game like DAO and runs a preset type of character, it significantly lowers replayability.

You sure? Plenty of people replay games that don't have many character options.

I certainly wouldn't have played KotOR any more if I could have made a Twi'lek PC.

And honestly,  how many players have time to spend 200+ hours with a single game anyway? I'm not certain when, if ever, I'll get in a fourth DAO run.

KotOR was its own storyline.  It didn't have anything to draw upon apart from the already abysmal slew of horrible Star Wars games.

Dragon Age, however, went from three races and seven Origin stories to...well, one race and one Origin story.

Regardless, it *does* lower replayability.  Just because it's not for you specifically does not mean it doesn't in general.

As for your last point, there are so few games like DAO out there.  On the other hand, dozens of random, console-ized shooters that, more or less, all play--and sometimes, look--the same come out every year.  Many fans of the RPG genre have more than enough time on their hands to spend 200+ hours on a game over several years.  Hell, people are still replaying Baldur's Gate.

[Grommash94]

Altima Darkspells wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Altima Darkspells wrote...
 In reality, when BioWare--or, really, any company--cuts down the character options from a game like DAO and runs a preset type of character, it significantly lowers replayability.

You sure? Plenty of people replay games that don't have many character options.

I certainly wouldn't have played KotOR any more if I could have made a Twi'lek PC.

And honestly,  how many players have time to spend 200+ hours with a single game anyway? I'm not certain when, if ever, I'll get in a fourth DAO run.

KotOR was its own storyline.  It didn't have anything to draw upon apart from the already abysmal slew of horrible Star Wars games.

Dragon Age, however, went from three races and seven Origin stories to...well, one race and one Origin story.

Regardless, it *does* lower replayability.  Just because it's not for you specifically does not mean it doesn't in general.

As for your last point, there are so few games like DAO out there.  On the other hand, dozens of random, console-ized shooters that, more or less, all play--and sometimes, look--the same come out every year.  Many fans of the RPG genre have more than enough time on their hands to spend 200+ hours on a game over several years.  Hell, people are still replaying Baldur's Gate.

I am sorry, but that really isn't a fact. As In Exile said, replayability depends on the person. I usually always played as a human, and I enjoyed each of my playthroughs.

[Games4ever]

Latest news, it should be over 19 ½ hours now :-) hope for more news soon

[Jacks Smirking Revenge]

I think it will be the same length of Origins maybe a bit longer due to them not having to consider for six origins. I'm sure cutting five origins out and how they relate to the story will extend the play time of Hawke to equal Origins or be a tad bit longer. 3x longer? I doubt it.

[jenncgf]

Jacks Smirking Revenge wrote...

I think it will be the same length of Origins maybe a bit longer due to them not having to consider for six origins. I'm sure cutting five origins out and how they relate to the story will extend the play time of Hawke to equal Origins or be a tad bit longer. 3x longer? I doubt it.

Yeah, 3 times longer sounded odd to me too.  Where would they go from there for DA3? 

If I was thinking like a marketing person I'd go for about the same amount of total content that DAO has, maybe slightly more.  In theory, that approach might make return customers happy while setting realistic expectations for future content. 

It's just one theory though