417 réponses à ce sujet

[MonkeyChief117]

oops

Modifié par MonkeyChief117, 10 septembre 2010 - 12:22 .

[Anathemic]

LittleDiegito wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

LittleDiegito wrote...

How, when BioWare (correct me if I am wrong) stated that the creators of DA:O are the ones working on DA2? I assume that the creators of DA:O were still in fact working on DA:O until it's actual release date. If there was a team on DA2 it was probally a miniscule amount to the actual current team and I doubt they got much done beside from basic/simalar coding to that of DA:O

The same way they were able to work on DLC and Awakening at the same time. They, like most developers, have more than one team to work on projects (they themselves have stated this over and over on these very boards)

And the DLC were good? Take that back the DLC were worth the money?

Dividing a team is not the best way to get a good game, DA2

Its not dividing a team. There is more than one team. Too many people working on a single project can cause problems. A developer decides how many people a dev team for a specific project needs. The other employees of that company work on other project. I suspect when DOA was complete they moved the various people from that project on to others, pne of which was likely DOA 2

It is essentially, and its DA2 not DOA 2

DA as a project and franchise has many teams, just like Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 had many teams but kept them in one general grouping.

Now if what you said is true when DA:O was done in early 2009, part of the team went to DA2 the other stayed to tweak for consoles. Now that other team for consoles are now working on DAO DLC's maybe some transer but not a substantial amount, the other still work on DA2. See the problem?

Essentially the team for DA is still divided and unless DA:O DLC's are officially done then the team can remerge again, but too later DA2 is already announced and ready for relased March 2010.

Sure they can hire more people into the DA2 team but this contradicts the fact that the 'creators of DAO' are working on DA2.. unless they meant it as 'around half the creators of DAO are working on DA2'

[Anathemic]

LittleDiegito wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Sure you can re use stuff from previous games, but just using a previous game as an excuse/alibi for the poor development production time is just plain bad marketing.

Using things from previous games (like the engine and graphics being used in DOA 2) cuts down the development time (those are two very big things and so they cut down DAO 2s development time by a large chunk)

Again I pull out Starcraft 2, it takes the graphics from WoW and uses the Havok physics engine (used in Force: unleashed, the rag-doll effect) so engine and graphics are covered and yet took 10+ years development cycle, well I would say around 5 logically, but that's still a pretty large amount of time.

[LittleDiegito]

Anathemic wrote...
It is essentially, and its DA2 not DOA 2

DA as a project and franchise has many teams, just like Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 had many teams but kept them in one general grouping.

Now if what you said is true when DA:O was done in early 2009, part of the team went to DA2 the other stayed to tweak for consoles. Now that other team for consoles are now working on DAO DLC's maybe some transer but not a substantial amount, the other still work on DA2. See the problem?

Essentially the team for DA is still divided and unless DA:O DLC's are officially done then the team can remerge again, but too later DA2 is already announced and ready for relased March 2010.

Sure they can hire more people into the DA2 team but this contradicts the fact that the 'creators of DAO' are working on DA2.. unless they meant it as 'around half the creators of DAO are working on DA2'

So every single employee of Blizzard was working on Starcraft 2, and now every single employee of Blizzard is working on Diablo 3? No. The Starcraft 2 team worked on Starcraft 2, and the Diablo 3 team is working on Diablo 3. Some of those same employees may have been on both teams but they are not the entirety of Blizzards staff. Bioware has more than one team also and, like at Blizzard, they work on different projects.

Bioware created DAO right? And Bioware is creating DA2 (thanks) right? So the creators of DOA are in fact creating DA2

[Anathemic]

LittleDiegito wrote...

Anathemic wrote...
It is essentially, and its DA2 not DOA 2

DA as a project and franchise has many teams, just like Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 had many teams but kept them in one general grouping.

Now if what you said is true when DA:O was done in early 2009, part of the team went to DA2 the other stayed to tweak for consoles. Now that other team for consoles are now working on DAO DLC's maybe some transer but not a substantial amount, the other still work on DA2. See the problem?

Essentially the team for DA is still divided and unless DA:O DLC's are officially done then the team can remerge again, but too later DA2 is already announced and ready for relased March 2010.

Sure they can hire more people into the DA2 team but this contradicts the fact that the 'creators of DAO' are working on DA2.. unless they meant it as 'around half the creators of DAO are working on DA2'

So every single employee of Blizzard was working on Starcraft 2, and now every single employee of Blizzard is working on Diablo 3? No. The Starcraft 2 team worked on Starcraft 2, and the Diablo 3 team is working on Diablo 3. Some of those same employees may have been on both teams but they are not the entirety of Blizzards staff. Bioware has more than one team also and, like at Blizzard, they work on different projects.

Bioware created DAO right? And Bioware is creating DA2 (thanks) right? So the creators of DOA are in fact creating DA2

You missed the pont, i bolded the part of my quote for you. The whole post was not a single game company working on a single franchise but the franchise's team being divided not the whole company.

1) DA team works on DAO
2) DA team splits on DAO (tweaking for consoles) and to DA2
3) New DA2 team works on DA2, old DAO team finishes but works on DLCs
4) Both teams keep working, trade-offs invovled but still essentially divided
5) Release date for DA2 announced, DAO team still finishing up DLCs

[Altima Darkspells]

LittleDiegito wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Sure you can re use stuff from previous games, but just using a previous game as an excuse/alibi for the poor development production time is just plain bad marketing.

Using things from previous games (like the engine and graphics being used in DOA 2) cuts down the development time (those are two very big things and so they cut down DAO 2s development time by a large chunk)

And not giving a game a full QA treatment will cut down on development time even more!

Anathemic wrote...

LittleDiegito wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Sure you can re use stuff from previous games, but just using a previous game as an excuse/alibi for the poor development production time is just plain bad marketing.

Using things from previous games (like the engine and graphics being used in DOA 2) cuts down the development time (those are two very big things and so they cut down DAO 2s development time by a large chunk)

Again I pull out Starcraft 2, it takes the graphics from WoW and uses the Havok physics engine (used in Force: unleashed, the rag-doll effect) so engine and graphics are covered and yet took 10+ years development cycle, well I would say around 5 logically, but that's still a pretty large amount of time.

Starcraft 2 took seven years of development (started in 2003, released in '10).  The reason for this is because Blizzard gutted the dev team when WoW exploded in popularity.  For, I wanna say three, years they only had fifty people working on SC2.  Blizzard has, what, three thousand employees?  Blizzard simply didn't care enough about the game to feel the urge to release it for the longest time.  At least Activision told them to get off their asses.  Probably the only good that's come out of their merger.

[Anathemic]

Altima Darkspells wrote...

LittleDiegito wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Sure you can re use stuff from previous games, but just using a previous game as an excuse/alibi for the poor development production time is just plain bad marketing.

Using things from previous games (like the engine and graphics being used in DOA 2) cuts down the development time (those are two very big things and so they cut down DAO 2s development time by a large chunk)

And not giving a game a full QA treatment will cut down on development time even more!

Anathemic wrote...

LittleDiegito wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Sure you can re use stuff from previous games, but just using a previous game as an excuse/alibi for the poor development production time is just plain bad marketing.

Using things from previous games (like the engine and graphics being used in DOA 2) cuts down the development time (those are two very big things and so they cut down DAO 2s development time by a large chunk)

Again I pull out Starcraft 2, it takes the graphics from WoW and uses the Havok physics engine (used in Force: unleashed, the rag-doll effect) so engine and graphics are covered and yet took 10+ years development cycle, well I would say around 5 logically, but that's still a pretty large amount of time.

Starcraft 2 took seven years of development (started in 2003, released in '10).  The reason for this is because Blizzard gutted the dev team when WoW exploded in popularity.  For, I wanna say three, years they only had fifty people working on SC2.  Blizzard has, what, three thousand employees?  Blizzard simply didn't care enough about the game to feel the urge to release it for the longest time.  At least Activision told them to get off their asses.  Probably the only good that's come out of their merger.

And look how SC2 came out with started as 50 members and grew?

And Activision can kiss my ass... Battle.Net 2.0, no Lan, no chat channels, no custom custom games list, no clan/guild system, only 4-people parties, poor stat management, a ****ing downgrade from original Battle.Net.

"Oh we will implement these features later?"
"Well why didn't you ****ing implement them in the first place right of the bat like Battle.Net 1.0 did?"

[i64ever]

The scary thing is, for all the arguing bioware's agent has done in this thread, he never once denied that DA2 will be buggier than previous games. All he's done is try to prove that your logic, or your science if you will, is faulty. HE'S NEVER DENIED YOUR CONCLUSION!

[Blastback]

i64ever wrote...

The scary thing is, for all the arguing bioware's agent has done in this thread, he never once denied that DA2 will be buggier than previous games. All he's done is try to prove that your logic, or your science if you will, is faulty. HE'S NEVER DENIED YOUR CONCLUSION!

While I'm as worried about this as the next person, honestly, I would think it is still a little early for Bioware to know just what to expect as far as bugs go.

[upsettingshorts]

i64ever wrote...

The scary thing is, for all the arguing bioware's agent has done in this thread, he never once denied that DA2 will be buggier than previous games. All he's done is try to prove that your logic, or your science if you will, is faulty. HE'S NEVER DENIED YOUR CONCLUSION!

You know, this forum has a lot of absurd posts on it but you've surpassed them all.  Well, today that is.

I would like to congradulate you on winning the Upsettingshorts Daily Award for Most Absurd Post.

On that note I'd like to point out i64ever has never denied being an extra-terrestrial.  I'm sending those men in space suits from E.T. to pick you up.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 septembre 2010 - 12:49 .

[Morroian]

Anathemic wrote...

Sure they can hire more people into the DA2 team but this contradicts the fact that the 'creators of DAO' are working on DA2.. unless they meant it as 'around half the creators of DAO are working on DA2'

It doesn't contradict it, you're just being pedantic.

Anathemic wrote...

Again I pull out Starcraft 2, it takes the graphics from WoW and uses the Havok physics engine (used in Force: unleashed, the rag-doll effect) so engine and graphics are covered and yet took 10+ years development cycle, well I would say around 5 logically, but that's still a pretty large amount of time.

Yeah now demonstrate that that is the normal production time for a sequel.

[Anathemic]

Morroian wrote...

Anathemic wrote...
Sure they can hire more people into the DA2 team but this contradicts the fact that the 'creators of DAO' are working on DA2.. unless they meant it as 'around half the creators of DAO are working on DA2'

It doesn't contradict it, you're just being pedantic.

Anathemic wrote...
Again I pull out Starcraft 2, it takes the graphics from WoW and uses the Havok physics engine (used in Force: unleashed, the rag-doll effect) so engine and graphics are covered and yet took 10+ years development cycle, well I would say around 5 logically, but that's still a pretty large amount of time.

Yeah now demonstrate that that is the normal production time for a sequel.

Okay fine normal production time for sequel:

Halo: Combat Evolved released November 1, 2001
Halo 2 released November 9, 2004

Good 3 years?

Edit: Halo 3 released September 25, 2007, still in the 3-year time frame

Modifié par Anathemic, 10 septembre 2010 - 12:57 .

[Morroian]

Anathemic wrote...
Okay fine normal production time for sequel:

Halo: Combat Evolved released November 1, 2001
Halo 2 released November 9, 2004

Good 3 years?

Edit: Halo 3 released September 25, 2007, still in the 3-year time frame

Which isn't remotely close to SC2.

[Anathemic]

Morroian wrote...

Anathemic wrote...
Okay fine normal production time for sequel:

Halo: Combat Evolved released November 1, 2001
Halo 2 released November 9, 2004

Good 3 years?

Edit: Halo 3 released September 25, 2007, still in the 3-year time frame

Which isn't remotely close to SC2.

But still greater than the DA2 time frame, and this is sub-par really compared to DA:O, so DA2 has a smaller time frame than the Halo series and expects to get a good quality game?

[Morroian]

Anathemic wrote...

Morroian wrote...
Which isn't remotely close to SC2.

But still greater than the DA2 time frame, and this is sub-par really compared to DA:O, so DA2 has a smaller time frame than the Halo series and expects to get a good quality game?

Why not? Peoples issues with ME2 don't relate to the development time but the streamlining.

And with Halo did they change the engine or are they still using the original engine from Halo 1?

[Anathemic]

Morroian wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Morroian wrote...
Which isn't remotely close to SC2.

But still greater than the DA2 time frame, and this is sub-par really compared to DA:O, so DA2 has a smaller time frame than the Halo series and expects to get a good quality game?

Why not? Peoples issues with ME2 don't relate to the development time but the streamlining.

And with Halo did they change the engine or are they still using the original engine from Halo 1?

Not sure about Halo: CE and Halo 2 but Halo 3 uses a different engine and still did the 3-year time frame.

As for ME2, what usually makes story streamlining err bad story? Not enough thinking development. And how does one get not enough thinking development either:
A) Bad writers
or
 Not enough time

[Pritos]

Its wrong to compare DA2 with Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 because the predecessor of these is something like 10 years old. Their developers decided to wait this time, wait until the making-games technology advanced, it's not like they were working on it all this time. I'm not saying that a short development cycle is good nor that a large one is bad, I'm just saying that it doesn't necessarily make the game bad and fully of flaws. This fear and complaints about DA2 are an exageration...

[Anathemic]

Pritos wrote...

Its wrong to compare DA2 with Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 because the predecessor of these is something like 10 years old. Their developers decided to wait this time, wait until the making-games technology advanced, it's not like they were working on it all this time. I'm not saying that a short development cycle is good nor that a large one is bad, I'm just saying that it doesn't necessarily make the game bad and fully of flaws. This fear and complaints about DA2 are an exageration...

The point I'm mkaing is that short-devlopment cycles are usually if not always bad. The only exceptions I see are Nintendo which makes great but decent games.

DA2 short development cycle is perfectly reasonable to be worried about, this coupled with the fact that not only other games with longer development cycles are better quality but the fact that DA:O took a long time to make and was buggy as hell.

[Morroian]

Pritos wrote...
Its wrong to compare DA2 with Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 because the predecessor of these is something like 10 years old. Their developers decided to wait this time, wait until the making-games technology advanced, it's not like they were working on it all this time. I'm not saying that a short development cycle is good nor that a large one is bad, I'm just saying that it doesn't necessarily make the game bad and fully of flaws. This fear and complaints about DA2 are an exageration...

Yep, my point exactly.

Anathemic wrote...
Not sure about Halo: CE and Halo 2 but Halo 3 uses a different engine and still did the 3-year time frame.

As for ME2, what usually makes story streamlining err bad story? Not enough thinking development. And how does one get not enough thinking development either:
A) Bad writers
or
Not enough time

C) They felt it was what the community wanted. Timing doesn;t relate because they are actually programming the game differently which would in theory require more work. BY keeping it exactly the same as ME it would have required less work.

Here's some more feedback regarding development time of sequels:
http://www.thatvideo...-2-development/

Or another one:
http://www.co-optimu...done-right.html

Modifié par Morroian, 10 septembre 2010 - 01:22 .

[Blastback]

Anathemic wrote...

Pritos wrote...

Its wrong to compare DA2 with Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 because the predecessor of these is something like 10 years old. Their developers decided to wait this time, wait until the making-games technology advanced, it's not like they were working on it all this time. I'm not saying that a short development cycle is good nor that a large one is bad, I'm just saying that it doesn't necessarily make the game bad and fully of flaws. This fear and complaints about DA2 are an exageration...

The point I'm mkaing is that short-devlopment cycles are usually if not always bad. The only exceptions I see are Nintendo which makes great but decent games.

DA2 short development cycle is perfectly reasonable to be worried about, this coupled with the fact that not only other games with longer development cycles are better quality but the fact that DA:O took a long time to make and was buggy as hell.

We are not worried about DA2 being buggy simply because of a shorter than usual development time.  Nor are we worried simply because a number of entries in the Dragon Age franchise have been buggy.  It is the two in conjunction to one another. 

[Morroian]

Anathemic wrote...
The point I'm mkaing is that short-devlopment cycles are usually if not always bad. The only exceptions I see are Nintendo which makes great but decent games.

DA2 short development cycle is perfectly reasonable to be worried about, this coupled with the fact that not only other games with longer development cycles are better quality but the fact that DA:O took a long time to make and was buggy as hell.

A point your missing is that straight development time gives no indication of how many man hours are dedicated to development. Throw more resources at it and the time is shorter.

[Pritos]

Blastback wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Pritos wrote...

Its wrong to compare DA2 with Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 because the predecessor of these is something like 10 years old. Their developers decided to wait this time, wait until the making-games technology advanced, it's not like they were working on it all this time. I'm not saying that a short development cycle is good nor that a large one is bad, I'm just saying that it doesn't necessarily make the game bad and fully of flaws. This fear and complaints about DA2 are an exageration...

The point I'm mkaing is that short-devlopment cycles are usually if not always bad. The only exceptions I see are Nintendo which makes great but decent games.

DA2 short development cycle is perfectly reasonable to be worried about, this coupled with the fact that not only other games with longer development cycles are better quality but the fact that DA:O took a long time to make and was buggy as hell.

We are not worried about DA2 being buggy simply because of a shorter than usual development time.  Nor are we worried simply because a number of entries in the Dragon Age franchise have been buggy.  It is the two in conjunction to one another. 

That depends if the BW team is able or not to learn with their mistakes.

[Blastback]

Pritos wrote...

Blastback wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Pritos wrote...

Its wrong to compare DA2 with Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 because the predecessor of these is something like 10 years old. Their developers decided to wait this time, wait until the making-games technology advanced, it's not like they were working on it all this time. I'm not saying that a short development cycle is good nor that a large one is bad, I'm just saying that it doesn't necessarily make the game bad and fully of flaws. This fear and complaints about DA2 are an exageration...

The point I'm mkaing is that short-devlopment cycles are usually if not always bad. The only exceptions I see are Nintendo which makes great but decent games.

DA2 short development cycle is perfectly reasonable to be worried about, this coupled with the fact that not only other games with longer development cycles are better quality but the fact that DA:O took a long time to make and was buggy as hell.

We are not worried about DA2 being buggy simply because of a shorter than usual development time.  Nor are we worried simply because a number of entries in the Dragon Age franchise have been buggy.  It is the two in conjunction to one another. 

That depends if the BW team is able or not to learn with their mistakes.

Well, that's why we're simply worried, rather than say, going out in the street proclaiming "OH NOES!! DRAGON AGE 2 IS DOOMED TO BE A BUG RIDDEN FAILURE!111"

We're expresing concern and hoping Bioware takes it to heart, and proves us to be a bunch of panicy ninconpoops.

Edit: And fixes the remaining bugs in their existing products.

Modifié par Blastback, 10 septembre 2010 - 01:36 .

[Pritos]

Blastback wrote...

Pritos wrote...

Blastback wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Pritos wrote...

Its wrong to compare DA2 with Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 because the predecessor of these is something like 10 years old. Their developers decided to wait this time, wait until the making-games technology advanced, it's not like they were working on it all this time. I'm not saying that a short development cycle is good nor that a large one is bad, I'm just saying that it doesn't necessarily make the game bad and fully of flaws. This fear and complaints about DA2 are an exageration...

The point I'm mkaing is that short-devlopment cycles are usually if not always bad. The only exceptions I see are Nintendo which makes great but decent games.

DA2 short development cycle is perfectly reasonable to be worried about, this coupled with the fact that not only other games with longer development cycles are better quality but the fact that DA:O took a long time to make and was buggy as hell.

We are not worried about DA2 being buggy simply because of a shorter than usual development time.  Nor are we worried simply because a number of entries in the Dragon Age franchise have been buggy.  It is the two in conjunction to one another. 

That depends if the BW team is able or not to learn with their mistakes.

Well, that's why we're simply worried, rather than say, going out in the street proclaiming "OH NOES!! DRAGON AGE 2 IS DOOMED TO BE A BUG RIDDEN FAILURE!111"

We're expresing concern and hoping Bioware takes it to heart, and proves us to be a bunch of panicy ninconpoops.

Edit: And fixes the remaining bugs in their existing products.

Well, from what I saw from some members of this community, it's more like they are about to start a armed revolution against Bioware and its bugged games. But, oh well, I will just assume these are the exception.

[Blastback]

Whatever it takes dude.  I will have my correctly colored Armor of the Sentinal! Doth thou hear me oh Bioware? *Shakes fist*

I do think that it is a good debate, is Bioware obligated to fix all major bugs in their product, even if it looses them money?  My instinct is to say yes, but at the same time, I realise this isn't necesarily in their best intrest.