564 réponses à ce sujet

[Leonia]

slimgrin wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

If we're going to get into a debate over what "spiritual successor" actually means, then I am going to need a case of beer.

[smilie]http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTzkX_QgwSKm-LddBVXDktLtlnt3l4SPz-rZIbaFuDRJSaC8bsx-w[/smilie] 

I don't even.. have a witty comeback. 

[upsettingshorts]

Revan312 wrote...

Just curious, at what point would you guys consider EA to be at blame, as they are the parent company.

When they either lay off or close down Bioware.  Like they did with Origin Systems, Inc. 

Revan312 wrote...

But your making it out as if it's impossible that EA could be contributing and forcing changes and decisions down onto their subsidiary companies, which seems like very flawed logic, the same could be said of those that blame them for everything..

It's not that it's impossible, it's just that I view it as unfounded and prejudicial.

Revan312 wrote...

also, awesome avatar shorts, Ron ftw!

leonia42 wrote...

[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/surprised.png[/smilie] I don't even.. have a witty comeback. 

Fosters : Australians :: Budweiser : Americans

If I have it right.

wolf3957 wrote...

Thank you! I know you're not siding with me, but at least someone finally gets what I'm saying.

I get what you're saying, I dispute that you actually have any evidence beyond correlation equals causation.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 décembre 2010 - 04:57 .

[vampsrock9988]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Fosters : Australians ::Sam Adams : Americans

If I have it right.

Fixed

[Leonia]

I think people are a bit confused on the relationship between EA and Bioware. I assume that EA has a real "hands off" approach with Bioware, given how successful Bioware has proven to be in the past without EA's support. I also believe that EA came into owning Bioware really late in Origins' development, too late for them to have much impact on the finer details. And I know there is a quote somewhere from one of the Bioware devs that pretty much says that EA only handlse the large business decisons and isn't involved in the minute details of the game development process but I can't remember who said or when or where it is. So.. yeah.



*gets a beer that is certainly not Fosters*

[Brosef84]

Revan312 wrote...

Just curious, at what point would you guys consider EA to be at blame, as they are the parent company. I'm not siding on one side or the other as such executive decisions are under wraps, so none of us will likely ever know to what extent they have influence over design decisions with Bioware or any other studio. But your making it out as if it's impossible that EA could be contributing and forcing changes and decisions down onto their subsidiary companies, which seems like very flawed logic, the same could be said of those that blame them for everything..

also, awesome avatar shorts, Ron ftw!

EA may be the parent company, but they bought Bioware for a reason: so Bioware could remain Bioware; EA however would get publishing rights.  One of the factors in the contract was that Bioware maintain complete creative control over their games.  EA knows better than to meddle in Bioware's work; they bought them because they were the best at what they do.

[upsettingshorts]

Did you just diss Sam Adams in my presence? Are you serious? The only good American macrobrew?

*rolls up sleeves*

<---is drinking Glenlivet, French Oak Reserve (neat)

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 décembre 2010 - 04:59 .

[Leonia]

Oh man, Sam Adams is one of the few American breweries that I like.. mm summer ale!

[vampsrock9988]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Did you just diss Sam Adams in my presence? Are you serious? The only good American macrobrew?

*rolls up sleeves*

Bring it on, 'shorts.  I'm actually from Boston.

[Piecake]

Revan312 wrote...

Just curious, at what point would you guys consider EA to be at blame, as they are the parent company. I'm not siding on one side or the other as such executive decisions are under wraps, so none of us will likely ever know to what extent they have influence over design decisions with Bioware or any other studio. But your making it out as if it's impossible that EA could be contributing and forcing changes and decisions down onto their subsidiary companies, which seems like very flawed logic, the same could be said of those that blame them for everything..

also, awesome avatar shorts, Ron ftw!

You don't want your conclusion based on pure speculation.  Maybe after several poor quality games you can begin to think that, but after one? 

Anyways, i thought ME2 was a vast improvement over ME1, so I disagree with the premise entirely.  So...

GO EA! *insert jokingly sarcastic icon here*

[wolf3957]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Revan312 wrote...

Just curious, at what point would you guys consider EA to be at blame, as they are the parent company.

When they either lay off or close down Bioware.  Like they did with Origin Systems, Inc. 

Revan312 wrote...

But your making it out as if it's impossible that EA could be contributing and forcing changes and decisions down onto their subsidiary companies, which seems like very flawed logic, the same could be said of those that blame them for everything..

It's not that it's impossible, it's just that I view it as unfounded and prejudicial.

Revan312 wrote...

also, awesome avatar shorts, Ron ftw!

leonia42 wrote...

../../../images/forum/emoticons/surprised.png I don't even.. have a witty comeback. 

Fosters : Australians :: Budweiser : Americans

If I have it right.

wolf3957 wrote...

Thank you! I know you're not siding with me, but at least someone finally gets what I'm saying.

I get what you're saying, I dispute that you actually have any evidence beyond correlation equals causation.

Okay, I'll try to simplify; in retail, if something is priced wrong, who's fault is it? The stores' fault. Now, who is usually expected to scan prices of items in the morning to make sure they're correct? Grunt level employees. Now, if the manager does not assign them to do this, instead forcing them to do some other task, then whose fault is it? The managers for being an idiot and not allowing his employees to do their job that they were hired to do. Better?

[upsettingshorts]

vampsrock9988 wrote...

Bring it on, 'shorts.  I'm actually from Boston.

...you're actually saying its worse than Coors, Bud, Miller, PBR, etc?

wolf3957 wrote...

Okay, I'll try to simplify; in retail, if something is priced wrong, who's fault is it? The stores' fault. Now, who is usually expected to scan prices of items in the morning to make sure they're correct? Grunt level employees. Now, if the manager does not assign them to do this, instead forcing them to do some other task, then whose fault is it? The managers for being an idiot and not allowing his employees to do their job that they were hired to do. Better?

It strikes me as an inaccurate comparison.  The way I see it, EA is a patron and Bioware is an artist.  Just because Bioware stopped making art you like as much as they used to doesn't mean the guiding hand of their patron is forcing them to do so.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 décembre 2010 - 05:03 .

[vampsrock9988]

leonia42 wrote...

Oh man, Sam Adams is one of the few American breweries that I like.. mm summer ale!

I will admit they do their Summer Ale quite well.  Yuengling is my weakness:wub:

[vampsrock9988]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

vampsrock9988 wrote...

Bring it on, 'shorts.  I'm actually from Boston.

...you're actually saying its worse than Coors, Bud, Miller, PBR, etc?

No.  You got me there.  Nothing on this planet is worse than watery Mill.

[upsettingshorts]

vampsrock9988 wrote...

No.  You got me there.  Nothing on this planet is worse than watery Mill.

Indeed.  The trick to American beer is simple:  Drink locally.  

[Leonia]

wolf3957 wrote...

Okay, I'll try to simplify; in retail, if something is priced wrong, who's fault is it? The stores' fault. Now, who is usually expected to scan prices of items in the morning to make sure they're correct? Grunt level employees. Now, if the manager does not assign them to do this, instead forcing them to do some other task, then whose fault is it? The managers for being an idiot and not allowing his employees to do their job that they were hired to do. Better?

*scratches head* What?

Do you understand the difference between "publisher" and "developer" ? EA doesn't make the games, they publish them. Bioware does all the grunt work and has complete control over the creative process. As much as you hate on EA, you can't deny they are pretty successful when it comes to make money. They're not a bad publisher to have on your side (I'm by no means an EA fangurl or a fan of most of their games but I can't deny they know how to make money and promote games effectively).

[Revan312]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

When they either lay off or close down Bioware. Like they did with Origin Systems, Inc.

It's not that it's impossible, it's just that I view it as unfounded and prejudicial.

It is unfounded, no doubt, but at what point would your feelings be swayed? If Bioware chunked out an FPS set in modern times with the US vs Russia being the conflict? That's not meant to be inflammatory, I really am curious as to what point you would start to feel suspicious.

My only point is there comes a time when the evidence for radical change outweighs the unknowable factor and it can be safely surmised that the parent company is actually changing the direction of a subsidiary. That obviously is not the case yet and I agree, the "Blame EA" bandwagon is simply an easy cop out when no other information is available, I'm just saying the possibility is very real that they are morphing Bioware into what they deem "profitable", for better or worse. Again, not saying that's the case, but it is very possible.

Modifié par Revan312, 10 décembre 2010 - 05:07 .

[upsettingshorts]

Revan312 wrote...

It is unfounded, no doubt, but at what point would your feelings be swayed? If Bioware chunked out an FPS set in modern times with the US vs Russia being the conflict? That's not meant to be inflammatory, I really am curious as to what point you would start to feel suspicious.

In that specific example?  No.  I'd just think that Bioware decided it wanted to make an FPS.  I gave an example of when I'd blame EA for something.

Revan312 wrote...

Again, not saying that's the case, but it is very possible.

As Kevin Garnett screamed to no-one in particular after winning the NBA title, "Anything is possible!"

[In Exile]

Revan312 wrote...

Just curious, at what point would you guys consider EA to be at blame, as they are the parent company. I'm not siding on one side or the other as such executive decisions are under wraps, so none of us will likely ever know to what extent they have influence over design decisions with Bioware or any other studio. But your making it out as if it's impossible that EA could be contributing and forcing changes and decisions down onto their subsidiary companies, which seems like very flawed logic, the same could be said of those that blame them for everything..

also, awesome avatar shorts, Ron ftw!

At least in my view, EA is to blame for things like stability. If DA2 is a buggy release like Awakening, which is uncharacteristic by Bioware's standards, that falls to the publisher and parent company. I don't think design level decisions really are impactful. At best, EA will tell Bioware what audience to target.

[wolf3957]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

vampsrock9988 wrote...

Bring it on, 'shorts.  I'm actually from Boston.

...you're actually saying its worse than Coors, Bud, Miller, PBR, etc?

wolf3957 wrote...

Okay, I'll try to simplify; in retail, if something is priced wrong, who's fault is it? The stores' fault. Now, who is usually expected to scan prices of items in the morning to make sure they're correct? Grunt level employees. Now, if the manager does not assign them to do this, instead forcing them to do some other task, then whose fault is it? The managers for being an idiot and not allowing his employees to do their job that they were hired to do. Better?

It strikes me as an inaccurate comparison.  The way I see it, EA is a patron and Bioware is an artist.  Just because Bioware stopped making art you like as much as they used to doesn't mean the guiding hand of their patron is forcing them to do so.  

All personal thoughts aside, EA IS responsible. In the merger with Bioware/Pandemic, EA CEO John Riccitiello took over as lead CEO for all three companies. He was originally an EA CEO. That is why EA is responsible for what is going on with Bioware. I apologize, I'm not trying to fight, I'm just pissed that a once great and creative company is below what they could be, likely against their will and capability.

[Leonia]

Revan312 wrote...
It is unfounded, no doubt, but at what point
would your feelings be swayed? If Bioware chunked out an FPS set in
modern times with the US vs Russia being the conflict? That's not meant
to be inflammatory, I really am curious as to what point you would start
to feel suspicious.

My only point is there comes a time when
the evidence for radical change outweighs the unknowable factor and it
can be safely surmised that the parent company is actually changing the
direction of a subsidiary. That obviously is not the case yet and I
agree, the "Blame EA" bandwagon is simply an easy cop out when no other
information is available, I'm just saying the possibility is very real
that they are morphing Bioware into what they deem "profitable", for
better or worse. Again, not saying that's the case, but it is very
possible.

But Bioware is already quite profitable, they can sell their games simply by slapping their name on the box with a promise of "epic story inside". EA would be foolish to try any radical changes. That's not to say it couldn't happen, it's just unlikely to happen.

Shorts wrote..
Indeed. The trick to American beer is simple: Drink locally.

This is why imported American beer sucks. Now if Sam Adams Summer Ale was made available year round.. maybe the Americans wouldn't get ragged on for their beer quality so much by the rest of the world.

Modifié par leonia42, 10 décembre 2010 - 05:09 .

[upsettingshorts]

wolf3957 wrote...

All personal thoughts aside, EA IS responsible. In the merger with Bioware/Pandemic, EA CEO John Riccitiello took over as lead CEO for all three companies. He was originally an EA CEO. That is why EA is responsible for what is going on with Bioware. I apologize, I'm not trying to fight, I'm just pissed that a once great and creative company is below what they could be, likely against their will and capability.

Correlation does not equal causation.  The burden of proof is on you and others making the accusation to provide evidence of causation.  It is not self-evident.  

leonia42 wrote...

This is why imported American beer sucks. Now if Sam Adams Summer Ale was made available year round.. maybe the Americans wouldn't get ragged on for their beer quality so much by the rest of the world.

There's a reason for that.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 décembre 2010 - 05:10 .

[Revan312]

In Exile wrote...

At least in my view, EA is to blame for things like stability. If DA2 is a buggy release like Awakening, which is uncharacteristic by Bioware's standards, that falls to the publisher and parent company. I don't think design level decisions really are impactful. At best, EA will tell Bioware what audience to target.

I agree, but that's a very heavy design decision to be made, the release date. If EA is the daddy in the equation and tells teenage Bioware they must be home by 10:00, then it impacts the enjoyment of Bioware's friends (us) as "the party was just getting started dude!!"

I will never infur that they make actual decisions regarding the design of the game, as that's complex enough without having a big brother figure breathing down your back, but direction, release dates and target appeal are very major determinations to make.  Though, those as well are nothing but speculaltive..

leonia42 wrote...

But Bioware is already quite profitable,
they can sell their games simply by slapping their name on the box with
a promise of "epic story inside". EA would be foolish to try any
radical changes. That's not to say it couldn't happen, it's just
unlikely to happen.

Quite profitable, but compared to what? It depends on what your comparing it to, as MW2 sold nearly 5 times the copies of ME2 or DA:O, and it was pretty much a reskin with a flashy 6 hour sp campaign. Cost is also a very large portion of the equation, and EA wants to maximize profits, so if DA2 cost nearly as much as MW2 and yet sells 5 times less, that's a huge difference..

Modifié par Revan312, 10 décembre 2010 - 05:20 .

[AlanC9]

Brockololly wrote...
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.

They might also have thought that 18 months from release (on the old schedule) was not enough time to restructure all the PC dialog. This is the sort of thing that makes project managers' heads explode.

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.

Doesn't have to be EA making that call. I don't imagine internal Bio management is indifferent to questions of profitability. They'd better not be.

[slimgrin]

leonia42 wrote...

This is why imported American beer sucks. Now if Sam Adams Summer Ale was made available year round.. maybe the Americans wouldn't get ragged on for their beer quality so much by the rest of the world.

There's very good beer here actually: microbrews.

[Leonia]

slimgrin wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

This is why imported American beer sucks. Now if Sam Adams Summer Ale was made available year round.. maybe the Americans wouldn't get ragged on for their beer quality so much by the rest of the world.

There's very good beer here actually: microbrews.

Oh I agree, my complaint is the good stuff is hard to find outside the US. I grew up in America but I learned to drink and appreciate beer when I immigrated to Australia and I have a more sophisticated palate than my family and friends back home. I love a good microbrew though, they just need to import that stuff overseas!

Interesting article, Shorts, I feel slighly more educated now, somehow I always manage to forget about Prohibition.