286 réponses à ce sujet

[Stanley Woo]

Killa2k wrote...

1) if u needed a longer development cycle to improve the game why not put of the release date till uve completed the game and made into a vision of near perfection like alot of your other titles ?

Without deadlines, you get feature creep and you begin to get unfocused. We are still trying to improve the way we make games, so with every project, we do things slightly differently. You can see the kinds of things we tried on Dragon Age II by listening to some of the interviews of Mike Laidlaw and Mark Darrah.

Games always need a longer development cycle. There is never enough time to make the game the "vision of near perfection" that you want. Sometimes it works out beautifully, and sometimes we need more work. I, for one, am proud of what we accomplished with Dragon Age II and I look forward to playing it when time permits. Others may disagree, and that's fine. It's a very different animal than Origins was. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is up to the individual player to decide, and that's one reason we have these forums: so you can tell us.

2) So you are are reading the majority of complaints and taking stock so the majority of the people that have bought your games for ONE HELL OF a long time and baysically funded your rise to where you are now are going to be at least slightley happier with your future releases.

None of that is meant rudley im just being forward. I have every intention of buying ME3 and any expansions for any other titles and even a DA3 if one comes about which im sure will happen after the ending of DA2, and would love not to suffer this overall level of dissapointment again since i litterally wait for your releases to come out.

I can't promise that we will always agree on what make s a game great, or that you will always love the games we produce. But we will always strive to improve on what we did before, and we will always be passionate about the games we make, because we're gamers too. And we will always be open to feedback from our community.

Just, you know, try to keep the screaming to a dull roar, please. Thank you.

[Galad22]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Games always need a longer development cycle. There is never enough time to make the game the "vision of near perfection" that you want. Sometimes it works out beautifully, and sometimes we need more work. I, for one, am proud of what we accomplished with Dragon Age II and I look forward to playing it when time permits. Others may disagree, and that's fine. It's a very different animal than Origins was. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is up to the individual player to decide, and that's one reason we have these forums: so you can tell us.

Is your deadline set by bioware or by EA? I am curious which one I should be blaming for disappointing me with DA2?

In my opinion at least you didn't have enough time to properly make DA2.

Frankly I'd like to blame EA since it is easier.

Really I do like most Bioware games and I am your loyal customer, this time around however I was disappointed.
So I apologise if I sound extremely rude here. It is not my intention.

Modifié par Galad22, 15 mars 2011 - 06:47 .

[Darkshore]

By implementing this Bioware has increased the overall uniqueness of their characters. If someone has used a certain weapon set their entire life....well there going to want to stick with it. It makes more sense story wise and with how in-depth these characters are I find it works. That said I did like being able to mix and match my party the way i saw fit in dao from a strategy standpoint. They just went a different way with it this time. It's there game they make it the way they want to. They want to cater to the largest playerbase they cannot give you specifically everything you wanted. The rage needs to stop, just calmly explain what you liked or disliked. They will listen, you do not have to be an (umbrella).

[AkiKishi]

Galad22 wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Games always need a longer development cycle. There is never enough time to make the game the "vision of near perfection" that you want. Sometimes it works out beautifully, and sometimes we need more work. I, for one, am proud of what we accomplished with Dragon Age II and I look forward to playing it when time permits. Others may disagree, and that's fine. It's a very different animal than Origins was. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is up to the individual player to decide, and that's one reason we have these forums: so you can tell us.

Is your deadline set by bioware or by EA? I am curious which one I should be blaming for disappointing me with DA2?

In my opinion at least you didn't have enough time to properly make DA2.

Frankly I'd like to blame EA since it is easier.

Deadlines are set by the publisher, sometimes a developer will promise a shorter deadline if the publisher is shopping around. Not in this case though.

[Killa2k]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Killa2k wrote...

1) if u needed a longer development cycle to improve the game why not put of the release date till uve completed the game and made into a vision of near perfection like alot of your other titles ?

Without deadlines, you get feature creep and you begin to get unfocused. We are still trying to improve the way we make games, so with every project, we do things slightly differently. You can see the kinds of things we tried on Dragon Age II by listening to some of the interviews of Mike Laidlaw and Mark Darrah.

Games always need a longer development cycle. There is never enough time to make the game the "vision of near perfection" that you want. Sometimes it works out beautifully, and sometimes we need more work. I, for one, am proud of what we accomplished with Dragon Age II and I look forward to playing it when time permits. Others may disagree, and that's fine. It's a very different animal than Origins was. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is up to the individual player to decide, and that's one reason we have these forums: so you can tell us.

2) So you are are reading the majority of complaints and taking stock so the majority of the people that have bought your games for ONE HELL OF a long time and baysically funded your rise to where you are now are going to be at least slightley happier with your future releases.

None of that is meant rudley im just being forward. I have every intention of buying ME3 and any expansions for any other titles and even a DA3 if one comes about which im sure will happen after the ending of DA2, and would love not to suffer this overall level of dissapointment again since i litterally wait for your releases to come out.

I can't promise that we will always agree on what make s a game great, or that you will always love the games we produce. But we will always strive to improve on what we did before, and we will always be passionate about the games we make, because we're gamers too. And we will always be open to feedback from our community.

Just, you know, try to keep the screaming to a dull roar, please. Thank you.

NPS and thx very very much for the reply.
I agree that all games may need more time and may not be a litteral perfect game on release. Maybe that came across a bit 2 litterally it just seams that the stadards im used to as 1 of the no doubt many ppl that have been buying Bioware releases for so long now. aka getting u to where are ( also sounds a bit over the top i knw  XD ) but my point stands that im used to alot more from your dev teams. I dont completely dislike DA2 i think it has alot of good merits of its own and yes it is definatley a totally different monster than DA:O maybe that was a mistake maybe it wasnt time will tell . maybe if it hadnt been a DA title it would have been taken on its own merits alot more than DA2 clearlly is by alot of your more hardcore fans. My real query about the time limit is it wouldnt be the first title thats had its release date put back and with so many fans rallying around your releases maybe taking a bit more time would have made alot more people happy. Tbh i would hope this deadline was set by EA and not by yourselves but thats an opinion.

Modifié par Killa2k, 15 mars 2011 - 06:51 .

[Zeta Lyrae]

Stanley Woo wrote...


Having a comparatively short developement cycle means that we either had to work faster and/or on a smaller scale. Faster was already a given, what with time being inexorable and linear and all, but a smaller scale means sacrifices, compromises, and cuts compared to the original, gigantic, epic game.

I'm saddened to hear that you were under heavy time restrictions.

But if you don't have sufficient time to polish a game properly, then I don't have $60 to support you with.

I can only hope that DA3 will not end this way.

[marcbenigni]

We may have done a great job by you, Galad22, but we may also have frustrated Joe Gamer over there. If we change things, Joe Gamer is finally satisfied but you, Galad22, are disappointed. If you two have such diverse tastes or preferences in games, then one of you is bound to be disappointed no matter what feture we implement or how we do it. so we can either continue to disappoint but one of you, or we might try to change things so both are disappointed but less so.

I certainly get that you can't please all of the people all of the time. But if I had a blockbuster hit like DA:O on my hands and had to decide how best to address the problem, I think I would either a) release a sequel that presented the same strengths as the first game, guaranteed to appeal to a sizeable, established customer base (i.e. the bird in the hand), or release a new game, with a new title.

As for the development cycle, the fact that it was so tight makes it even more puzzling to me that so many wheels were reinvented (moreso since so many are IMO less round.) Again, if I absolutely had to rush a sequel to market, and I already had a blockbuster hit on my hands, I would likely leverage as much of the existing design and codebase as possible, and focus on the considerable content (story, artwork, etc) that any RPG demands.

Not that I don't respect the attempt at innovation, but I think this speaks to the previous points about Bioware perhaps having bit off more than they could chew in the time allotted.

[Mr11]

 

 I, for one, am proud of what we accomplished with Dragon Age II and I look forward to playing it when time permits

How can you say that you are proud of something that you haven't even played?  That's like an artist saying he is proud of his painting that he has never seen.  I am not of the opinion that this game is a pile of crap that deserves a 2/10, however what I am of the opinion of is that this game does NOT, I repeat does NOT live up to the Bioware standard that I have come accustomed to.  I can see how you would not agree with that given that you have not played the game.

My biggest gripes in case you want to address them:

• Lack of customization with party members (I don't want to do anything wacky, just allow them to wear better equipment than they have!).  Also, many of the items I find in the game don't get me excited like they would in most RPGs.  All of the daggers/equipment look too similiar :/
• Bugs (I have a seperate thread on the bugs I have encountered in the game)
• The Stores/Crafting/Alchemy stuff is very fuzzy to me.  I can't remember where half of the vendors are and the map shows some information but it isn't enough information at a glance.
• The side quests seem inconsequential (maybe they will come into play later in the game?)

Currently I am in the deep roads so maybe things will come together (story wise) later.  The other things I mentioned though still bug me a lot though and make the game feel unpolished.

[Aurgelmir]

If Bioware could be as honest and forthright on the rest of the forum as they are here then I don't think they would have such a problem.

If it was a shortened development cycle to blame then I can see their point of view, what I take issue with is them taking away a feature and then calling it another feature i.e. They've taken away the abiltiy to equip companions with armour so as to give them a 'personal feel', when really you've taken it away so you can focus your time on something else.

[Aesieru]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Killa2k wrote...

1) if u needed a longer development cycle to improve the game why not put of the release date till uve completed the game and made into a vision of near perfection like alot of your other titles ?

Without deadlines, you get feature creep and you begin to get unfocused. We are still trying to improve the way we make games, so with every project, we do things slightly differently. You can see the kinds of things we tried on Dragon Age II by listening to some of the interviews of Mike Laidlaw and Mark Darrah.

Games always need a longer development cycle. There is never enough time to make the game the "vision of near perfection" that you want. Sometimes it works out beautifully, and sometimes we need more work. I, for one, am proud of what we accomplished with Dragon Age II and I look forward to playing it when time permits. Others may disagree, and that's fine. It's a very different animal than Origins was. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is up to the individual player to decide, and that's one reason we have these forums: so you can tell us.

2) So you are are reading the majority of complaints and taking stock so the majority of the people that have bought your games for ONE HELL OF a long time and baysically funded your rise to where you are now are going to be at least slightley happier with your future releases.

None of that is meant rudley im just being forward. I have every intention of buying ME3 and any expansions for any other titles and even a DA3 if one comes about which im sure will happen after the ending of DA2, and would love not to suffer this overall level of dissapointment again since i litterally wait for your releases to come out.

I can't promise that we will always agree on what make s a game great, or that you will always love the games we produce. But we will always strive to improve on what we did before, and we will always be passionate about the games we make, because we're gamers too. And we will always be open to feedback from our community.

Just, you know, try to keep the screaming to a dull roar, please. Thank you.

Yes, but you apparently used your time pretty poorly in the opinion of the majority of your previous customers.

What they also expect is that if you had not aligned with EA, you would not have had this ... abomination of a BioWare game come out (it is an abomination of a BioWare game because it is expected for you to be BETTER than this).

Even if it is EA's fault... it still maintains to be yours as well.

You have to understand, EA doesn't have a single point of reputation that's good... they've killed well known RTS companies such as Westwood, which brought us the Command and Conquer series and now... has been milked dry and (had to be rebooted a second time). They've killed numerous other games as well.

I think the only good thing EA has going is Dead Space... and I'm not even sure about that.

[AkiKishi]

marcbenigni wrote...
I certainly get that you can't please all of the people all of the time. But if I had a blockbuster hit like DA:O on my hands and had to decide how best to address the problem, I think I would either a) release a sequel that presented the same strengths as the first game, guaranteed to appeal to a sizeable, established customer base (i.e. the bird in the hand), or release a new game, with a new title.

As for the development cycle, the fact that it was so tight makes it even more puzzling to me that so many wheels were reinvented (moreso since so many are IMO less round.) Again, if I absolutely had to rush a sequel to market, and I already had a blockbuster hit on my hands, I would likely leverage as much of the existing design and codebase as possible, and focus on the considerable content (story, artwork, etc) that any RPG demands.

Not that I don't respect the attempt at innovation, but I think this speaks to the previous points about Bioware perhaps having bit off more than they could chew in the time allotted.

Thats the point.. You can't make DAO2 in that time frame. But you can make something with more mass market appeal for a less discerning demographic.

Like notice how combat is sped up ? Notice how less people notice that all the interactions like dodge,block and parry are gone ? 
Even though combat has changed it's a lot simpler visually than it was in DA.

The gamble is how many people will just go along with the new changes and how many will just give up on you. This is VERY similiar to what happened to Westwood.

[Kandid001]

 

 I, for one, am proud of what we accomplished with Dragon Age II and I look forward to playing it when time permits

I am proud of curing AIDS, I'll get to it when I have free time.

[Galad22]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Galad22 wrote...

Is your deadline set by bioware or by EA? I am curious which one I should be blaming for disappointing me with DA2?

In my opinion at least you didn't have enough time to properly make DA2.

Frankly I'd like to blame EA since it is easier.

Deadlines are set by the publisher, sometimes a developer will promise a shorter deadline if the publisher is shopping around. Not in this case though.

Yes well I just remember that bioware said that EA wouldn't interfere Bioware business that much when these two merged. This really bothers me since fears at that time was that quality could very well suffer if bioware wasn't independent.

[Tirigon]

marcbenigni wrote...

You're not supposed to think. Just click the baddies.

Epic.

[Killa2k]

Kandid001 wrote...

 

 I, for one, am proud of what we accomplished with Dragon Age II and I look forward to playing it when time permits

I am proud of curing AIDS, I'll get to it when I have free time.

constructive? i think not

[Hreterus]

Stanley...

Do you really accept this:
 
"So you are are reading the majority of complaints and taking stock so
the majority of the people that have bought your games for ONE HELL OF a
long time and baysically funded your rise to where you are now are
going to be at least slightley happier with your future releases."

As if you guys owe these people something becouse they chose to buy your games?

They didn't buy your games out of charity (not that they should) they bought them becouse they wanted to. Just like you made it to make money and becouse you enjoy making games.

 

[KealaFerret]

Stanley Woo wrote...
One small, tiny feature may not mean much to the end-user, but it migth mean fundamental changes to the game for a developer. Features may have dependencies that are complex or extensive, as they are rarely as modular as people believe. Ultimately, it is a disagreement between us, the developer, and you, the player. We can only implement features a certain way; we can't create a system that will please everyone. As always, we do what we can witht he time and resources available and try to please as many people as we can. After the fact, we can pay attention to feedback, both here on the forums and elsewhere, and try to do better next time.

It's cost vs. benefit. Everything has a cost, and developers only have so many hours. Things need to be costed carefully. Cutting one thing because it would take massive dev resources can be better than cutting five different things, or possibly the other way around, too. You can't make everyone happy, and you can't overdo it - everyone wants to do everything. But as they say... you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need. There just isn't unlimited time, or a schedule set on "when we're done". I've seen developers claim "when we're done", but even then, there *is* a deadline. There is a flat out spot where something HAS to get done by. And sometimes, code or other aspects just limit what you can do, and doing something would require redoing a ton of stuff, and that just gets more painful.

As for comments about deadlines, deadlines are crucial. Not only to know when you're supposed to be done, but for checkpoints. Break it down into phases, workitems, tasks, and know when those are due. It's a roadmap to building software.

[Killa2k]

Hreterus wrote...

Stanley...

Do you really accept this:
 
"So you are are reading the majority of complaints and taking stock so
the majority of the people that have bought your games for ONE HELL OF a
long time and baysically funded your rise to where you are now are
going to be at least slightley happier with your future releases."

As if you guys owe these people something becouse they chose to buy your games?

They didn't buy your games out of charity (not that they should) they bought them becouse they wanted to. Just like you made it to make money and becouse you enjoy making games.

 

If u start a business then 10 years down the line (for example) u decide to go down a slightly differnt road do u really want to totally drop all ur clients or do u try to keep ur existing ones as well as gain new ones?? its just good business sense

[CRISIS1717]

marcbenigni wrote...

You're not supposed to think. Just click the baddies.

lol sums up DA2

[Hreterus]

Killa2k wrote...

Hreterus wrote...

Stanley...

Do you really accept this:
 
"So you are are reading the majority of complaints and taking stock so
the majority of the people that have bought your games for ONE HELL OF a
long time and baysically funded your rise to where you are now are
going to be at least slightley happier with your future releases."

As if you guys owe these people something becouse they chose to buy your games?

They didn't buy your games out of charity (not that they should) they bought them becouse they wanted to. Just like you made it to make money and becouse you enjoy making games.

 

If u start a business then 10 years down the line (for example) u decide to go down a slightly differnt road do u really want to totally drop all ur clients or do u try to keep ur existing ones as well as gain new ones?? its just good business sense

That remains to be seen...

But what I take issue with is that some people seem to think they are entitled to it.

[Killa2k]

Hreterus wrote...

Killa2k wrote...

Hreterus wrote...

Stanley...

Do you really accept this:
 
"So you are are reading the majority of complaints and taking stock so
the majority of the people that have bought your games for ONE HELL OF a
long time and baysically funded your rise to where you are now are
going to be at least slightley happier with your future releases."

As if you guys owe these people something becouse they chose to buy your games?

They didn't buy your games out of charity (not that they should) they bought them becouse they wanted to. Just like you made it to make money and becouse you enjoy making games.

 

If u start a business then 10 years down the line (for example) u decide to go down a slightly differnt road do u really want to totally drop all ur clients or do u try to keep ur existing ones as well as gain new ones?? its just good business sense

That remains to be seen...

But what I take issue with is that some people seem to think they are entitled to it.

What i take "issue" with is people who think customer base loyalty is a bad thing... either way that questions been answered if got sumthing constructive to add please feel free to add it as clearlly u have a point of view that may or may not be of benefit  get ur 2 cents in everyone else is  

tbh what will really make or break the future is weather the X(amount that drop off due to the changes) outweights the Y+Z ( amount of new buyers that are bought into the series and the amount of people that remain= overall new client base) time will tell

Modifié par Killa2k, 15 mars 2011 - 07:14 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Stanley Woo wrote...

You can find armour upgrades for Fenris that "would be perfect for Fenris." All games have limitations. We can't cater to every individual's imagination.

"Cater".  Hmm... interesting word. 

Armor was more customizable in ME than in ME2.
Armor was more customizable in DA:O than in DA2. 

Whatever this is about, it's not about "catering".

[serthorn]

Stanley Woo wrote...

You can find armour upgrades for Fenris that "would be perfect for Fenris." All games have limitations. We can't cater to every individual's imagination.

Uhm... but the OP is talking about basic rpg features..is the dressing of party members so fancy for Bioware now ??

[Mr11]

Hreterus wrote...

Killa2k wrote...

Hreterus wrote...

Stanley...

Do you really accept this:
 
"So you are are reading the majority of complaints and taking stock so
the majority of the people that have bought your games for ONE HELL OF a
long time and baysically funded your rise to where you are now are
going to be at least slightley happier with your future releases."

As if you guys owe these people something becouse they chose to buy your games?

They didn't buy your games out of charity (not that they should) they bought them becouse they wanted to. Just like you made it to make money and becouse you enjoy making games.

 

If u start a business then 10 years down the line (for example) u decide to go down a slightly differnt road do u really want to totally drop all ur clients or do u try to keep ur existing ones as well as gain new ones?? its just good business sense

That remains to be seen...

But what I take issue with is that some people seem to think they are entitled to it.

The main problem I had as a consumer was the fact that I have grown accustomed to Bioware making games of stellar quality so much so that I am willing to shell out $60 to play a game they made, only to find out that the quality is not there (especially not $60 worth, are you kidding me?).  I am entitled to recieve whatever I get I suppose since I bought the game, but what I *expect* is something much better than this.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Tirigon wrote...

marcbenigni wrote...

You're not supposed to think. Just click the baddies.

Epic.

Indeed.  I want a game that's engaging and thoughtful and enjoyable and relaxing... not mindless.  Not that I'd call DA2 mindless.  But some of the more slavish defense of DA2 seems to be in the form of people praising it for a supposed mindlessness.