36 réponses à ce sujet

[AedenHawke]

 Dragon Age took seven years to make and that Dragon age 2 just took two years to make. I mean cmon.... do you want to wait seven years to buy and play dragon age 2? 

[DariusKalera]

If it is a good quality product, then yes.

[addu2urmanapool]

This is a false comparison. Since the lore of the Dragon Age world was already created, the exact seven years would not be needed. Two years would have been sufficient, if there had been enough resources. But there were not.

[Cody211282]

DariusKalera wrote...

If it is a good quality product, then yes.

Yep basicly I have enough stuff goingon in my life that I don't game as much as some, and when i do I expect a decent product. Say what you will about how the game was designed, it reaks of being rushed and is full of bugs.

[TJPags]

AedenHawke wrote...

 Dragon Age took seven years to make and that Dragon age 2 just took two years to make. I mean cmon.... do you want to wait seven years to buy and play dragon age 2? 

I'd say that comes from the belief of people that DA2 was a subpar game.  People feel that a longer develoment cycle would have resulted in a better game.

Now, would it have done that?  Who knows, I certainly don't.  I personally feel DA2 was subpar, and I think a slight delay would probably have meant fewer bugs.  But a much better game?  Can't say.  Especially since that's such a subjective thing.

[Any0day]

AedenHawke wrote...

 Dragon Age took seven years to make and that Dragon age 2 just took two years to make. I mean cmon.... do you want to wait seven years to buy and play dragon age 2? 

This has to be the most asinine argument I've ever read. We waited 11 freaken years for star craft 2 and half life 2 + source engine (portal, left 4 dead, etc). So yes, I would have gladly waited.

[NvVanity]

RPG's apparently require longer dev cycles.

DA:O was spent mostly building the engine anyways.

[AkiKishi]

Games only register to me about a month before they get released anyway. "Waiting" to play a particular game just strikes me as a bit of a sad thing.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 27 mars 2011 - 06:39 .

[randName]

I'd prefer it yes, to DA2.

But its not really the time, or lack of time, that is my main concern with DA2, but the direction it took ~

& there are other games and other publishers, and besides I still play games like FO1&2, Arcanum, BG1&2,TB, VtM:B etc - so quality over quantity (but for devs and publishers that isn't really feasible, that people just play their old games over and over that is).

[TJSolo]

AedenHawke wrote...

 Dragon Age took seven years to make and that Dragon age 2 just took two years to make. I mean cmon.... do you want to wait seven years to buy and play dragon age 2? 

Duke Nukem: Forever.

[Merced652]

TJSolo wrote...

AedenHawke wrote...

 Dragon Age took seven years to make and that Dragon age 2 just took two years to make. I mean cmon.... do you want to wait seven years to buy and play dragon age 2? 

Duke Nukem: Forever.

And to think people called it vaporware. 

[Gaius Octavian]

AedenHawke wrote...

 Dragon Age took seven years to make and that Dragon age 2 just took two years to make. I mean cmon.... do you want to wait seven years to buy and play dragon age 2? 

I would rather wait 7 years for a QUALITY game then 2 years for what we were given. 

[Dragoonlordz]

Yes I would have, example Duke Nukey fanbase look how many years they waited.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 27 mars 2011 - 07:10 .

[Knightsire]

I thought development of Origins was 5 years? 7 or more years is a very long time to wait...

[PirateT138]

Yes. I would prefer they took their time and delivered a product up to their standards, not a quick cash grab.

DA2 isn't bad, but it's not as good as it should be.

[Loc'n'lol]

They didn't have to make a new engine. Or a new world. There was no way it was going to take as long as Origins (and frankly I wouldn't want to wait that long). 18 months could have been acceptable if they didn't have to make as many changes (gameplay, graphics, interface) as they did.

I certainly hope they won't go reinvent the wheel again for DA3.

[Khayness]

7 years is a bit overkill, but 4 years would have been enough for a well polished RPG with corners untouched.

[Pygmali0n]

I'd pay twice over - and all the crappy DA:O style DLC in gratitude - if they'd just make a decent fantasy rpg on a par with DA:O or better again.

_Loc_N_lol_ wrote...

I certainly hope they won't go reinvent the wheel again for DA3.

DA2 is now the wheel, only it is square and needs reinventing.

Modifié par Pygmali0n, 27 mars 2011 - 07:34 .

[BioSpirit]

Yes, I would have waited. An other expansion pack like the Awakening would have been a lot better idea than this. There should be no problems to do it in 2 years.

[Airell]

3 years would have been good enough to give a quality game ME 2 was done in 3 and look how well it did. But i would say this when ME 2 first cameing out a lot of people did not like it at all. it took a couple of quality DLC to make it what it is now. So I am hopeing D.A.2 dlc will bring Dragon Age 2 up to were it belongs with the rest of Bioware games.

[Korusus]

There are reasons DA:O was so long in development, reasons that are no longer relevant. It would not have taken 7 years to make DA2 a worthy sequel.

Reasons DA:O was so long in development:

1) Mass Effect and Jade Empire. Pre-EA BioWare did not have the resources that post-EA BioWare has. There was undoubtedly a team devoted to Dragon Age, but nowhere near the size that it has now. Jade Empire was released in 2005, Mass Effect in 2006 which leads to...

2) EA purchased BioWare in 2007 and changing hardware and philosophies meant Dragon Age underwent a change in engine, name, and even then late in its development it was ported to consoles which delayed release who knows how long. And we don't really know how much of the 2004 Dragon Age made it into the 2009 Dragon Age.

3) Developing a new engine (twice), and creating things from scratch and maintaining BioWare level of quality (RIP) at the same time.

The Dragon Age series really shows how BioWare has changed and evolved as a company since 2004.

[Lord Gremlin]

1 thing: budget was insufficient. Otherwise we wouldn't have problems with no separate model for Fenris's naked torso etc.
EA should put more money in DA3, really.

[Alex Kershaw]

DA2 was a lot less than 2 years. Also, Mass Effect 2 was made in 2 years and was infinitely better than DA2. 2 years should be suffice for a sequel, but I'd be happy waiting 2.5 years if it was good enough.

[abnocte]

AedenHawke wrote...

 Dragon Age took seven years to make and that Dragon age 2 just took two years to make. I mean cmon.... do you want to wait seven years to buy and play dragon age 2? 

It took 7 years because the whole world of Thedas was being built from scratch. Once they had Thedas design, they had to create the engine to create the game.

And let's get real, Bioware could have created a wonderful game in 2 years since developers were already proficient with the toolset, so they only had to put the story together, but noooooo...... they wanted more shiny, so they spend half the developing cycle changing:

- the graphics, meaning redoing all prop and models, new textures
- combat, meaning treatment of player input, balancing the new gameplay, whole new animations
- the dialog system, meaning improving ME dialog wheel and integrating it into the game

 and who knows what else, so of course DA2 is what it is and not what it could have been.

And yes, I waited and would wait again 7 years for DAO.

[Deylar]

[quote]
There was no way it was going to take as long as Origins (and frankly I wouldn't want to wait that long).[ /quote]

Elder Scrolls: Arena 1994

Elder Scrolls 2: Daggerfall 1996 [some fans don't like this game]

Elder Scrolls Legends: Battlespire 1997

Elder Scrolls Adventures: Redguard 1998

Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind 2002 [and to some the best in the series. And took about 4 years in the making]

Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion 2006 [my personal favorite, the fans can go kill me despite the fact that I have played this series since the first one and another 4 year development period]

Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim to release 2011 and also has had about roughly an estimate 4 years to 3 years development


Now I know a lot of people are going to get mad that I compared games...ooo. However, I just wanted to share dates.

I always think the best games have the most time put into them. 1 to 2 years, imo. Isn't always enough to create a well established game.

Its obvious in DA2 that 1 to 2 years was not enough. It shows. In the lazy lazy design.

Modifié par Deylar, 27 mars 2011 - 09:35 .