117 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
I think this distinction hinges on presumption that in the latter case the deadline is actually calculated reasonably based on the "game we want to make". As opposed to being set in manner which still forces cuts here and there.

Well, of course. This is precisely the issue I want to get at. Certainly if cuts are forced, the deadline is going to make the game worse. But the idea you raised was more interesting, i.e. to what extent does a deadline influence the pre-production. And I think how the deadline is handled affects that.

In any case, there seems to be currently increased focus from the main publishers on maximizing short-term profits through frequent releases of established franchises -- see Bobby Kotick's comments regarding that for the evidence. As such, i'd expect it to be more of the former than the latter.

That's Activision, though. EA seems much more strongly married to the idea of microtransactions.

Shorter is pretty much given with the remarks we got that place DA2 somewhere between DAO and Awakening. Keep on mind this is something that is viewed by some as "reduced content". But i also expect more cuts than that -- through breadth rather than just length. We see some glimpses of it like the lack of suitable dual-wield animation set for warriors being given as reason why that style was removed from the class altogether, no more melee combat allegedly with the same reasoning, etc. This can quite likely extend to other areas like amount of different zones and whatnot... so i'm setting my expectations bar pretty low in this regard..

I am aware that some people think DA:O was the right the right length . I happen to disagree.  

I am also aware of the argument for dual-wield animations for warriors, though I personally favoured such cuts to the system, if Biowar was unwilling to switch to an entirely skill based system.

Like I said - I happen to thing there are low value resources that ought to be cut, i.e. multiple areas along a particular quest path (e.g. the deep roads) and what I find to be filler content (e.g. the endgame alienage).

As for the "main plot of DAO being basically none" ... well, that's bit disingenous, isnt it? Pretty much every main plot of large works can be dismissed in such manner if only one is willing to simplify it enough, and once you simplify it enough then everything can be "too long for so little of plot". Lord of the Rings is just two hobbits on a fetch quest, e.g. That it takes three books to wrap it up is quite outrageous.

No. The main plot, just like in ME2, was get the army ready to beat the Blight. After Ostagar, we could have had a 10 hour game, a 500 hour game, or a 40 hour game (by increasing the number of allies we added, the hoops we had to jump, etc.). The truth is, the content between Ostagar and the Final Battle at Denerim is 'worldbuilding flavour' and does not deeply develop the issue of the blight.

ETA:

Contrast this to Jade Empire. You can absolutely condence Tien's Landing. But you can't cut the Imperial City (prior to the Imperial Palace) and retain the same narrative structure. That's what I mean by areas being superflous to the plot or not.

I happen to actually agree about LoTR, as it turns out. This is the fundamental hierarchy that lots of western fantasy has worked under effectively its entire existence (that, as well as try to return the status quo) which I think are elements that ought to die in fire.

Modifié par In Exile, 15 janvier 2011 - 08:13 .

[Amioran]

AlexXIV wrote...

The development time is less than half of DA:O

If you do a painting then want to change things in it (either many), will it take the same time as beginning from scratch? If you want to write a book will it take the same time if you have a story in your mind as without having any?

AlexXIV wrote...
space on the HD is less than half

If you save a picture in tiff and the same picture in jpg (at maximum quality), will the picture in tiff be better than the one in jpg just because the latter take less than half the space of the former?
 

AlexXIV wrote...
and the average time for a playthrough probably will also be half of DA:O (something between 15 and 25 hours I guess).

That it will be shorter than DAO it's sure because they wanted to reduce redundancy quests. How long it is however depends on many factors, unguessable with the informations we have atm. So until you are a clairvoyant I don't get your estimates on what are based (ops, I forgot, HD space, that it is indeed a good method of guessing the lenght of a game, see Super Meatboy vs. The Force Unleashed...)

AlexXIV wrote... 
No matter what devs say people will be worried. The only way to disprove our worries is to make a game that proves our worries invalid.

To prove your worries invalid it's impossible until launch, yes. However to prove your points invalid it just takes common sense and a bit of knowledge on things exposed.

AlexXIV wrote... 
I'd just accept it because it is one of these things you cannot change.

So true... evil Bioware always lying to make you buy their games, whoever will do that without this trick? They need to do it so desperately.

Modifié par Amioran, 15 janvier 2011 - 08:18 .

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

That's Activision, though. EA seems much more strongly married to the idea of microtransactions.

Yup, i think this mindset may be affecting them both, though -- EA already had number of its games with "yearly" release cycle (sports, obv.) so expanding that practice wouldn't be odd for them. And between what the competition is doing and the dump the economy is in for the time being i suppose releasing frequently and cutting development costs of individual titles only makes sense and is to be expected.

I am aware that some people think DA:O was the right the right length . I happen to disagree.

I'll actually agree that number of zones in DAO could feel "one floor too big" so to speak although that's mostly because they'd form long stretches of very similar visuals. I don't know if shortening individual zones in such manner would save that much of development time, though since all the individual assets utilized by them etc have to be created anyway.

Like I said - I happen to thing there are low value resources that ought to be cut, i.e. multiple areas along a particular quest path (e.g. the deep roads) and what I find to be filler content (e.g. the endgame alienage).

Hmm i hope when it comes to the alienage you mean the "dungeon crawl" pieces (which are pretty short, overall) rather than the existence of alienage part itself. But then this can be bias on my part coming from playing the CE -- being able to return "home" felt like a big thing.

No. The main plot, just like in ME2, was get the army ready to beat the Blight. After Ostagar, we could have had a 10 hour game, a 500 hour game, or a 40 hour game (by increasing the number of allies we added, the hoops we had to jump, etc.). The truth is, the content between Ostagar and the Final Battle at Denerim is 'worldbuilding flavour' and does not deeply develop the issue of the blight.

ETA:

Contrast this to Jade Empire. You can absolutely condence Tien's Landing. But you can't cut the Imperial City (prior to the Imperial Palace) and retain the same narrative structure. That's what I mean by areas being superflous to the plot or not.

It's been a while i played Jade Empire, but i don't really recall anything important happen in the Imperial City. I think the plot could've had you fly straight into the Imperial Palace instead and it wouldn't make any real difference. I can see where you're coming from re: superfluous areas, though.

Still, i think the "world building" flavour areas and events are important part of the whole experience simply because they do indeed build the world in the player's mind and may drive their decisions. They help to get involved and actually care about what happens to this game world and its inhabitants.

[Nic-V]

I am sure Bioware will deliver. It may not be the same size as DAO but that's okay as long as it's epic.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
Yup, i think this mindset may be affecting them both, though -- EA already had number of its games with "yearly" release cycle (sports, obv.) so expanding that practice wouldn't be odd for them. And between what the competition is doing and the dump the economy is in for the time being i suppose releasing frequently and cutting development costs of individual titles only makes sense and is to be expected.

Cutting development costs makes sense... but the economy would actually lend itself against multiple releases. If purchasing power is down, then people will cut back on luxury goods. Flooding the market with high priced luxury goods is a poor business model. Better to cut costs and wait things out.

That being said, I think the sports releases are a unique kind of market that does not lend itself well to the same sort of generalization. After all, we've been having yearly sports releases since what, '98?

I'll actually agree that number of zones in DAO could feel "one floor too big" so to speak although that's mostly because they'd form long stretches of very similar visuals. I don't know if shortening individual zones in such manner would save that much of development time, though since all the individual assets utilized by them etc have to be created anyway.

That's not why I think the game was too long. Part of it has to do with encounter design, or rather, the lack thereof. Enemies are basically just placed in clumps and rush toward you if you don't stay just out of their "attack" cone. This is basically every encounter.

The dungeon crawling is not fun. Beyond that, I don't think the dungeon crawl adds anything to the game. If the anvil of the void was just the Legion of the Dead ruins + the actual anvil zone, we wouldn't lose anything plot-wise. You could just take the "hints" Branka left and pepper them throughout a single region.

Keep in mind, I am the type that thinks all things should serve the plot and am generally against non-linear designs unless a game takes it seriously like Alpha Protocol tried to.

Hmm i hope when it comes to the alienage you mean the "dungeon crawl" pieces (which are pretty short, overall) rather than the existence of alienage part itself. But then this can be bias on my part coming from playing the CE -- being able to return "home" felt like a big thing.

No, I mean the alienage itself. It wasn't plot relevant - it was just an excuse, basically, to have a CE homecoming. But I happen to think Bioware, relative to the original concept, absolutely flopped on the origins.

It's been a while i played Jade Empire, but i don't really recall anything important happen in the Imperial City. I think the plot could've had you fly straight into the Imperial Palace instead and it wouldn't make any real difference. I can see where you're coming from re: superfluous areas, though.

You didn't know you needed to go to the Imperial Palace. At that point, you were chasing after Death's Hand. The deal with the Imperial Palace came once Silk Fox joins and presents the idea to expose Death's Hand to the emperor.

Still, i think the "world building" flavour areas and events are important part of the whole experience simply because they do indeed build the world in the player's mind and may drive their decisions. They help to get involved and actually care about what happens to this game world and its inhabitants.

This is a subjective thing, though. For some people, worldbuilding is great. Personally, I don't care. It's like - details in the environment. Some people just move the camera around and take in the views. I don't, because I don't care for that sort of thing.

Just seeing a region doesn't build the world for me. Put it this way: the origins did more for the re: worldbuilding than everything else in DA:O combined. Because you actually saw the world from the PoV of someone in it, not a problem-solving tourist.

Modifié par In Exile, 16 janvier 2011 - 05:56 .

[shinobi602]

Flamesz wrote...

Considering they probably started about a year before DA:O was released, i'd say that would be a sufficient amount of time to develop a game.

A year before DA:O released? They said they started on the concept of it at the end of 2009, right before DA:O was released.

Check here, 0:20 to 0:33

www.youtube.com/watch

[Cigne]

shinobi602 wrote...

Flamesz wrote...

Considering they probably started about a year before DA:O was released, i'd say that would be a sufficient amount of time to develop a game.

A year before DA:O released? They said they started on the concept of it at the end of 2009, right before DA:O was released.

Check here, 0:20 to 0:33

www.youtube.com/watch

I hear that as they started in 2009, right before DA:O was finished. The PC version was finished what, in March 2009?

edit: Sigh, shouldn't post when half-asleep. March 2010.

Modifié par Cigne, 18 janvier 2011 - 01:22 .

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

Cutting development costs makes sense... but the economy would actually lend itself against multiple releases. If purchasing power is down, then people will cut back on luxury goods. Flooding the market with high priced luxury goods is a poor business model. Better to cut costs and wait things out.

Well, as long as we're talking of "one game of a kind per year" release, this is hardly flooding the market. At the same time it is more frequent than "one title per 2-3 years" granted. I also wouldn't really consider games high-priced luxury goods. Luxury, yes, but the price compared to cost of other luxury goods or even the basics like a decent meal, especially when you take into account the frequency of purchases... well.

That being said, I think the sports releases are a unique kind of market that does not lend itself well to the same sort of generalization. After all, we've been having yearly sports releases since what, '98?

I think they developers are just coming to realization this model can extend to titles other than sport games -- it was present before in other genres too, but it's as if no one really stopped to think about it and how far it could be pushed, until now. The expansion packs for MMOs and the recent experiments with the DLC and such probably helped.

That's not why I think the game was too long. Part of it has to do with encounter design, or rather, the lack thereof. Enemies are basically just placed in clumps and rush toward you if you don't stay just out of their "attack" cone. This is basically every encounter.

This is true but then it applies to most of games. The repetitive nature and reuse of the same basic mechanics, i mean. It could be argued that's what at the core of a game actually -- there's certain framework that doesn't really change and the idea is to test yourself repeatedly against it. You get the same with checkers, or with football match, with any card game and such.

The dungeon crawling is not fun. Beyond that, I don't think the dungeon crawl adds anything to the game. If the anvil of the void was just the Legion of the Dead ruins + the actual anvil zone, we wouldn't lose anything plot-wise. You could just take the "hints" Branka left and pepper them throughout a single region.

Considering there's entire genres built around nothing but dungeon crawl, clearly it can be fun for some. I also think that while the length of Deep Roads could be too much, it lends itself to giving the player the idea just how oppressive, harsh and tiring that environment is... something a single zone couldn't do very well, imo.

This is obviously one of these "horses for courses" thing, though.

No, I mean the alienage itself. It wasn't plot relevant - it was just an excuse, basically, to have a CE homecoming.

Well, as far as i remember it was plot relevant -- the idea being whatever was going there could be possibly used as trump card in the incoming political showdown, against the current leader you're trying to topple. Granted it doesn't turn out anywhere near as effective, but that's the hindsight.

CE player wouldn't need an excuse like this for homecoming, and it also makes no sense to enforce this arc on players who weren't CE, if that was the only goal.

You didn't know you needed to go to the Imperial Palace. At that point, you were chasing after Death's Hand. The deal with the Imperial Palace came once Silk Fox joins and presents the idea to expose Death's Hand to the emperor.

It could still be perfectly well skipped -- having Silk Fox face you right after your village gets destroyed, with the very same reveal/suggestion "i'm the princess, let's hit the Palace and tell my father about wrongdoings of his underlining to see him properly punished and your master returned" wouldn't really modify the plot.

This is a subjective thing, though. For some people, worldbuilding is great. Personally, I don't care. It's like - details in the environment. Some people just move the camera around and take in the views. I don't, because I don't care for that sort of thing.

Just seeing a region doesn't build the world for me. Put it this way: the origins did more for the re: worldbuilding than everything else in DA:O combined. Because you actually saw the world from the PoV of someone in it, not a problem-solving tourist.

I'm not limiting the world building just to presenting you with views to sightsee. I'm including also the people you get to meet there and the issues they're facing in that. It's hard to get an idea of what the dwarves are like or the elves for example, if you don't ever see them and stop and talk with them. Even if that's perspective of problem-solving tourist, without that contact you'd be limited to being a tourist with nothing but preconceptions. And that'd be very flimsy base to form decisions on.

[Pwnsaur]

Well, I was. But we have had many things 'streamlined,' and the game is also shorter than DAO. I guess I'll just say most of the 'why' of what worried me about the shorter development cycle of DA2 has already been confirmed. At this point I already know I will be somewhat disappointed in it, and I just have to accept that.

Modifié par Pwnsaur, 17 janvier 2011 - 02:43 .

[sevalaricgirl]

I'm not concerned with the lack of dev time, more concerned with their heavy sword wielding/armor wearing pc/npcs jumping around like Shaolin munks. That bothers me because it isn't even near reality combat. I don't like the theatrics during combat. They should have taken an more realistic approach and saved the theatrics for the story parts of the game.

[AlexXIV]

Amioran wrote...
*snip*

I know of making games as much as of painting pictures. Next to nothing. But I played Awakenings. which cost if I am not all wrong 40 euro, compared to DA:O 50 euro. And it was like 20% of Origins. If even that. That's not the best way to instill trust in customers. Why should I honestly assume that something like that can't happen with DA2 when it just happened with DA:A? Because Bioware wouldn't do that? Ha-ha.

I am merely saying I am worried. And from where I am standing it seems at least as justified as the blind trust of other people. I really hope you are right an and I am wrong. But I am not going to bet money on it.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 17 janvier 2011 - 02:57 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Yes, I am a bit perturbed over the development time, especially given the bug-infested headache Awakenings was, and the time it took them to release a patch. It is one of the reasons I decided against pre-order and instead, will wait and see how it plays out. Hell, Awakening still has bugs that haven't been fixed. And with the changes and things I've seen, I'm even more inclined to wait and see.



So I'm gonna wait it out until major bugs have been sorted,, and enough user reviews have been made.

[Reaverwind]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Yes, I am a bit perturbed over the development time, especially given the bug-infested headache Awakenings was, and the time it took them to release a patch. It is one of the reasons I decided against pre-order and instead, will wait and see how it plays out. Hell, Awakening still has bugs that haven't been fixed. And with the changes and things I've seen, I'm even more inclined to wait and see.

So I'm gonna wait it out until major bugs have been sorted,, and enough user reviews have been made.

Not to mention Bioware has a lackluster patching history dating all the way back to the BG series. So, I'm also on the wait-and-see fence.

[Osena109]

shinobi602 wrote...

This has probably been posted before, but I actually never really post on the DA forums so I'm not sure. I'm going to pick up DA:O soon so I'm reading up on DA2.

I just realized that DA2 is coming out like...15-16 months after the first one...I mean COD games have longer development time than that

 Bio already has a working game engine so its not like there starting form the ground up

[Beerfish]

Here are my thoughts on the topic.



- I'm not worried about a short development time to a great degree. When not using a totally new engine and new set of tools I've always thought games/sequels should come out faster and give me a new game even if graphically and design wise it is 'more of the same'.



- I'm more concerned about how well framed narrative will work and the new combat.



- I do think 100% for sure that fact that EA has taken over BioWare is shortening development cycles. This can be good in that they have some expertise in pushing out product more quickly and it can be bad if it is pushed out too quickly.

[MKDAWUSS]

You never know, DA3 might be in conceptual development right now