170 réponses à ce sujet

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...
 Like ME2, DA2 will simply be shorter because more profit can be made that way.

Budget and technical aspects would like to have a word with you.

Tell budget and technical aspects that they wouldn't be as much of an issue if this game were released on a  much later date.

This is entirely untrue. Money and space do not grow on trees.

How is this untrue? If the devs have more time to work on the game, that means they have more time to tweak the technical aspects of it. If the project takes more time to complete, this is sufficient reason for EA to raise the budget.

Granted, we live in an age of DLC now and EA is very familiar with this. I know so first hand as it is EXACTLY what they have been doing with The Sims 3 games. They release as little as they can afford to release in the base game and make the players buy items/features off of their website either upon release date or later. This allows EA less time to spend on these games while charging the same price and makes them even more money.  Ideally, every other gaming company has realized this advantageous concept.

[KLUME777]

I'm hoping for at least 60 hours, otherwise ill be disappointed. DAO goes for around 87 hours for me, but in actual fact, all the origin stories added up equals to about 22 hours, (Origins go for under 4 hours, times by 6), so DAO content-wise goes for around 106 hours. 60 hours for DA2 is just over half of what DAO provides.

[NoPhainNoGhain]

I'm actually hoping for a nice and to the point 20 to 30 hour game. DA1 had waaay to much pointless padding: the fade, the deep roads, the long long walk from the map entrace to redcliffe town.



30 hours is plenty of time in which to tell a story. Seriously, the longer the game, the less chance of people actually finishing it, and the less time they have to play other EA products hence the fewer games they'll buy.

[KLUME777]

NoPhainNoGhain wrote...

I'm actually hoping for a nice and to the point 20 to 30 hour game. DA1 had waaay to much pointless padding: the fade, the deep roads, the long long walk from the map entrace to redcliffe town.

30 hours is plenty of time in which to tell a story. Seriously, the longer the game, the less chance of people actually finishing it, and the less time they have to play other EA products hence the fewer games they'll buy.

Although i do agree that DAO had more than its fare share of  "dungeon filler", 20-30 hours just doesnt cut it for me. Im looking for a game that takes more than 1 week to complete.

[Revan312]

What I love is that people are actually saying "as long as the DLC for DA2 makes up for the difference than it's ok.." Really?.. Your saying that as long as DA2 is the same length as the original with all of the future DLC, I'm fine with paying 100 bucks+?.. That's simply crazy to me..



I can't believe that the DLC ploy of today's games is actually starting to brainwash people into believing that it's a fine marketing strategy.. When DLC first started to become prevalent, I thought "People won't go for this.. releasing half complete games for full price only to release content later for more money, content that essentially completes said game is ludicrous, this tactic will fail." But I was so so wrong, people bought it hook line and sinker.. *sigh*

[Phoenixblight]

Revan312 wrote...


I can't believe that the DLC ploy of today's games is actually starting to brainwash people into believing that it's a fine marketing strategy.. When DLC first started to become prevalent, I thought "People won't go for this.. releasing half complete games for full price only to release content later for more money, content that essentially completes said game is ludicrous, this tactic will fail." But I was so so wrong, people bought it hook line and sinker.. *sigh*

This is not what Bioware does, was DAO not complete? No. Was Mass Effect 1 and 2 not complete? No. Assuming that all Developers remove content to sell it at a later date is moronic at best. Sure there are companies like Ubisoft and Capcom but to assuming everyone else is doing it is just silly.  


Thats like assuming every console player is stupid or every PC player is an elitist. You don't just shove everyone is the same mold because one person or company does it. 

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Revan312 wrote...

What I love is that people are actually saying "as long as the DLC for DA2 makes up for the difference than it's ok.." Really?.. Your saying that as long as DA2 is the same length as the original with all of the future DLC, I'm fine with paying 100 bucks+?.. That's simply crazy to me..

I can't believe that the DLC ploy of today's games is actually starting to brainwash people into believing that it's a fine marketing strategy.. When DLC first started to become prevalent, I thought "People won't go for this.. releasing half complete games for full price only to release content later for more money, content that essentially completes said game is ludicrous, this tactic will fail." But I was so so wrong, people bought it hook line and sinker.. *sigh*

I haven't been brainwashed. It's just that there are some DLC which I cannot reist (such as Witch Hunt, since that legitimately expands the story). Don't worry. I'm not crazy enough to buy utterly pointless garbage like "Leliana's Song" ,the Darkspawn DLC orthat recent one with Golems simply because I can unlock "new achievements" (oooh, yippee :innocent: ) or "extra weapons" which I'm going to have no use for anyway since I've already beaten the game a bunch of times..

Do I think we're getting ripped off? Yes I do, but at this point of my life, I don't have the resources or time to do anything about it. Therefore, like any other customer, the only I can do is vote with my dollar. If I see a DLC which is actually worth shelling out 10 bucks (which actually happens every once in a while), I can easily see what happens in said DLC via youtube.

Modifié par Perfect-Kenshin, 05 septembre 2010 - 11:18 .

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Phoenixblight wrote...

Revan312 wrote...


I can't believe that the DLC ploy of today's games is actually starting to brainwash people into believing that it's a fine marketing strategy.. When DLC first started to become prevalent, I thought "People won't go for this.. releasing half complete games for full price only to release content later for more money, content that essentially completes said game is ludicrous, this tactic will fail." But I was so so wrong, people bought it hook line and sinker.. *sigh*

This is not what Bioware does, was DAO not complete? No. Was Mass Effect 1 and 2 not complete? No. Assuming that all Developers remove content to sell it at a later date is moronic at best. Sure there are companies like Ubisoft and Capcom but to assuming everyone else is doing it is just silly.  


Thats like assuming every console player is stupid or every PC player is an elitist. You don't just shove everyone is the same mold because one person or company does it. 

Open your eyes, man. DAO was not complete. In fact, it was never intended to be complete. This talk of us having DLC all the way up to the release of DA2 was brought up before the game even came out. It's a business strategy every gaming company with at least half a brain is taking advantage of. EA owns Bioware and they used the same strategy for their flagship game (The Sims 3). Trust me, this IS what Bioware does and they shall keep doing it until it's no longer a highly efficient method of attaining more revenue.

[Phoenixblight]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Phoenixblight wrote...

Revan312 wrote...


I can't believe that the DLC ploy of today's games is actually starting to brainwash people into believing that it's a fine marketing strategy.. When DLC first started to become prevalent, I thought "People won't go for this.. releasing half complete games for full price only to release content later for more money, content that essentially completes said game is ludicrous, this tactic will fail." But I was so so wrong, people bought it hook line and sinker.. *sigh*

This is not what Bioware does, was DAO not complete? No. Was Mass Effect 1 and 2 not complete? No. Assuming that all Developers remove content to sell it at a later date is moronic at best. Sure there are companies like Ubisoft and Capcom but to assuming everyone else is doing it is just silly.  


Thats like assuming every console player is stupid or every PC player is an elitist. You don't just shove everyone is the same mold because one person or company does it. 

Open your eyes, man. DAO was not complete. In fact, it was never intended to be complete. This talk of us having DLC all the way up to the release of DA2 was brought up before the game even came out. It's a business strategy every gaming company with at least half a brain is taking advantage of. EA owns Bioware and they used the same strategy for their flagship game (The Sims 3). Trust me, this IS what Bioware does and they shall keep doing it until it's no longer a highly efficient method of attaining more revenue.

Examples where the game was incomplete. Sims 3 =/= Bioware games. Two different games aimed at two different audiences. 

People whinned and moaned for Mass Effect not having enough DLC, guess what they did they added DLC for all their franchises after it. Yes you have to pay for them because they do take time and money for people to make them.  They had a seperate team for each of their franchises that handled the DLC its not like the game was complete and a council at EA said "Ok remove this, this and this. And we'll charge them later for it. Muahaha"
Have your tin foil hat on today don't you? 

Modifié par Phoenixblight, 05 septembre 2010 - 11:43 .

[Siven80]

Im one of those players who takes their time on a game like DAO and does every quest i can so my first playthrough took over 70 hours.

Subsequant plays got around 40-50 hours i think so i personally dont ind it being shorter aslong as its still high quality gameplay.

[quicksilver_502]

thank god. while i loved DAO, i've only fully completed it twice. although i have a recently started a third. it feels more like a project then a game at times. both my playthroughs ended at the 50 hour mark, give or take.

[ErichHartmann]

NoPhainNoGhain wrote...

I'm actually hoping for a nice and to the point 20 to 30 hour game. DA1 had waaay to much pointless padding: the fade, the deep roads, the long long walk from the map entrace to redcliffe town.

These were all central to the actual story.  Padding is sidequests you are free to ignore. 

[DarthCaine]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...
Like ME2, DA2 will simply be shorter because more profit can be made that way.

Quality > quantity

I much preferred ME2's and KOTOR's 35 hours over DAO's 60 hours.

Modifié par DarthCaine, 05 septembre 2010 - 11:46 .

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Phoenixblight wrote...


Examples where the game was incomplete.

Automatic updates that fix bugs in addition to each DLC (hell, the one involving Shale was released slightly after the game was even released---you mean to tell me Bioware developed it in a couple of days?).

Sims 3 =/= Bioware games. Two different games aimed at two different fanbases.

Irrelevant. EA owns both and we're discussing THEIR business practices. Since you seem to have conceded to their practices regarding the Sims 3 and have offered no real justification as to why they wouldn't take the same approach with their Bioware games (in light of all evidence to the contrary), I have trouble seeing why you're even posting in disagreement with me. And I can't fathom what even possessed you to mention the fanbases as if that made some difference for your claims.

Modifié par Perfect-Kenshin, 05 septembre 2010 - 11:51 .

[Perfect-Kenshin]

DarthCaine wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...
Like ME2, DA2 will simply be shorter because more profit can be made that way.

Quality > quantity

I much preferred ME2's and KOTOR's 35 hours over DAO's 60 hours.

More like Quality =/= quantity. Both have their uses and a perfect combination of both is what gaming developers strive for. And DAO is  60 hours? I beat it  and did all of the quest in much less time.

[Phoenixblight]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Phoenixblight wrote...


Examples where the game was incomplete.

Automatic updates that fix bugs in addition to each DLC (hell, the one involving Shale was completed before the game was even released).

If you actually followed the development of DAO you would know that Shale was canned because the original deadline for the PC version had release date for back in March. Since the game was delayed to match the console release date it allowed them to finish the Shale project and they couldn't add it to the disc because after a certain point there is lock on the disc, no more content can be added after that point. Also going through DLC channels, it allows them to have it work a couple weeks prior to the release date. The delay also allowed them to complete the Wardens Keep.  


Do your research. 

Modifié par Phoenixblight, 05 septembre 2010 - 11:57 .

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Phoenixblight wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Phoenixblight wrote...


Examples where the game was incomplete.

Automatic updates that fix bugs in addition to each DLC (hell, the one involving Shale was completed before the game was even released).

If you actually followed the development of DAO you would know that Shale was canned because the original deadline for the PC version had release date for back in March. Since the game was delayed to match the console release date it allowed them to finish the Shale project and they couldn't add it to the disc because after a certain point there is lock on the disc of no more content can be added. Also going through DLC allows them to have it work a couple weeks prior to the release date. The delay also allowed them to complete the Wardens Keep. 

Nope, I didn't know that.   Very informative, but my position is unchanged. I'm asserting that DA was never meant to be complete upon release date and have cited the existence of DLC and game updates as proof. Granted, you've explained that one DLC was meant to be in the release game, that doesn't change the fact that the rest of the DLC were not and that those who did not purchase an updated version of DA had to pay for the Shale DLC.

Do your research. 

lol. You focus on minutia without addressing the main point in the slightest and then end your post as if you've told me off. Nice.

[uberdowzen]

I really don't mind if it's shorter as long as it's because it's going to be even higher quality. I'd be tempted to say that for repeat playthroughs DAO might be a bit long as I've only been able to play through it 1.5 times.

[Bryy_Miller]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...
 Like ME2, DA2 will simply be shorter because more profit can be made that way.

Budget and technical aspects would like to have a word with you.

Tell budget and technical aspects that they wouldn't be as much of an issue if this game were released on a  much later date.

This is entirely untrue. Money and space do not grow on trees.

How is this untrue? If the devs have more time to work on the game, that means they have more time to tweak the technical aspects of it. If the project takes more time to complete, this is sufficient reason for EA to raise the budget.

Okay. Apparently, my point went over your head.
Technical: they can tweak all they want, but it does not mean they have unlimited space to work in. 
Budget: You can't be serious when you say that time = more money. There is absolutely no relation there. What possible relation would there be? Really, explain this one to me.

[Phoenixblight]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...
 Very informative, but my position is unchanged. I'm asserting that DA was never meant to be complete upon release date and have cited the existence of DLC and game updates as proof.

 


Oh because all games come out perfect. Prior to Internet games that came out could be bugged. Without updates games like Bayonetta or Darksiders would have tearing on the screen indefinitely. Something that dev could not foresee. Updates mean that they could not foresee the bugs or glitches that were game breaking. Yes they did plan on DLC for both ME 2 and DAO but that doesn't mean the game was incomplete it just meant they were going to support it with DLC because that is what the majority wanted. They have a separate team handling all the DLC while the main team is busy making sequels or expansions for their franchises. You could have easily played the game beginning to end without DLC and you would have never known there were things missing except of course WItch hunt. 

Modifié par Phoenixblight, 06 septembre 2010 - 12:31 .

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Okay. Apparently, my point went over your head.

I think it may be the other way around, though you may be right in regards to "techs" as I'm not sure where the idea of "unlimited space" came from.
[/b]

Technical: they can tweak all they want, but it does not mean they have unlimited space to work in.

What do you mean by space? I was under the impression that we were talking about how much the DEVS could produce in a certain amount of time.

Budget: You can't be serious when you say that time = more money. There is absolutely no relation there. What possible relation would there be? Really, explain this one to me.

Dead serious. This is a relatively simple concept. One which I'd be more than happy to illustrate through example.

IDEAL COMPANY


[b]Bob: You have two years to build item X. The budget for these two years shall consist of $500.

Joe: So on average, you're investing $250 per year to this project alone?

Bob: Pretty much.

Joe: I'm sorry to say this, but there's no way for me to feasible produce item X in two years.

Bob: Hmm, in that case, I can do one of the following: I can cancel the project, I can fire you and have someone else do the project or I can extend the amount of time to produce the project by one year and increase your budget to $750.


Pretty simple.

Modifié par Perfect-Kenshin, 06 septembre 2010 - 12:54 .

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Phoenixblight wrote...

Oh because all games come out perfect.

No, they don't. You were/are under the impression that DAO was complete upon release and I provided an example of how this wasn't the case. Whether or not all games are incomplete has no bearing on this conversation.

Something that dev could not foresee.

It doesn't matter. The DEV didn't intend for the bug to be in the game and no doubt missed the bug and was unable to fix the bug during production. The bug is in the game nevertheless, therefore the game is incomplete.

Yes they did plan on DLC for both ME 2 and DAO but that doesn't mean the game was incomplete it just meant they were going to support it with DLC because that is what the majority wanted.

I can see where this is going. We both have two different definitions of complete. I see DLCs as means of completing the game whereas you see simply see them as addons (i.e. 100% + X). Semantics if you will. Since such a discussion could go on for an enternity, I'm willing to agree to disagree with you in regards to that.

That said, I am willing to conintue in regards to the fact that these "addons" were planned by companies such as EA in advance as means of spending less money on producing a game while guarenteeing more profit in the end.

In regards to the majority, I'd say that the majority would much rather have these features placed in the base game, rather than having companies such as Bioware release them later and even charge a fixed price.

They have a separate team handling all the DLC while the main team is busy making sequels or expansions for their franchises. You could have easily played the game beginning to end without DLC and you would have never known there were things missing except of course WItch hunt. 

Going by that reasoning, you could also skip out Witch Hunt since whatever Morrigan has to say in this DLC will no doubt be expounded upon during DA2 (at least according to the Devs). I agree that you can easily play the game without playing the DLCs, but the game is at its full potential with each of the DLCS.

[Solstice-x]

I finished my first play-through of DAO in 27 hours, but the replay value is high enough that I probably have well over 100 hours in total right now.

As long as DA2 has a good replay value, I'm more than happy.

[TanithAeyrs]

I waited more than 5 years from the first announcement that Bioware was working on DA:O (a couple of screen shots - one of Ostagar if I remember right) until the games release. My first playthrough took 108 hours as I delved into every nook and cranny of the game - I was enthralled and delighted. I'm now on my 5th playthrough and am averaging 70-80 hours each time. I have no objections to the DLC, the game is complete without it, but it adds a fresh note to multiple playthroughs. I can hardly wait for Witch Hunt to come out so I can use my canon character (a Dalish elf) to find Morrigan.



The thought that DA2 is shorter makes me a little sad - but it may also be a conservative estimate. Bioware took a lot of flak for devs saying that it took them 80-100 hours to finish when some gamers were finishing in less than 20 hours. I think it greatly depends on playstyle, ME took me almost 70 hours on my first playthrough, although most people finish in 20-30 hours.



I'm looking forward to DA2, although I will very much miss the companions of DA:O.

[Phoenixblight]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...



In regards to the majority, I'd say that the majority would much rather have these features placed in the base game, rather than having companies such as Bioware release them later and even charge a fixed price.

Well if that were true, then the profit of DLCs would go down and the companies would look at other ways to gain revenue.  I very enjoyed most if not all of the DLCs for DAO, I have no qualms with upchucking 5$ (one lunch) for a couple hours worth of gameplay. But thats just my opinion.