191 réponses à ce sujet

[Cody211282]

Gotta agree with this.

[AAHook2]

Mezinger wrote...

Mezinger wrote...

You don't do ambitious in a year and half... period. L.A. Noire is 7 years in the making 1 year of which was in QA, now that's ambitious... How long was DA:O in production? Anyone? Anyone?

So according to Stanley Woo DA:O, depending on your definition of development, was in development for 4-7 years.

http://forums.biowar...93884&forum=135

So then they spin out a "sequel" in a year and a half... it's an obvious money grab, trying to re cash in in the long development of the original whilst streamlining the game to appeal to a wider audience...

Ambitious? come on! Perhaps you could argue that the streamlining was ambitious! LOL
 
Actually ironic really... Because the original reason for Bioware getting into bed with EA was so they'd have the resources to make blockbuster epic video games, and all evidence of what is actually happening is pointing in the opposite direction.

Ironic, yes.
Altogether naive to think that way though. Can't make a deal like that without knowing who you're getting into bed with.

Hyothetically we can pose the situation as such:
EA heads come to Bioware with a directive to speed up production of Dragon Age 2.
Bioware has reservations as they generally don't do this. They need more time and resources to make the game complete to their standards.
EA counters by saying that if Bioware releases Dragon Age 2 by their shortened timeline, the development team will receive a bonus, and future titles will allow them to expand their budget.
Bioware agrees.

Not saying it happened, just that it could. Hypothetically.

[Kileyan]

Ambitious to me is taking chances, doing something scary and unknown and hoping it sells well.

DA2 was not that. People try to say their story telling style was some sort of risk taking, but it was really just Bioware trying to stray away from their 3 hubs and end boss fight. In the end, it was 3 story eras and a boss fight. The only difference was you couldn't visit the 3 hubs in any order you wished, they were a set timeline and order.

Frame narrative, sorry that wasn't unique or risky, it was just something Bioware had never done, not something the world had never seen before.

DA2 failed to do what they should have. They set the entire game in one city, and decided the one city thing was a way to go cheap on detail.

That was a mistake, the allure of an adventure based around a city is the extreme detail that can be done in such an adventure. It should have been a chance to condense a huge game map of detail, into giving that same detail to a single living and breathing city.

Our Hawke should have became a crime boss, a mage leader, or a warrior slave hero who fought his way out of servitude. Instead we just got a canned adventure, no customization to class. Why was our mage Hawke doing a rogue crime boss's erands. Why was my warrior Hawke fudging around with the worn out mages vs templar crap.

Basically nothing mattered, every Hawke character and class was exactly the same. Nothing changed.

Modifié par Kileyan, 14 mai 2011 - 05:23 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

About the development time...

The length of the development time in years is pretty much a non-issue. You express the length of a software project in man years: The total development time of each team member expressed in years and added together.

Example 1: A project that takes 18 months with 100 full-time team members takes 150 man years.

Example 2: A project that takes 36 months with 50 full-time team members also results in 150 man years.

The problem is that even if we know how many people worked on the DA:O and DA2 projects, we don't know who worked full-time, who worked part-time, or who were just hired for a while until their specific job was done. Some may have been replaced by others because they switched teams or were fired or wanted to move on to another job. Some of them may have been ill for a while. All those people appear in the credits.

All I can tell is that the product feels rushed and that it looks to me that economic reasons (like reducing costs and development time) were behind the streamlining and removal of features.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 14 mai 2011 - 06:02 .

[Cody211282]

Kileyan wrote...

DA2 failed to do what they should have. They set the entire game in one city, and decided the one city thing was a way to go cheap on detail.

They didn't even try to make kirkwall look decent, i mean honestly they have 2 textures for tthe damn houses, brown and lighter brown. The detail they put into kirkwall was god awful. Hell I have had D&D sessions were the DM puts more time into crafing a a small side town then they did with the entirety of kirkwall.

[Pygmali0n]

Agree - all the ambition was saved for their sales projections.

It was like someone without talent or experience on American Idol saying 'I want to be famous' without putting in the work, but BW aren't talentless or without experience, so the crime was greater.

Modifié par Pygmali0n, 14 mai 2011 - 08:16 .

[Icinix]

Correction: Dragon Age 2 WAS ambitious...

..it fell short...

..very...very..short.

[Kajan451]

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...
 

The game could have been ambitious and still suck, but it wasn't. Alpha Protocol was ambitious, because the developers took their time with the game and wanted to try something new, despite its flaws and the fact that the game was considered a commercial failure

But it is a great game. Much better than Mass Effect 2 or .... well of course Dragon Age2.

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...


Conclusion: Dragon Age 2 was not ambitious.

But it was. You just never catched the real meaning of what they meant to say. It was ambitious to feed this really bad game to the people and expect them to love it. Because its called Dragon Age.

As you pointed out yourself:

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...

It was sticking with the lowest means and goals in mind possible to release a sequel for a BioWare game yet.

That is an ambitious goal. To archive greatness with the lowest means and goal in mind as possible. And its also ambitious to call everyone who isn't in favor of the shoddy patchwork of a game basically retarts for not understanding the glory and vision behind everything.

You know like The Emperor's New Clothes. Telling people they aren't nude, but dressed in the most marvelous of finery, enchanted so only fools could not see its true glory.

It worked in that tale, why shouldn't it work with Videogame sales? Just keep pretending everyone who is unable to see how great it is is an idiot or an retart, you'll eventually finde 'Emporers' who will walz the street nude pretending to be clad in the most marvelous clothes ever to be conveived.

[marshalleck]

DA2 wasn't the slightest bit ambitious. It seems like their design philosophy was "what's the least effort we can get away with?"

[Everwarden]

Kajan451 wrote...
g everyone who is unable to see how great it is is an idiot or an retart,

Retarts are even more delicious than Pop-Tarts. 

[AkiKishi]

The phrase that always comes to mind is "Just good enough".

[The_11thDoctor]

aduellist wrote...

I'd say the concept was ambitious, but the execution was appalling. John Walker summed it up nicely in his Rock, Paper, Shotgun analysis:

The idea is, and I love this idea in concept so much, that you’re not playing as the last hero in the land, saving the universe. You’re just some refugee, trying to survive in a city that has no fondness for Fereldens, working you way up through the ranks from villainy to nobility, seeing the city change shape through time. I wish I could have played that game.

I can't put it any better than that.

What happened to that game?! I wanted to play a game that spanded 10 years, but I never got that feeling at all since no one aged, no one changed where they were in KW, no new people ever came to the city, you never traveled anywhere new in the game etc... It was a failure. Fun to a point for a quick second before you see the smoke and mirrors, but a huge failure.

[Mezinger]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

About the development time...

The length of the development time in years is pretty much a non-issue. You express the length of a software project in man years: The total development time of each team member expressed in years and added together.

Example 1: A project that takes 18 months with 100 full-time team members takes 150 man years.

Example 2: A project that takes 36 months with 50 full-time team members also results in 150 man years.

The problem is that even if we know how many people worked on the DA:O and DA2 projects, we don't know who worked full-time, who worked part-time, or who were just hired for a while until their specific job was done. Some may have been replaced by others because they switched teams or were fired or wanted to move on to another job. Some of them may have been ill for a while. All those people appear in the credits.

All I can tell is that the product feels rushed and that it looks to me that economic reasons (like reducing costs and development time) were behind the streamlining and removal of features.

You seem to be falling for the error of the Mythical Man Month

Let me illustrate the concept... if your game development project life cycle usually takes 6 team members 6 months to complete the "concept" phase of the game, adding another 6 staff doesn't mean you clear the "concept" phase in 3 months. It's not always about the number of hands on deck. Many things in the software development cycle aren't actually bound by the number of people... there's other primary drivers.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Mezinger wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

About the development time...

The length of the development time in years is pretty much a non-issue. You express the length of a software project in man years: The total development time of each team member expressed in years and added together.

Example 1: A project that takes 18 months with 100 full-time team members takes 150 man years.

Example 2: A project that takes 36 months with 50 full-time team members also results in 150 man years.

The problem is that even if we know how many people worked on the DA:O and DA2 projects, we don't know who worked full-time, who worked part-time, or who were just hired for a while until their specific job was done. Some may have been replaced by others because they switched teams or were fired or wanted to move on to another job. Some of them may have been ill for a while. All those people appear in the credits.

All I can tell is that the product feels rushed and that it looks to me that economic reasons (like reducing costs and development time) were behind the streamlining and removal of features.

You seem to be falling for the error of the Mythical Man Month

Let me illustrate the concept... if your game development project life cycle usually takes 6 team members 6 months to complete the "concept" phase of the game, adding another 6 staff doesn't mean you clear the "concept" phase in 3 months. It's not always about the number of hands on deck. Many things in the software development cycle aren't actually bound by the number of people... there's other primary drivers.

I don't fall into any traps. What you are referring to is similar to stupid mistakes IBM used to make like KLOC (they used to give software engineers a bonus per written source line using a simple line count program (which of course was abused and counter productive)). When properly used the number of source lines can provide an indication of a program's complexity, though. Have a look at man hour for real-world applications at that same Wikipedia.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 14 mai 2011 - 06:24 .

[Lumikki]

It depense how you look situation. If you mean game desing where developers try many different ideas untill they find what works best and take they time do developt the game, then Dragon Age 2 wasn't that one. How ever if you look situation as business consept and deside we have this amount of time to make best game what we can, then I think Dragon Age 2 did hit the goal there with few mistakes. Point is that what players want and what is business wise best, they aren't same.

In my opinion what ****** most of players, I don't talk now about players who cry I want classic RPG. I'm talking about people who knows that Bioware is able to make good games, while many others game developers can't even do it, if they take the time. So, when Bioware tries to take shortcuts, it did not work well. Allmost they did it, but allmost isn't enough.

Funny point how ever is that even now Dragon Age 2 is better than many other games, even if other companies did take they time.

Also remember develoment time is also related companies resources as how many is working to get the product done. There is huge difference between situation if one company has 20 people working with game and other has 80 people.

Modifié par Lumikki, 14 mai 2011 - 06:35 .

[Radwar]

Ambitious & being rushed with very few resources at your disposal don't go well together, that's why a game that should've had alot of potential ended up being one of Bioware's worst games. That is what we call the EA effect which Bioware now suffers.
Also having a lead designer who didn't like the direction it's predecessor took (a game that had an average score of 9.1 from critics & won an incredible amount of awards, including game of the year) in a completely different direction doesn't help either.

Modifié par Radwar, 14 mai 2011 - 06:22 .

[Cody211282]

Radwar wrote...
.
Also having a lead designer who didn't
like the direction it's predecessor took (a game that had an average
score of 9.1 from critics & won an incredible amount of awards,
including game of the year) in a completely different direction doesn't
help either.

Basicly they replaced Quentin Tarantino with Michael Bay. Sure they both make movies, but they aren't anywere close to eachother in what they are trying and able to do.

[Mezinger]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...


I don't fall into any traps. 

I'm not suggesting that the amount of man hours is never an appropriate estimating technique... I'm suggesting that regardless of the number of bodies you can't do an ambitious game in a year and half, as some of the key time drivers over the course of the project aren't primarily influenced by the number of bodies. 

The biggest hole in my suggestion is the definition of "ambitious"... not that man hours isn't always an appropriate estimating technique, which should be obvious. 

[Guitar-Hero]

No it wasn't, it was however based on a different concept than typical games, with focus on family and a personnel journey, the idea/base was solid but the execution was shoddy and somewhat halfassed, and as is known there is no job as a "conceptuel idea guy" i think Peter Molenuex can vouch for that.

[Cody211282]

Steffen wrote...

No it wasn't, it was however based on a different concept than typical games, with focus on family and a personnel journey, the idea/base was solid but the execution was shoddy and somewhat halfassed, and as is known there is no job as a "conceptuel idea guy" i think Peter Molenuex can vouch for that.

Yet they keep letting him make games, and even worse they let him talk about them.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Mezinger wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I don't fall into any traps.

I'm not suggesting that the amount of man hours is never an appropriate estimating technique... I'm suggesting that regardless of the number of bodies you can't do an ambitious game in a year and half, as some of the key time drivers over the course of the project aren't primarily influenced by the number of bodies. 

The biggest hole in my suggestion is the definition of "ambitious"... not that man hours isn't always an appropriate estimating technique, which should be obvious.

If project X takes Y years and project Z takes Y-1 years  then saying that Z required less work than X is meaningless, because you don't have any idea how much work was actually being done in both projects. That's what I am saying. We also never get the actual data. It's probably burried somewhere in the project manager's data files. That's all there is to it. It's not that hard to follow.

[Mezinger]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
  then saying that Z required less work than X is meaningless

I don't believe I ever said that? I was talking about duration, not effort or work. 

You offered the notion of effort or work by suggesting the number of people on the project was paramount to the duration, and I suggested this way of thinking might be flawed... you're right it's not that hard to follow it, but it does appear you are failing to do so.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Mezinger wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
  then saying that Z required less work than X is meaningless

I don't believe I ever said that? I was talking about duration, not effort or work. 

You offered the notion of effort or work by suggesting the number of people on the project was paramount to the duration, and I suggested this way of thinking might be flawed... you're right it's not that hard to follow it, but it does appear you are failing to do so.

Look... Read my original post. I am using man years to illustrate my point. Then you bring up things that only confuse the issue, but doesn't prove that my original point is wrong. And that point is the result of the comparison you've just quoted. Are you always that hard to communicate with?

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 14 mai 2011 - 08:55 .

[Guitar-Hero]

Cody211282 wrote...

Steffen wrote...

No it wasn't, it was however based on a different concept than typical games, with focus on family and a personnel journey, the idea/base was solid but the execution was shoddy and somewhat halfassed, and as is known there is no job as a "conceptuel idea guy" i think Peter Molenuex can vouch for that.

Yet they keep letting him make games, and even worse they let him talk about them.

Indeed, i stil remember "I am going to make the best RPG that has ever been made"

[Mezinger]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Look... Read my original post. I am using man years to illustrate my point.

This is / was your point "The length of the development time in years is pretty much a non-issue." Right?

And I am saying, you are wrong it is an issue! I think that part must be pretty clear... Where are communication is supposedly breaking down is around why I think duration in development is an issue? So I'll try again...


Regardless of the assets you have in place or the number of workers you have on hand, you can only do "so much" over the duration of 18 months, and that "so much" cannot be considered "ambitious". That's my point that you were trying to make a "non-issue".

Again the main weakness of my point is define ambitious? Was Braid ambitious? Were some of these other independent releases ambitious? Were they in the oven for less than 18 months? I don't know, but I expect there is probably an example of a game out there that was less than 18 months in development that could possibly be considered ambitious depending on how you reasonably define the word. (But it is certainly not DA2).

If you define ambitious as, a unique story driven, cinematic experiences utilizing actors to portray in game characters (voices as a minimum) to create an immersive and dramatic entertainment experience more engrossing than any came that has come before... than sorry it can't be done in 18 months... no matter how many bodies you throw at it, or what kind of game engine assets you already have in place, IMO. 

If you reasonably define ambitious in some other way like a we're ambitious because of our fresh take on the side scroller that is intended to galvanize continued interest in this 2D game type ... than maybe then it would be possible, but even then I'm doubtful. 

Is that clearer?