564 réponses à ce sujet

[Ziggeh]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Interesting, that would seem to answer the active dodging complaints at least in part would they not?  It isn't one of my issues personally so I don't want to speak for them.

It'd make active dodging impossible. It might make some sequences a bit illogical because I imagine it'll hit you before you see it some times, but that makes far more sense than the "where did that come from? I'm in the middle of nowhere!" problem that it'd solve.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 10 décembre 2010 - 12:05 .

[RussianSpy27]

In Exile wrote...

Here is what I don't understand about the sales argument re: ME2/DA:O. Let's say the figures are entirely right and DA:O blew ME2 out of the water, and the reason wasn't the gameplay, setting or story but the fact that the PC was silent, there were origins, there was a tactical camera on the PC (but no tactical camera on the 360), etc. In other words, let's say that these 'hardcore' RPG features are actually incredibly mainstream compared to the ME2 features.

What does that leave us with? It basically has to tell us Bioware doesn't care about $$ as much as they care about their artistic vision. Otherwise, why would they make a game they have exellent reasons to believe will selll less? 

The argument that DA:O was more commercially succesful than ME2 for precisely those features that ME2 lacks cannot possibly be consistent with an argument than Bioware is catering to any audience for more money, if the data says DA:O is more mainstream without ME2 features.

I can't recall if the same people are making both arguments, but these are absolutely incompatible. Either Bioware is following the money, in which case ME2 is the commercial success, or DA:O was the greater commercial success because of the non-ME features, and so Bioware is being artistically motivated and visionary.

Damn, where's the feature to highly rate this post??? In Exile said it perfectly

[Brockololly]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

MIke_18 wrote...

What is this supposed to mean i don't get it?

You're portraying EA like some pushy, mustache twirling villain with no regard for quality. This is not the case.

Still, with Medal of Honor, they were going on and on about how the game was going to be so polished pre-release and how they had months and months to polish the single player game. And then it came out to rather mediocre reviews- but since it apparently sold well initially, they were fine with the 70 or so metacritic score.

[MIke_18]

MoH wasn't polished, it was buggy and ugly.



And i can't believe what I'm reading...



Someone here is saying that the DA:0 BG esque mechanics are more mainstream than ME2 shooter mechanics...what is this...

[upsettingshorts]

MIke_18 wrote...
Someone here is saying that the DA:0 BG esque mechanics are more mainstream than ME2 shooter mechanics...what is this...

That post went way over someone here's head, apparently. 

[Morroian]

MIke_18 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

"I thought about it and I thought, alright, at that point I didn't know how good [rival game NBA 2K11] would be but the rumors were [that it was going to be] good. So we could have shipped a product we weren't proud of dead against their game that they are proud of and that we would have been proud of to ship ourselves. We would have probably lost 5-1 in the marketplace against that and firmly cemented a reputation for being one to ship secondary sports titles. We could have put the game back in production and showed up back in time for, say, the All-Star Break… but when you look at the data, typically somewhere between 85 and 90% of basketball games ship between launch date and the All-Star game so we would have been competing for, what, half of the last 10%? And the knock-on effect would have been that the team that would otherwise have been working on the following year's product would have three fewer months to build it.

"So there's the table: You can ship a product you're not proud of and compete for marginal share. You can delay the game to get a better product, but that's going to have a knock-on effect. And we made what I judged to be the best call given the circumstances." - EA boss John Riccitiello on NBA Elite 11

So please, please spare me.

What is this supposed to mean i don't get it?

Now there's a shock.

[Ziggeh]

Brockololly wrote...

Still, with Medal of Honor, they were going on and on about how the game was going to be so polished pre-release and how they had months and months to polish the single player game. And then it came out to rather mediocre reviews- but since it apparently sold well initially, they were fine with the 70 or so metacritic score.

Oh, absolutely, they're still a business, and you've gotta expect them to act like one, as in, do things with a profit motive rather than acting like the crazy reverse Midas people like to paint them as here. It's in their interests, their greedy, greedy interests for Bioware to keep chocking out quality games, they'd be mental to start poking them with sticks.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 10 décembre 2010 - 12:13 .

[Addai]

RussianSpy27 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Here is what I don't understand about the sales argument re: ME2/DA:O. Let's say the figures are entirely right and DA:O blew ME2 out of the water, and the reason wasn't the gameplay, setting or story but the fact that the PC was silent, there were origins, there was a tactical camera on the PC (but no tactical camera on the 360), etc. In other words, let's say that these 'hardcore' RPG features are actually incredibly mainstream compared to the ME2 features.

What does that leave us with? It basically has to tell us Bioware doesn't care about $$ as much as they care about their artistic vision. Otherwise, why would they make a game they have exellent reasons to believe will selll less? 

The argument that DA:O was more commercially succesful than ME2 for precisely those features that ME2 lacks cannot possibly be consistent with an argument than Bioware is catering to any audience for more money, if the data says DA:O is more mainstream without ME2 features.

I can't recall if the same people are making both arguments, but these are absolutely incompatible. Either Bioware is following the money, in which case ME2 is the commercial success, or DA:O was the greater commercial success because of the non-ME features, and so Bioware is being artistically motivated and visionary.

Damn, where's the feature to highly rate this post??? In Exile said it perfectly

The logic is sketchy here.  BioWare may think they're going after the money, but banking on those DAO customers following them into the brave new world while attracting new players who didn't play Origins.  Which may or may not happen.  Or else someone at the top feels ME2 is trending up while DAO is trending down and so they gave a directive to make DA2 more bamftastic and console-y.  That may or may not be a good strategy.  The mushy middle has more competition, for instance.

Modifié par Addai67, 10 décembre 2010 - 12:16 .

[MIke_18]

ME 2 costs less to make, while having higher metascore and sales, when the PS3 version is released.



What's not to get why DA II is moving in the same direction?

[wolfpaq777]

Why are people complaining about people complaining about DA2?

Bored?

[Torhagen]

For me i feared the worst for DA2 after experiencing the "Problemsolving" from ME1 to ME2
That a lot things people complained about where not solved rather than just plain cut from the game

Since i watch social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/5404685 however i feel relieved that the Devs will adress problems of DA1 rather than just cut them out of the game

Modifié par Torhagen, 10 décembre 2010 - 12:21 .

[Ziggeh]

wolfpaq777 wrote...

Why are people complaining about people complaining about DA2?

I want them to complain better. Think of it as a service.

[Ziggeh]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Your schtick is tiresome.  At least others on this forum stay on message and I genuinely believe that despite their attitude might genuinely have a point.  I honestly question why the heck you're even here.

A few of the people who were making similar statements when I started here seem positively reasonable now. Still disliking what they see, but clearly articulating that this is opinion and that these things are design decisions and not the evil conspiracy of demons who live on the dissapointment of mortals.

Sarah and this chap are the only ones who don't seem to be taking part in any kind of "forum" and refuse to consider anything reasonable.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 10 décembre 2010 - 12:41 .

[MIke_18]

You're gonna decide who's contributing to the forum now, who should leave and be banned?



It's a public forum...



Not every fan of DA:O or Bioware in general is liking the changes.

[Ziggeh]

MIke_18 wrote...

You're gonna decide who's contributing to the forum now, who should leave and be banned?

I mean forum in the sense of a discourse rather than it's specific internet usage. You're posting on the latter but not even approaching the former.

But feel free to act like a victim over there. Public forum, after all.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 10 décembre 2010 - 12:48 .

[MIke_18]

I'm trying to dusciuss DA II, but you're trying to get everyone who disagrees with you, everyone that has the audacity to disagree with some decision about this game to leave the forum. Who the hell do you think you are?

[Ziggeh]

MIke_18 wrote...

I'm trying to dusciuss DA II, but you're trying to get everyone who disagrees with you, everyone that has the audacity to disagree with some decision about this game to leave the forum. Who the hell do you think you are?

Except you're not discussing, at all, you're spitting platitudes that even people who have concerns think are ridiculous.

And I've already said that I don't want people to stop complaining, I just want them to understand what they're really asking so the complaints are more meaningful. This is the effect that questioning the disagreement serves. We call it "debate". It just so happens that what you're asking for is validation. Best of luck with that.

And who the hell am I? Not that dude made of straw you're building yourself.

[upsettingshorts]

MIke_18 wrote...

I'm trying to dusciuss DA II, but you're trying to get everyone who disagrees with you, everyone that has the audacity to disagree with some decision about this game to leave the forum. Who the hell do you think you are?

Sylvius and I couldn't disagree more on DAII's direction, and I wish there were more posters around here like him.  He's not the only example, he's just the most obvious.

On the other hand...

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...
The logic is sketchy here.  BioWare may think they're going after the money, but banking on those DAO customers following them into the brave new world while attracting new players who didn't play Origins. 

The only way that can happen, though, is if Bioware believes that they features they are retaining in DA:O were the features that made DA:O succesful. When people usually talk about DA:O outselling ME2, they want to make the point that DA:O was successful because it was different from ME2. We can easily grant that, but the issue is, what does different mean? And if different means silent PC and origins, then obviously Bioware is moving away from the money. If different means tactical combat, or the setting or characters, welll, then Bioware is keeping that. Of course, if that was the case, then it can't be the case that these features other features (i.e. origins or silent VO) were responsible for DA:O's success in the first place.

But if we are going to use sales data, we have to have some idea of what that data means.

Which may or may not happen.  Or else someone at the top feels ME2 is trending up while DAO is trending down and so they gave a directive to make DA2 more bamftastic and console-y.  

But then we're just assuming someone at the top is stupid. Which is fine, but then we absolutely can't talk about EA being motivated by money, because in that case we would be saying, "The executives have hard data that DA:O outsold ME2 and a set of features [x] in DA:O is more popular commercially than [y] in ME2. Let us build DA2 with [y] in mind."

Again, we wind up with EA/Bioware being visionary and holding to a particular design philosophy above money.

If we are going to make the argument that they are simply a cut-throat company after the bottom line and that's their only priority, then they'd try to churn out their greatest success, not dramatically alter their formula.

That may or may not be a good strategy.  The mushy middle has more competition, for instance.

But ME2, according to the data, failed to get at that. And DA:O (allegedly) doubled up on it in sales. If EA/Bioware are only after the bottom line, why would they follow the model they believe (according to you) is the less lucrative one?

Modifié par In Exile, 10 décembre 2010 - 01:22 .

[Wozearly]

MIke_18 wrote...

Because this game seems heavily
influenced by EA. It's like Bioware isn't doing the game it's supposed
to be doing for it's lifelong fans, but instead is chasing after Fable
and Halo fans. Every decision made about this game is about

a) How do we save more money

How do we sell more copies

It has nothing to do with the quality of the game.

Do you genuinely think EA have collective taken leave of their senses and forced the Bioware team to join them in the nuthouse?

If you look over Bioware's past releases, there are recurring themes of story-driven, party-based RPGs that appeal to people willing to put a bit of learning and forethought into their character development (and who don't necessarily rely on twitch skills) with a scattering of story-driven TPS games that have a hefty RPG flavour to them.

"Influencing" Bioware to make a Halo clone would be daft. Down that road of slippery logic we should expect to see Maxis briefed to create a GTA clone and Bethesda vying for the Gran Turismo 6 market.

Small steps towards making games more accessible to attract more customers whilst (hopefully) not inducing nerd rage in existing customers is part and parcel of the industry and, indeed, is part of what many business try to do. There are very few companies that intentionally create detailed, complicated worlds for a relatively small group of players (although kudos to you, Paradox).

The critical question is whether a) and are being prioritised over other things - in this case making a game that's actually pretty good and that people want to play. Given the depth and complexity of DAO, which isn't exactly ancient history, that doesn't appear to be the case.


...and I agree with In Exile's points above entirely.

Modifié par Wozearly, 10 décembre 2010 - 01:39 .

[Brockololly]

In Exile wrote...
But ME2, according to the data, failed to get at that. And DA:O (allegedly) doubled up on it in sales. If EA/Bioware are only after the bottom line, why would they follow the model they believe (according to you) is the less lucrative one?

Its my impression that since Tudge and Knowles left soon after the PC version was done in early 2009, thats likely around when Laidlaw and Darrah and the other high ups started brainstorming at least on DA2. Before Origins came out. I recall reading some interview with Zeschuk from a while back where he made mention of how right around when ME1 came out they had discussion whether they wanted to do the player VO in Origins but decided against it to keep Origins distinct. 

I don't think its out of the question that maybe BioWare got cold feet with the more traditional RPG approach to Origins after they delayed the PC version and maybe thinking it wouldn't live up to ME1 or what they were doing with ME2 at the time, they jumped the gun with trying to make DA2 more in the vein of a "cinematic" hybrid RPG like ME, thinking thats where the biggest new audience was. And then of course, Origins did pretty well after all. So they're doing what they're doing because perhaps by the time they started getting critical and commercial feedback on Origins, it was too late to turn the ship around, maybe as EA had already pegged them for delivering another DA title in early 2011.

*dons tin foil hat*
Thats just my total speculation.

Modifié par Brockololly, 10 décembre 2010 - 01:41 .

[In Exile]

Brockololly wrote...
Its my impression that since Tudge and Knowles left soon after the PC version was done in early 2009, thats likely around when Laidlaw and Darrah and the other high ups started brainstorming at least on DA2. Before Origins came out. I recall reading some interview with Zeschuk from a while back where he made mention of how right around when ME1 came out they had discussion whether they wanted to do the player VO in Origins but decided against it to keep Origins distinct. 

That timeline seems reasonable, though I would wager that talk about DA2 came earlier than when the PC version of DA went gold. If you look at the EA press releases at the time, you'll see that Dragon Age out of Bioware was seen as a game that would sell well, and did represent a potential brand. I think EA was thinking sequel at the higher concept level near the tail end of development, prior to when the game went into lockdown for the PC, so even as early as late 2008.

I don't think its out of the question that maybe BioWare got cold feet with the more traditional RPG approach to Origins after they delayed the PC version and maybe thinking it wouldn't live up to ME1 or what they were doing with ME2 at the time, they jumped the gun with trying to make DA2 more in the vein of a "cinematic" hybrid

I don't think that's consistent with the timeline. Essentially, if you're right that around when ME1 came out Bioware had to decide for or against VO in DA, that might have given them enough time to have some reasonable estimate of the commercial success of ME1. A lot can be made of the first 2 weeks of sales for a particular game.

ME1 came out as a major commercial success (at the time) for Bioware, and it was a major move for their IP since their previous console foray in Jade Empire was not as succesful as they would have liked.

I think that the fact that Bioware, with sales data from ME1 in had decided to stick to a silent protagonist in DA:O suggest against the fact that they had cold feed with regard to the affair.

It may well be reasonable to suggest that Bioware expect DA:O to be less of a commercial success than ME. That's certainly something we can take for granted. But I'm going to address why I don't think this played a role when addresing you below.

RPG like ME, thinking thats where the biggest new audience was. And then of course, Origins did pretty well after all. So they're doing what they're doing because perhaps by the time they started getting critical and commercial feedback on Origins, it was too late to turn the ship around, maybe as EA had already pegged them for delivering another DA title in early 2011.

Here is the issue. Let's say these original figures are accurate, and ME2 sold something around 1.6 million units and DA:O sold around 3.2 million units while DA2 had been in development for several months already, if not close to a full year.

The difference here is 1.6 million units, which priced at a very conservative $40/game would mean an extra 64 million dollars (that's $64 ,000,0000 just for the sake of emphasis).

Let's say Bioware sunk 10 million in non-recoverable cost and it would have taken them another 20 million to redesign DA2 above budget to make it the same game as DA:O. Let's even be conservative and say they would had a net revenue of 10 million less on the game with the sequel, for whatever reason.

This would still mean Bioware is leaving 10 million dollars on the table.

No, I just can't see how this rationale is justified from an economic stadpoint. A 1.6 million unit difference is basically a second AAA release for a lot of developers. 

[Brockololly]

In Exile wrote...
I think that the fact that Bioware, with sales data from ME1 in had decided to stick to a silent protagonist in DA:O suggest against the fact that they had cold feed with regard to the affair.

Well, ME1 was about the only game at the time to do that though too. But in the interim between late 2007 up until 2009, BioWare also decided to go full player VO on TOR as well. I'm thinking that perhaps given the Origin stories, that at the time of ME1's release, they simply deemed having to do multiple VOs per Origin PC  would have been crazy for a decidely "old school" game in a new IP no less. Especially given how long the game had been in development thus far too. But they maybe decided full VO was good for TOR since thats an MMO with the Star Wars name behind it and a good deal more money than a new fantasy IP that was banking on appealing to fans of Baldur's Gate.

In Exile wrote...
No, I just can't see how this rationale is justified from an economic stadpoint. A 1.6 million unit difference is basically a second AAA release for a lot of developers. 

Maybe- I sure don't know. But still, I'm wondering though if its more along the lines of EA or whoever is controlling the purse strings saw the time and money sunk into Origins and said "Hey guys, think you can do the next one a bit quicker?" Since I doubt DAO recouped all its costs given its development time, they're likely looking at profitability on a franchise wide scale and want to get the next game out as quickly as possible to make up more of the costs sunk into the initial development of the IP.

Just my 2 cents.

[slimgrin]

I haven't really got vitriolic yet about the changes. Some of them I like. If, however, the game suffers from consolitus, I shall rage.

[Iberius]

Brockololly wrote...

In Exile wrote...
I think that the fact that Bioware, with sales data from ME1 in had decided to stick to a silent protagonist in DA:O suggest against the fact that they had cold feed with regard to the affair.

Well, ME1 was about the only game at the time to do that though too. But in the interim between late 2007 up until 2009, BioWare also decided to go full player VO on TOR as well. I'm thinking that perhaps given the Origin stories, that at the time of ME1's release, they simply deemed having to do multiple VOs per Origin PC  would have been crazy for a decidely "old school" game in a new IP no less. Especially given how long the game had been in development thus far too. But they maybe decided full VO was good for TOR since thats an MMO with the Star Wars name behind it and a good deal more money than a new fantasy IP that was banking on appealing to fans of Baldur's Gate.

In Exile wrote...
No, I just can't see how this rationale is justified from an economic stadpoint. A 1.6 million unit difference is basically a second AAA release for a lot of developers. 

Maybe- I sure don't know. But still, I'm wondering though if its more along the lines of EA or whoever is controlling the purse strings saw the time and money sunk into Origins and said "Hey guys, think you can do the next one a bit quicker?" Since I doubt DAO recouped all its costs given its development time, they're likely looking at profitability on a franchise wide scale and want to get the next game out as quickly as possible to make up more of the costs sunk into the initial development of the IP.

Just my 2 cents.

So, Brock, if I'm reading this right your saying that you think Bioware is trying to make up for the extra time they took with DA:O in order to cover the costs of longer development of the first game by getting DA2 out more quickly?

Wow that's a run-on sentence.

Anyway I don't know man. DA:O sold really well from what I remember. Heck, my friends and I totally nerded out on that game and I know it got great ratings and sold well. It seems to me that Bioware would have made up for the cost of DA:O and a lot more despite the length of development.

Modifié par Iberius, 10 décembre 2010 - 02:36 .