157 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexXIV]

simfamSP wrote...

Agent_Dark_ wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
so we, as developers, will pick our battles.

I think you guys may want to rethink how you phrase things on the forums. Naysayers can and will use anything you guys write against you.

Why? That's exactly what happens. You make choices and you go with your gut.

If I have to self edit to the point where I'm too terrified to say anything, I might as well not post.

Confirmed: DA2 will almost entirely be focused on battles and combat and very little else.

I think people have very little faith in Bioware. Can't you think that they can do both? They have imporved it, good. They can also improve the RPG elements. It's not like their focusing on ONE thing entierly.

And I don't really get the ME comments.  ME was a Third Person Shooter, RPG. Dragon age II is Dragon Age: Origins updated.

Faith. DA:O is already rather on the lower edge concerning roleplay elements. I mean classical elements as in for example skills that are not directly related to combat. Or alternative routes to solve quests than combat. Or riddle solving in general. And now DA2 is focusing a bit more on combat. And it is getting shorter. It is not a matter of faith. I am not saying DA2 is going to be a bad game at all. Just probably another step away from the classical RPGs. But I hope if they go the 'ego shooter with story' road they are at least competitive to other games of the same genre. Which are not RPGs.

[mesmerizedish]

AlexXIV wrote...
Faith. DA:O is already rather on the lower edge concerning roleplay elements. I mean classical elements as in for example skills that are not directly related to combat. Or alternative routes to solve quests than combat. Or riddle solving in general. And now DA2 is focusing a bit more on combat. And it is getting shorter. It is not a matter of faith. I am not saying DA2 is going to be a bad game at all. Just probably another step away from the classical RPGs. But I hope if they go the 'ego shooter with story' road they are at least competitive to other games of the same genre. Which are not RPGs.

Who says it's getting shorter?

[AlexXIV]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
Faith. DA:O is already rather on the lower edge concerning roleplay elements. I mean classical elements as in for example skills that are not directly related to combat. Or alternative routes to solve quests than combat. Or riddle solving in general. And now DA2 is focusing a bit more on combat. And it is getting shorter. It is not a matter of faith. I am not saying DA2 is going to be a bad game at all. Just probably another step away from the classical RPGs. But I hope if they go the 'ego shooter with story' road they are at least competitive to other games of the same genre. Which are not RPGs.

Who says it's getting shorter?

It was said somewhere. Sadly I am not one for collecting quotes. But you won't find Bioware denying that, since it is true.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 23 septembre 2010 - 08:08 .

[AlanC9]

AlexXIV wrote...
Faith. DA:O is already rather on the lower edge concerning roleplay elements. I mean classical elements as in for example skills that are not directly related to combat. Or alternative routes to solve quests than combat. Or riddle solving in general. And now DA2 is focusing a bit more on combat. And it is getting shorter. It is not a matter of faith. I am not saying DA2 is going to be a bad game at all. Just probably another step away from the classical RPGs.

An interesting definition of classical RPG -- the BG games wouldn't fit under it, except that they're kind of long

Modifié par AlanC9, 23 septembre 2010 - 08:44 .

[Randy1012]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Typically when we say we have a limited budget what we mean is that we have X amount of money, and we need to spend it on different things. Typically there are concerns that we could "just do X" which are usually true in a universe with infinite time and money. However, we do not have infinate ANYTHING, so we, as developers, will pick our battles.
As to how much we're spending? Can't say and never will, but suffice it to say that DA2 is not a budget production.

If you guys ever find yourselves running short, you could always do a few sidequests to make a little extra cash.

[AlexXIV]

AlanC9 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
Faith. DA:O is already rather on the lower edge concerning roleplay elements. I mean classical elements as in for example skills that are not directly related to combat. Or alternative routes to solve quests than combat. Or riddle solving in general. And now DA2 is focusing a bit more on combat. And it is getting shorter. It is not a matter of faith. I am not saying DA2 is going to be a bad game at all. Just probably another step away from the classical RPGs.

An interesting definition of classical RPG -- the BG games wouldn't fit under it, except that they're kind of long

No they don't. And that they were long with a deep and good story made up for much. It is kinda sad to see though that after ten years we don't have progress in the genre. In contrary. I mean the graphics, sound, etc. are awesome now, and probably some day getting as realistic as real life, but the actualy role playing components are just getting narrowed down. The point of the roleplaying game is to create an own character, a hero of own choosing. So it should be that you pick abilities and skills and solve problems using them. If you think there is not more to roleplaying than just playing a predefined character then you can as well call any sports or racing games a roleplaying game. Because in every game you are playing a role, just not one of your own choosing.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 23 septembre 2010 - 09:01 .

[Fishy]

There's also a lot of research and other stuff.It's like a writer visiting the NASA if they write a book about an astronaut.It's not just about ppl in front of their computer mashing on the keyboard.They travel a lot and do a lot of stuff.i doubt Gaider have paid for his airplane ticket

Videogame are expensive..DA2 probably dance around 25 millions

Modifié par Suprez30, 23 septembre 2010 - 11:37 .

[B3taMaxxx]

1 trillion, in hard non-sequential bills.

[SteveGarbage]

AlexXIV wrote...
Anyway, according to sales numbers I'd guess 50 - 100 million for DA:O not counting expansions and DLCs.

That's almost definitely too high. Remember, although the customer pays $50-60 for the game in stores, the publisher, and by extension the developer, only makes a fraction of that, less than half of that.

If their budget was $50-100 mil on Origins, that means the game was a very small financial success or a financial loss. I somehow doubt that's the case. With Origins being one of the company's best selling games ever (I believe something of a surprise to BioWare), the game probably raked in a lot of profit.

As I said before, crunching some estimated numbers, I would guess that Origins and DA2 are probably in the $20-30 million range. I would also assume that DA2 probably has a larger budget going forward than Origins did now that the company has a fanbase established for this property.

Modifié par SteveGarbage, 23 septembre 2010 - 12:13 .

[SteveGarbage]

simfamSP wrote...

Alex, it's a cycle in life. There will NEVER be another classical RPG. Or anything similar. Things move on as you are well aware. It's up to us to adapt. I love BG, and when I think of CoD dominating the gaming industry I cry inside, but RPGs will always be remembered since those are the games that stay inside of you. And anyway. In 30years time the next gen of gamers will rise, and they will look at Dragon age as "The classics".

I agree. Video games are just like movies or music, except the medium is much younger. I'm sure there are plenty of people who look back at music and cinema with disdain because everything has gone so far away from "the classics." Times changes, games evolve and the old is replaced by the new. Whether you think the old stuff is "better" or not is really the way you look at it.

I have fond memories of a lot of old games, but I recognize that much of that is in the past and is likely going to stay there. I'm not giving up on video games just because what I grew up on has changed. I just sift threw the new stuff to find what I like now. The video game industry is always changing and growing and evolving and that's a good thing. Because come on, how many times can you play the same game in essence before it gets stale? Trying to go in a new direction doesn't always work out for the best (Star Wars: Episode I is a perfect example), but you can't win the lotto if you don't play.

Innovation is a natural part business. A company that doesn't bring something new to the table will fail over time.

Modifié par SteveGarbage, 23 septembre 2010 - 03:45 .

[AlexXIV]

I am not sure if I'd call it progress if people are just presented less options and really only one way to get to the goal: Kill everyone. I mean that's what you do in a Jump'n'Run game. Is it really so that people are not interested in creating their own, unique character in detail anymore? Is it really so that people don't want to play a game where their character can be goodlooking or ugly, seductive, intimidating or persuasive or just sneaky or a good lier or maybe just good at posing or melting with the crowd.
 
I  mean, DA:O for example has all these moments. You can dress up as a guard or sneak by people or you can talk people into giving up rather than fight, lie, persuade etc. You can convince people. It wouldn't be there if people didn't want it. Just that most of it doesn't depend on your class or skills, everyone can do it with the same chance of success. There is basically only one roleplay skill in DA:O and that's the one that determines how successful you are in convincing people. But I bet most people don't even pick it since you don't really gain much aside from additional dialogue options maybe save you some approval points or something. It doesn't replace your sword. And you may lose loot as a reward. That's not really satisfying.

I guess I am really old school when it gets about creating characters. I spend alot of time doing it and doing it again and again, until everything is the way I want it. And I'd rather have 100 skills than 10.

[Sylvius the Mad]

SteveGarbage wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

Alex, it's a cycle in life. There will NEVER be another classical RPG. Or anything similar. Things move on as you are well aware. It's up to us to adapt. I love BG, and when I think of CoD dominating the gaming industry I cry inside, but RPGs will always be remembered since those are the games that stay inside of you. And anyway. In 30years time the next gen of gamers will rise, and they will look at Dragon age as "The classics".

I agree. Video games are just like movies or music, except the medium is much younger. I'm sure there are plenty of people who look back at music and cinema with disdain because everything has gone so far away from "the classics." Times changes, games evolve and the old is replaced by the new. Whether you think the old stuff is "better" or not is really the way you look at it.

Except with music there is still high-quality material being produced in the old style.

Not as much, but it's still there.

Case in point: Uriah Heep released a terrific album in 2008.  Uriah Heep.  A band whose heyday ended around 1975.  And they still sound just like Uriah Heep.

[HTTP 404]

I think Laidlaw answered op question.

new question:  is it possible for the public to know the budget of the game once it has been completed?

Modifié par HTTP 404, 23 septembre 2010 - 05:30 .

[SteveGarbage]

AlexXIV wrote...

I am not sure if I'd call it progress if people are just presented less options and really only one way to get to the goal: Kill everyone. I mean that's what you do in a Jump'n'Run game. Is it really so that people are not interested in creating their own, unique character in detail anymore? Is it really so that people don't want to play a game where their character can be goodlooking or ugly, seductive, intimidating or persuasive or just sneaky or a good lier or maybe just good at posing or melting with the crowd.
 
I  mean, DA:O for example has all these moments. You can dress up as a guard or sneak by people or you can talk people into giving up rather than fight, lie, persuade etc. You can convince people. It wouldn't be there if people didn't want it. Just that most of it doesn't depend on your class or skills, everyone can do it with the same chance of success. There is basically only one roleplay skill in DA:O and that's the one that determines how successful you are in convincing people. But I bet most people don't even pick it since you don't really gain much aside from additional dialogue options maybe save you some approval points or something. It doesn't replace your sword. And you may lose loot as a reward. That's not really satisfying.

I guess I am really old school when it gets about creating characters. I spend alot of time doing it and doing it again and again, until everything is the way I want it. And I'd rather have 100 skills than 10.

I'm not sure what you've been reading, but nothing I've seen (and I've been following DA2 stuff pretty religiously since it was announced) has said any of that stuff is going away. There's been no red flags to say that DA2 is even going to be very different from DA:O aside from the way the story is told (through a framed narrative).

I don't jump to conclusions and I don't read into things that aren't there. I don't understand where people pull the notion that all these features are being taken away compared to Origins or compared to other games.

•You don't get to pick a race in this game, but that decision was made to help the writing team focus the narrative through only one character.
•You can customize your Hawke to look however you want and your dialogue choices can determine (and now will be tracked!) what kind of personality he or she will have.
•The number of overall skills are being reduced but instead skills are customizable - which is a good thing. You can't use Shield Defense and Shield Wall at the same time, so why must you waste a skill point on Defense just to get to Wall?
•The dialogue system is replaced with the wheel. So what? You'll get more dialogue options and several personality choices, same as Origins, except they will now be voiced.
•Combat is being improved, but there's been no indication to me that the game will even have *more* combat than in Origins, much less it being the "focus" of the game as people have claimed.

I mean, there's been nothing that I've seen showing that DA2 is a strip mine project. There are being changes made but several of the changes address the weaknesses of Origins. Somehow I don't think BioWare's devs sit in their office going - "We roped in several million players now what's the best way to SCREW WITH THEM, FWAHAHAHA!" (except for maybe Evil Chris ).

HTTP 404 wrote...

I think Laidlaw answered op question.

new question:  is it possible for the public to know the budget of the game once it has been completed?

Not unless the company wants to release that information, no, I don't think so. Not like it would really matter much though even if they did. To me, unless DA2 really sucks and we find out the only had like a $2 million budget, knowing what the budget was doesn't really matter.

If they make a really good game, having $10 million or $50 million budget doesn't really matter to the player. If it was smaller that means they did a good job with the resources available. If they make a really bad game, same thing. If they had a small budget, well, maybe they did the best they could. But if they had a larger budget that means they just really didn't get value for their dollar.

Having a big or small budget doesn't equate out to quality one way or the other. Just because the movie "Titanic" had a huge budget ($200 million) doesn't make me like it any more than say, Superbad, which had $20 million to work with.

I'm sure BioWare probably has a team of business folks sitting in an office crunching numbers on how many copies they expect to sell, how much revenue that will generate and how much developing each part of the game is going to run and then balance those appropriately. Business-types get paid to try to determine what may be the figure that will earn maximum returns, so I highly doubt the company will underspend and potentially hurt sales thus damaging profits or overspend and damage profits by having farther to go to hit that break even point. That would be foolish financially and considering BioWare has been in business for many years more than most game studios, I'd assume they're pretty good at doing it.

Modifié par SteveGarbage, 23 septembre 2010 - 06:17 .

[AlexXIV]

Well the point is that I wasn't happy with these things I mentioned in DA:O already, and DA2 is going even more mainstream. In my book action is not the first thing I associate with RPG. But then again my book may be an old book that nobody reads anymore. I have not seen a game I would really call RPG in a long time. Even 'The Black Eye' Drakensang and The River of Time look pretty much like DA:O. Just done on lower Budged, which probably is the reason why the company is now struggling to survive. They even have more skills and attributes for the Character but it doesn't change the gameplay much.

I like for example games in the fashion of Tombraider or Hitman. But they are not RPGs. I am just thinking if a company that says of itself to make RPGs then proceeds to get more action oriented, then they should do it right. And not sell RPGs who ain't RPGs anymore. And then I'd expect that it is not a pure RPG but a more of an action adventure, that I can also jump and climb walls or swing on ropes. Seriously, I just don't like half-arsed things. I mean you can't even jump in Dragon Age. Not over a table or a hole. You are glued to the ground. That's ok for a RPG but is it for an action adventure?

If a game gets promoted with slogans as 'Fight like a Spartan' or 'if you click a button something awesome happens' then do I expect an RPG or an action adventure? The story is described around the question 'Who is the Champion of Kirkwall' they could have said the same about DA:O 'Who is the Hero of Ferelden'. You could probably say that about any game with a main character. I don't think story is the heart of a roleplaying game. The main character is. That means your ability to customize it is. That means the ability to make it 'your' character is.

I don't think Bioware are going to do it because for once it is not Bioware tradition. Their RPGs always been sorta heavy on the action rather than roleplay elements. And secondly they moving even more away from RPGs towards action adventure. I don't really mind action adventures at all. I just find it sad that the last big RPG company probably gave up on RPG genre as such. That's kind of the end of an era. I will have a look at the witcher 2 since I never played the first, but I have a bad feeling about small companies making RPGs they tend to die fast.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 23 septembre 2010 - 06:33 .

[cinderburster]

*claps for SteveGarbage* Well reasoned!

[MKDAWUSS]

I think a lot of the problem is that while movies have grown gradually, video games have grown exponentially. Compare a games in 1985 to 1990 to 1995 to 2000 to 2005 to 2010.

[JrayM16]

You can look at Bioware's RPGs through the years and you would discover that they've always been moving in this direction, it's just that DA2 and ME2 are sort of a mental tipping point for a lot of people.



Let's start with BG 1+2. classic kind of D&D old school pc RPG. Some VA, trademark Bioware choices and a certain level of interaction with your party. (on a side note, Greg Zeschuck has admitted that at the time of BG 1 they considered romances just a neat bonus thing, and that fan reaction caused them to amp it up in subsequent games)



Next was NWN but that is kind of the exception to the overall trend I'm seeing so I won't dwell on it.



Next is KOTOR. This is definetely a step by Bioware of simplifying their RPG structure and making it more action-based. There is no overarching camera angle, all NPCs are voiced in every line of dialogue, while the combat system maintains D&D roots it makes an effort to feel a bit more like an action RPG, you can only have 3 total party members on the field etc.



Probably the reason this was more simplified was because it was Star Wars and Bioware wanted to have it be accesible to a mass audience, which it really wasn't, just more so than BG or NWN. It is also important to note that it was designed for and released first on consoles. I beleive we can trace Bioware's current direction to starting with KOTOR.



Next up, two things happen around the same area of time. DA:O starts development as simply Dragon Age. Being hot off KOTOR, DA:O is essentially stuck in a time capsule due to it's long dev cycle that makes it come out feeling alot like KOTOR. But I'll get to more of that later.



The other thing that happens not too long after KOTOR is JAde Empire. This is a straight up action RPG, with full on action mechanics, but otherwise, mostly KOTOR in it's guts. Bioware is moving further towards it's inevitable action RPG conclusion.



Next, ME1. A fusion of western RPG mechanics with a third person shooter. The D&D dice rolls are still there, but player shooting skill is important, you can only control Shepard, there are fewer stats to customize, etc. This is also the full realization of Bioware's move towards a more movie like presentation of their game's story, with PC VA, slightly more cinematic camera angles, etc.



DA:O comes out. It's positioned as a throwback to BG in part to compensate for it being a game they desinged in 2005 and also in part to appease fans angry about ME and the direction it was taking Bioware. It's not really a BG throwback though, it's KOTOR with a skin that's more like BG, right down to how all the stats play out and how the game controls, especially on consoles(I know, pc version had stuff from BG like overaching view but that's beside the point)



We get to ME2. Bioware strips out the dice rolls and weapon skills, making the combat mechanic a pure third person shooter, the stats are cut down even further, and the story telling becomes far more cinematic in nature. This is the inevitable conclusion of Bioware's evolution of game desing philosophy.



Finally we hit DA2. We can't tell too much but from what I can see, it would seem to be some hybrid of DA:O's KOTOR roots and the advances in presentation made by Bioware with the ME series. When put it context like that, DA2's changes aren't actually that radical, it's simplay a juxtapose caused by it's overlong dev cycle.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MKDAWUSS wrote...

I think a lot of the problem is that while movies have grown gradually, video games have grown exponentially. Compare a games in 1985 to 1990 to 1995 to 2000 to 2005 to 2010.

Games generally certainly didn't grow in quality consistently over that period.

4 of my top 5 games all-time came out before 2000.

[Riona45]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


Games generally certainly didn't grow in quality consistently over that period.

4 of my top 5 games all-time came out before 2000.

What would those games be?  Curious.

[John Epler]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MKDAWUSS wrote...

I think a lot of the problem is that while movies have grown gradually, video games have grown exponentially. Compare a games in 1985 to 1990 to 1995 to 2000 to 2005 to 2010.

Games generally certainly didn't grow in quality consistently over that period.

4 of my top 5 games all-time came out before 2000.

I think that we're coming back to the notion that everyone has their own opinion about the quality of games - it's certainly not an objective measurement.. Of my top five games, two came out in the 90s, one came out in the year 2000, one in the mid 2000s and one is a release from this year.

[Koffeegirl]

JohnEpler wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MKDAWUSS wrote...

I think a lot of the problem is that while movies have grown gradually, video games have grown exponentially. Compare a games in 1985 to 1990 to 1995 to 2000 to 2005 to 2010.

Games generally certainly didn't grow in quality consistently over that period.

4 of my top 5 games all-time came out before 2000.

I think that we're coming back to the notion that everyone has their own opinion about the quality of games - it's certainly not an objective measurement.. Of my top five games, two came out in the 90s, one came out in the year 2000, one in the mid 2000s and one is a release from this year.

What games would those be?:innocent: