152 réponses à ce sujet

[didymos1120]

Gatt9 wrote...

You're assuming development on the sequel starts on the day of release,  actually,  it's the first few weeks of sales that determines it.  So knock 2-3 months off any estimate you might make. 

No, work on ME3 was already underway before ME2 released. Same goes for DA2 and DA:O. If either game had totally failed, then that work would have stopped, but they're not gonna waste a bunch of time sitting around waiting for the numbers when they can use that time to ramp up for the next in the series.

[Dynelven]

Arontala22 wrote...

Can you sort your post into paragraphs? It's quite cluttered, and kind of painful to read ( Not literally, mind you.)

You didn't quote anyone, so who exactly are you talking about?

If it's me (because my posts are usually very long), then I'm not sure what you're talking about. My posts appear in paragraph formto me, and I couldn't find ANYONE in the last 2 pages who didn't format their post correctly.

[Encarmine]

Well after thinking about things i have read here, i prefer that EA own Bioware and not Activision/Blizzard. Its Activision that really went out of its way to make the gaming industry all the about the money.

Also, most of my favorite titles are in the EA house, and many of the developers are awesom like Bioware in delivering great games.

[HawXV2]

There is nothing wrong with EA. What is wrong with you people? You're like a bunch of little kids that are watching mommy marry again. I for one haven't seen a decrease of quality from any BioWare games since the EA purchase. You guys just can't accept the fact that BioWare is trying something new. Origins doesn't have that much more content than DA2, and it was in development 5 times longer. I really like EA. They've published some great games, and without them, I don't think we would see a lot of them.

[Tommy6860]

sedeyus wrote...

I feel kinda weird posting this because I do think Dragon Age 2 was a good game. I'm not one of these people who hated DA2 because the main character speaks. And aside from the crappy ending, the story was good and I'll play the third game. But it's a difference between a three-star review and a four-star review for me.  You can definitely see where EA's whip marks are showing up on Bioware's products. Both Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2 have felt like really good expansion packs. Both games are full of instances where you can tell Bioware were under orders to make things "simpler". Both have a ridiculous amount of DLC. Both had endings that were completely structured to make you buy the third game. At least Bioware has always been upfront that Mass Effect is a trilogy. In Dragon Age's case, if you wanna drop the Warden's story and make up a new character, that's fine. But give them a satisfying ending. Not a trailer for Dragon Age 3: The Search for More Money.
I can't really blame Bioware in this. I think they're being forced to meet some very brutal deadlines. It was EIGHT months between DAO and DA2 releases. Compare that to three years and seven months between The Witcher and The Witcher 2. Or the five years between the Elder Scroll games. You cannot make a truly satisfying sequel in that time frame.

Actually it was more like 16 months between the releases of Origins (Nov 2009) and DA2 (Mar 2011) , but that is still not enough time and definitely rushed. The Witcher 2 I am undecided, but they are still an independent eveloper, so I may go there anyway, as I loved TW. But to add a bigger exclamation point to the time lines between releases, is that of Oblivion and Skyrim. By the time Skyrim is released, it will have been nearly 6 years between the two, so I am really hopeful for this and the game engine is a totally different one that was created specifically for Skyrim. Also, Bethesda will be diving deep into developing (and obviously publishing) Fallout 4 (thank the Maker that Obisidian doesn't have that task considering how atrocious Vegas was) and that will more than likely be 4-5 years between Fallout 3 and then 4. You can bet that the Skyrim engine is used for Fallout 4. The engine used for Fallout 3 and Vegas is the same (though a bit modified) engine that did Oblivion

Modifié par Tommy6860, 12 mars 2011 - 07:05 .

[this isnt my name]

Encarmine wrote...

Well after thinking about things i have read here, i prefer that EA own Bioware and not Activision/Blizzard. Its Activision that really went out of its way to make the gaming industry all the about the money.

Also, most of my favorite titles are in the EA house, and many of the developers are awesom like Bioware in delivering great games.

They were better with M$, ,look at ME1, now ME2.
But best imo is Zeni max, look at skyrim, they dont rush games.

[Tommy6860]

didymos1120 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

You're assuming development on the sequel starts on the day of release,  actually,  it's the first few weeks of sales that determines it.  So knock 2-3 months off any estimate you might make. 

No, work on ME3 was already underway before ME2 released. Same goes for DA2 and DA:O. If either game had totally failed, then that work would have stopped, but they're not gonna waste a bunch of time sitting around waiting for the numbers when they can use that time to ramp up for the next in the series.

 

This is true and has been stated by the former lead designer of Origins back in August of 2009 when he left Bioware over too many changes to Origins going into DA2.

[HawXV2]

Tommy6860 wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

You're assuming development on the sequel starts on the day of release,  actually,  it's the first few weeks of sales that determines it.  So knock 2-3 months off any estimate you might make. 

No, work on ME3 was already underway before ME2 released. Same goes for DA2 and DA:O. If either game had totally failed, then that work would have stopped, but they're not gonna waste a bunch of time sitting around waiting for the numbers when they can use that time to ramp up for the next in the series.

 

This is true and has been stated by the former lead designer of Origins back in August of 2009 when he left Bioware over too many changes to Origins going into DA2.

Before the EA buy-out.

[AlphaJarmel]

@Gatt9

EA almost certainly gave the green light for ME3 before launch of ME2. Bioware was already planning for ME3 when they designed 2 so really if sales had been horrible, EA in that case would have just stopped the development that was already going on. I spoke with Jesse Houston a three weeks before ME2 came out and it seemed they were already in the early planning stages. It sounded like they weren't sure how they were going to handle certain stuff but they were definitely starting to work on it. Also supposedly some of the development time associated with ME2 was given to continuing the story in ME3(I can't remember the source for this part though).

[Pyrate_d]

It's kind of obvious that DA2 was rushed--even if it was 2 years of full time development (which I doubt VERY much) that's shorter than I'd like

like the OP said, it's a good game, but it could have been great---it has all the ingredients to be great

[Autoclave]

The question is, how could Bioware shareholders even consider let EA take over. There were plenty of examples how EA destroyed companies like Westwood after the acquisition. Look what they did to C&C franchise.

[MaximusPhoenix]

Can some please explain to me, in a nutshell what happened with this whole EA/Bioware merger or whatever happened,...and why it needed to happen? Don't really feel like spending the next 7 hours reading Wikipedia or something....was it cuz Bioware needed money or something?

[Tommy6860]

HawXV2 wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

You're assuming development on the sequel starts on the day of release,  actually,  it's the first few weeks of sales that determines it.  So knock 2-3 months off any estimate you might make. 

No, work on ME3 was already underway before ME2 released. Same goes for DA2 and DA:O. If either game had totally failed, then that work would have stopped, but they're not gonna waste a bunch of time sitting around waiting for the numbers when they can use that time to ramp up for the next in the series.

 

This is true and has been stated by the former lead designer of Origins back in August of 2009 when he left Bioware over too many changes to Origins going into DA2.

Before the EA buy-out.

No, this is almost two years after the EA buy-out. EA bought
out Bioware a month before Mass Effect was released (Nov. 2007). If
what you say were true, then Mass Effect on PC, would not have EA on
the splash screen and case as being the copyright owner, and the PC version
came out in May of 2008. The designer I mentioned left in Aug 2009, nearly two years after the EA buy-out.

[Avo999]

cosgamer wrote...

DustArma wrote...

joriandrake wrote...

DustArma wrote...

jenovaproject wrote...

So long as they learn, it will be okay.

Will they? Who knows. You won't get anything but lawyerspeak.

Who, EA or Bioware? Because it seemed like EA was learning, see: Mirror's Edge, Dead Space, Dead Space 2, Battlefield Bad Company 2, NFS Hot Pursuit, Crysis, Crysis Warhead.

All of those were good or great games, and all of those were done under EA's watch (with the exception of Crysis that was partially in development when they got Crytek)

all of those were shooters or racing games, not RPG-s

Mirror's Edge was a First Person Parkour game (or FP Platformer) with light combat (most of it done hand to hand), and Dead Space was a survival-horror-ish game, both of those were brand new IPs, something that EA hadn't done in years.

Why should the genre matter? I'm only stating that EA was better, or that it looked like they were, because of games like I mentioned.

I'm not defending them though, I'm honestly even more baffled than you guys by this whole situation .

Why does genre matter?  Because RPGs are a different animal.  A successful RPG is rich, deep, complicated and enthralling.

It takes time to do a game like that.  That's why a lot of companies who do them don't do them well and why a lot of other companies don't attempt it.  They don't want to invest the time and money, would rather do something that has a quick turn around time.

CD Projekt (while the Witcher isn't a true RPG, it shares many elements and is a dark and intricate tale) along with a few others, thank goodness, do the right thing.

^ well put... Just like since EA bought Westwood studios it's been all down hill for RA and C&C rts's

[Pakuska]

sedeyus wrote...
Stuff.

I kinda agree, I can understand the need for money, but EA takes it to such a high level.. I am totally fine with DLC and expansions, because quite honestly.. Games are my hobby, and if I enjoy the game, I do not mind paying extra for 2 hour extra of fun. I directly support the game developers with my money, which will hopefully mean that they will make more, and/or a sequel. I still havent completed DA 2 and ive been playing for about 3 days. I love it to hell but I agree that you can clearly see that EA's whip has hit them hard.

In a sense of "bioware quality" it does not fit... content wise that is, the recycled content and stuff (which I feel like isnt as important as people make it seem it is), but story wise, I think it does a great job involving you in it and captivating you. And I truly hope, EA will give them a lot more time to work on DA 3, I dont care if I have to wait 5 more years like The elder scrolls... I just want my morrigan answers. :[

And a bioware that is free of EA and has an infinite amount of money.

[FellowerOfOdin]

Blizzard should have bought Bioware and we'd see much better games. No innovation? Who cares, why fix something that isn't broken?

[didymos1120]

Tommy6860 wrote...

This is true and has been stated by the former lead designer of Origins back in August of 2009 when he left Bioware over too many changes to Origins going into DA2.

Yeah, that's not why Brent Knowles left Bioware. That's just forum urban legend.  To be sure, it is why he didn't work on DA2, but he stayed on at Bioware for months after leaving the DA team. It wasn't until a new game project he'd been working on fell through and there was nothing else lined up for him that he quit.  See his blog post on the subject:

http://blog.brentkno...08-summer-2009/

Modifié par didymos1120, 12 mars 2011 - 01:09 .

[Mox Ruuga]

Autoclave wrote...

The question is, how could Bioware shareholders even consider let EA take over. There were plenty of examples how EA destroyed companies like Westwood after the acquisition. Look what they did to C&C franchise.

The beloved Ultima series, among others like the Wing Commander series, were made by Origin systems.

Then EA happened, read and weep:

http://www.escapistm...quest-of-Origin

[sedeyus]

HawXV2 wrote...

 Origins doesn't have that much more content than DA2, and it was in development 5 times longer. I really like EA. They've published some great games, and without them, I don't think we would see a lot of them.

But it's a question of the quality of that content, not the quanity. I think a true sequel should take a franchise ahead technically and mechanically. DA2 doesn't do that. Bioware essentially just made a series of trade-offs between DA and DA2. More reactive companions? Companions can't change outfits. Save-game importing? No real variation in the main-storyline. More content? Having to re-use a massive amount of levels. Don't get me started on the combat which nobody really had a problem with in the first place. If DA2 had been released as an expansion pack for $30, the complaints wouldn't be there. They didn't. They released it for $60 as a sequel, not to mention the legion of DLC coming to actually complete the story.
What's really sad, I don't think the situation is gonna get that much better. If DA2 does what ME2 did and builds on the financial success of its predecessor, then we'll probably have DA3 by next May. If the sales go down, EA probably forces Bioware away from the series.

Modifié par sedeyus, 12 mars 2011 - 02:19 .

[Massefeckt]

EA basically takes over a company squeezes it for all the cash it can, ruins the reputation then moves on to the next company. They've done it for years, theres the odd good game here and there but they tend to be the exception not the rule.