464 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

JamesX wrote...

It is the same as if Bioware just decided that The 6 origins will be 100% of the game and have "seperate team" develop everything that happen after that as DLC

You basically just compared paying for a few hours of optional content in DA2 to paying for what amounts to 95% of the game in DA:O.

Modifié par Il Divo, 21 janvier 2011 - 01:43 .

[Kaellanen]

@Piecake:

Too true. Check the problems Sony is about to have now that someone hacked the PS3. I seriously expect the PS3 to start falling out of circulation soon. 360 has a larger library of games, and the PS3 is no longer that much better graphic-wise. Sony actually LOOSES money on each console they sell and have been hoping to make the money back on movie and game sales.

[Deadmac]

Piecake wrote...
overreaction to the extreme.

Not for one minute. When a company resorts to 'tiny' promotions to make cash, they are doing everything possible to squeeze out more profit. Its rather pathetic.

Added Portion...
I wonder if this is the result of the high cost to make "The Old Republic".

Guess what happened to Cheyenne Mountain Entertainment? As a result of not being able to cover the costs associated with "Stargate: Worlds", the company released another game to make up ground.

http://stargateworlds.com/

Now, they can't afford to keep the lights on. I wonder if BioWare is failing due to the cost in making "The Old Republic"; thus, they have to resort to various tactics to make up some of the loss.

Sounds like there might be some desperation going on behind the scenes.

Modifié par Deadmac, 21 janvier 2011 - 01:57 .

[JFarr74]

The helmet looks weird too...

[Kaellanen]

@Deadmac: Ah, but you are accusing Bioware. Bioware is now answerable to EA. And when the boss comes in and says, "I have this stupid idea that I think is great and we're going to roll with it!" you have two options. Option one, if you like your job and want to continue to put food in your mouth, is to answer, "Why, that stupid idea is the best stupid idea I've ever heard! Let's totally rock that out!" Option two involves laughing in your bosses' face, which then tends to lead to him not being your boss any more....

Modifié par Kaellanen, 21 janvier 2011 - 01:50 .

[Thicos]

maybe because it will have less of everything.



less skills

less spells

less talents

less specializations

less customizations

less races to main player

less hours in game



what else will have fewer options in the game?

[Piecake]

Deadmac wrote...

Piecake wrote...
overreaction to the extreme.

Not for one minute. When a company resorts to 'tiny' promotions to make cash, they are doing everything possible to make a buck. Its sick.

They are including small incentives to increase sales that wont have any effect on the quality of either game.  I fail to see the problem in this.  They are a freakin company, and if they arent trying to increase the sales of their products then they arent doing their job.  If your principles are offended by a gaming company trying to increase its sales then you should look to changing those.  Its quite romantic picturing gaming companies like starving artists/bands only caring about their craft, but it simply isnt realistic because a company is responsible to and for so much more. 

Modifié par Piecake, 21 janvier 2011 - 01:55 .

[Deadmac]

Kaellanen wrote...

@Deadmac: Ah, but you are accusing Bioware. Bioware is now answerable to EA. And when the boss comes in and says, "I have this stupid idea that I think is great and we're going to roll with it!" you have two options. Option one, if you like your job and want to continue to put food in your mouth, is to answer, "Why, that stupid idea is the best stupid idea I've ever heard! Let's totally rock that out!" Option two involves laughing in your bosses' face, which then tends to lead to him not being your boss any more....

BioWare is a division of EA. They are one and the same company. You cannot divide the two. Same company different building.

Second, I updated my last post. There might be something else that is driving this.

http://social.biowar...7150/17#5789825

Modifié par Deadmac, 21 janvier 2011 - 01:56 .

[JFarr74]

Okay let's all settle down. We're just trying to discuss whether the armor looks weird or not and if it's worth getting. I mean, I don't know about some people, but I don't feel upgrading my dexterity and cunning to wear the armor unless I'm a rouge (which I won't be, I'll be a mage)

[JamesX]

Il Divo wrote...

JamesX wrote...

It is the same as if Bioware just decided that The 6 origins will be 100% of the game and have "seperate team" develop everything that happen after that as DLC

You basically just compared paying for a few hours of optional content in DA2 to paying for what amounts to 95% of the game in DA:O.

I think you have missed my point completely.  The point is the content is arbitary decided by Bioware.  But yes, Bioware can very well decide to say "DA2 will be as long as 1 hour DLC" and make that the entire game.  It is their choice.  It probably will not sell well, so they would not make such a decision.  The point is that THEY CAN.  So anyone saying "Shale" or "That Archery guy from DA2" is "additional" content, is pretty pointless.  What they are really saying is "Bioware wanted/decided to sell that part seperately."

Modifié par JamesX, 21 janvier 2011 - 02:03 .

[In Exile]

Il Divo wrote...
For a few reasons, one primarily being that DA2 in comparison to DA:O marks a comparative shift from silent to voiced protagonist. The Witcher (from what I've gathered) began with a VA so the Witcher 2 also featuring a VA isn't as troublesome. DA:O however involved a silent protagonist so the inclusion of a VA makes them think that the days of the silent protagonist are gone, even if they enjoy voice-acting. Refusing/holding off on buying DA2 for a time is a form of protest.

That shouldn't matter if you like the feature. Again - if you like the feature in itself, then changing from a feature you like to another feature you like should not lead to an overall calculus of "Not Buying".

Here's an analogy: I enjoy having ketchup on my cheeseburgers and I enjoy chocolate syrup on my ice cream, but I don't enjoy ketchup on my ice cream nor chocolate syrup on my cheeseburgers. 

But it's a terrible analogy. It pretends the features are consumed toghether instead of being separable.

Some might think that DA:O (a cheeseburger) works well with the silent protagonist (ketchup). Including a VA however is like putting chocolate syrup on a cheeseburger, if you catch my meaning.

This, at least, is how I think the reasoning goes. I however personally like the VA featured in DA2.

But that isn't how the reasoning goes. No one says "DA2 sucks because PC VO doesn't work with full-party control."

People say things like "how dare DA2 change its direction and get features xyz"; "I'm going to buy the Witcher 2 (which has features xyz and takes the further than DA2) instead!"

[errant_knight]

I think assuming that Bioware is in trouble, or that this isn't the game they wanted to make is reaching. We have no reason to think that. I may dislike all the changes, each one might take away from the kind of gameplay I enjoy most, but there's a market for it out there. I'm just not it. There are as many people who are thrilled with what they see as dismayed, and from everything we've been told, DA2 is a direct result of some people's complaints and market testing. What I don't understand is why they spent 5 years making DA:O what it is, only to decide that was a poor model immediately after release, and even with the awards and high sales numbers. That confuses me. It also saddens me as I thought it was the best game model I'd ever encountered. Tweaks, sure, but drastic change? No....

[AlexXIV]

Thicos wrote...

maybe because it will have less of everything.

less skills
less spells
less talents
less specializations
less customizations
less races to main player
less hours in game

what else will have fewer options in the game?

dialogue options

But you should remember that quality goes over quantity. So we have less quantity, let's check the quality.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 21 janvier 2011 - 02:04 .

[Kaellanen]

@Deadmac: And while I understand your point my friend, I would like to point out that what's decided higher up in the company isn't always popular or accepted in lower levels. How many of Bioware's people sit on EA's Board of Directors, and how great of a say do they have in company decision making? But we have wandered far from the topic. If you'd like to discuss company policy and corporate ethics, PM me, I enjoy a spirited conversation!



As to your other point about costs behind the scenes fueling this addon, I think you might be on to something. Everything I've heard about the Old Republic has been huge and ambitious, and would drain anyone's resources. The real question is if Lucas himself is helping out. The man has more money than God (or at least Buddah anyway), and could go a long way toward defraying expenses. The funny thing is if Bioware can keep their heads above water, when the game does come out, it'll be like they're printing their own money. Star Wars fans will gleefully kill small defenseless forest critters with Force Lightning for even a mediocre game. Look how popular Galaxies was, and that game was terrible, If Old Republic comes true with even half of what t's promised, I'm betting money you'll see more people walking around the streets wearing toy lightsabres.

[In Exile]

errant_knight wrote...

I think assuming that Bioware is in trouble, or that this isn't the game they wanted to make is reaching. We have no reason to think that. I may dislike all the changes, each one might take away from the kind of gameplay I enjoy most, but there's a market for it out there. I'm just not it. There are as many people who are thrilled with what they see as dismayed, and from everything we've been told, DA2 is a direct result of some people's complaints and market testing. What I don't understand is why they spent 5 years making DA:O what it is, only to decide that was a poor model immediately after release, and even with the awards and high sales numbers. That confuses me. It also saddens me as I thought it was the best game model I'd ever encountered. Tweaks, sure, but drastic change? No....

I think you are essentially not giving Bioware credit as designers. They may legitimately care about a certain design. Keep in mind, lots of things change in 5 years. DA:O was a game that started developed after KoTOR was released and before Jade Empire.

[Il Divo]

JamesX wrote...

I think you have missed my point completely.  The point is the content is arbitary decided by Bioware.  But yes, Bioware can very well decide to say "DA2 will be as long as 1 hour DLC" and make that the entire game.  It is their choice.  It probably will not sell well, so they would not make such a decision.  The point is that THEY CAN.  So anyone saying "Shale" or "That Archery guy from DA2" is "additional" content, is pretty pointless.  What they are really saying is "Bioware wanted/decided to sell that part seperately."

But it does constitute additional content.

If Bioware had simply decided to sell that part of the game separately, it would have followed this design:

Start writing Dragon Age 2-->Write Sebastian's Character---> Decide to separate him as dlc. --> Release separately.

In this case, I would agree with everyone here that it's a problem; the character was clearly ripped from the game and so they are being forced to pay additional money for content which was originally planned as part of the product.

But that wasn't the design philosophy. Here's what happened (from what I understand):


Start writing + decide to create separate dlc-->continue writing story + other characters---> release game.

                                        |
                                        |
                                        \\/
                                     Write Sebastian's character + quest--->Integrate content to fit main game---> release dlc.

Following this design philosophy, Sebastian would never have existed in the first place if Bioware didn't decide to make dlc, hence why he especially can be constituted as additional content. The only difference is Sebastian would not have existed if they did not decide to create a dlc. Integrating Sebastian so that he has interparty dialogue,a motivation, etc, is not the same thing as him being included from the start. With no dlc, we all lose because there is no extra content for anyone.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 21 janvier 2011 - 02:20 .

[Kaellanen]

@errant_knight: I would like to submitt the idea that we can't really make an informed decision yet on how radically different DA2 is versus DA:O. I know I sound like a howling looney, but allow me to explain. The actual parts of the game we've seen so far have been rather sparse. And while I agree that these things do seem to point to a totally different experience, I would argue that we've seen them out of context. Cosmetically, evrything is different because of the new art direction, so that I will freely agree comes down to personal prefereance. I would also like to point out that everyone who's actually played the game so far has been nothing short of enthusiastic about it. Would you be apposed to reserving judgement until we get better clips from the game?

[Poaches]

It could simply be that Bioware wishes to move towards a console centric market. They switched to using the unreal engine this time around. And Epic Games had said in more ways than one they want to focus their tech towards consoles and shed the PC market.

I'll just assume all these changes are streamlining to be more console friendly.

Modifié par Poaches, 21 janvier 2011 - 02:21 .

[Brockololly]

errant_knight wrote...
 What I don't understand is why they spent 5 years making DA:O what it is, only to decide that was a poor model immediately after release, and even with the awards and high sales numbers. That confuses me. It also saddens me as I thought it was the best game model I'd ever encountered. Tweaks, sure, but drastic change? No....

Well, you have to take into account that DA2 has a different executive producer and lead designer than Origins. The guys responsible for Origins left BioWare once the PC version of Origins was finished. And it would seem they started work on DA2 well before Origins was even released. So they likely laid the foundation for all these Mass Effect inspired changes before Origins was released and, oh, you know, became their best selling game ever.

[errant_knight]

In Exile wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

I think assuming that Bioware is in trouble, or that this isn't the game they wanted to make is reaching. We have no reason to think that. I may dislike all the changes, each one might take away from the kind of gameplay I enjoy most, but there's a market for it out there. I'm just not it. There are as many people who are thrilled with what they see as dismayed, and from everything we've been told, DA2 is a direct result of some people's complaints and market testing. What I don't understand is why they spent 5 years making DA:O what it is, only to decide that was a poor model immediately after release, and even with the awards and high sales numbers. That confuses me. It also saddens me as I thought it was the best game model I'd ever encountered. Tweaks, sure, but drastic change? No....

I think you are essentially not giving Bioware credit as designers. They may legitimately care about a certain design. Keep in mind, lots of things change in 5 years. DA:O was a game that started developed after KoTOR was released and before Jade Empire.

Well, it's hard to believe that they still find value in the DA:O model when they've removed or changed so much of it. I have to assume that they changed their minds somewhere along the way. I could understand it if DA:O was unsuccessful, but it wasn't even remotely so.

[errant_knight]

Kaellanen wrote...

@errant_knight: I would like to submitt the idea that we can't really make an informed decision yet on how radically different DA2 is versus DA:O. I know I sound like a howling looney, but allow me to explain. The actual parts of the game we've seen so far have been rather sparse. And while I agree that these things do seem to point to a totally different experience, I would argue that we've seen them out of context. Cosmetically, evrything is different because of the new art direction, so that I will freely agree comes down to personal prefereance. I would also like to point out that everyone who's actually played the game so far has been nothing short of enthusiastic about it. Would you be apposed to reserving judgement until we get better clips from the game?

Heh, you had me at 'howling looney.' Okay, for you, I shall reserve judgement, just because you made me laugh.

[Morroian]

[

Deadmac wrote...

Added Portion...
I wonder if this is the result of the high cost to make "The Old Republic". 

Bioware aren't making Dead Space 2 how is selling a few more copies of that due to the DA2 code going to help Bioware?

EA yes.

[slimgrin]

I have no outright hate for Dragon Age 2. Some skepticism, yes, along with one overriding, dreadful fear: they are deliberately targeting a younger age group than they were with Dragon Age: Origins. This does indeed worry me. DA:O was essentially a game for young adults and adults. It wasn't a game for kids. I want adult subject matter, adult dialog, with adult decisions; I want to be confronted with dilemmas that make me draw from my experience of being older than 16.

You'll notice how nicely I worded this, ser Laidlaw. Such a polite post....how can you not respond? :innocent:

I'd start a new thread because I would love a dev response. I really do think its an important topic. My threads tend to bomb quick so I won't bother, but I do think I'll keep subtly nagging on this topic till I get Laidlaw to lay my fears to rest.

Modifié par slimgrin, 21 janvier 2011 - 02:47 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Thicos wrote...

maybe because it will have less of everything.

less skills
less spells
less talents
less specializations
less customizations
less races to main player
less hours in game

what else will have fewer options in the game?

All of those are subjective. Especially the length of the game. It's futile to compare one game's features to the next, even a sequel's, if Game B is not even out yet.

[Morroian]

Poaches wrote...

It could simply be that Bioware wishes to move towards a console centric market. They switched to using the unreal engine this time around.

DA2 isn't using the unreal engine, they're using the same engine as for DAO.