Ariella wrote...
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.
DAO was in development Hell for a large part of that time because they couldn't find a publisher for DAO. Go look back at the archived DAO forum. The idea that a game needs to take 4-7 years would kill a company.
DAO I think was announced in something like 2004 and released in 2009 so it took about 5-6 years which is quite a time, even Brent Knowles has mentioned (I think its on the blog or on one of the comments) that DAO took too long and started to lag behind in terms of graphics etc. Which is a problem as the markets move on, it doesn't detract that a great deal of care and attention went into DAO to create the world of Thedas, lore and establish all the structure and ground rules for the game.
DA2 needn't have taken this long, but 18 months? obvious rush job, particularly if they released Awakenings and the DLC in the time and as the later DLC in particular Golems and Witch Hunt scream slap dash as they suffer from the same recycled environments which DA2 got bashed for, and there were complaints even upon the DLC release.
6-7 years is excessive for game development, but 4 years to kill a company, er... no. Skryim and the Witcher 2' s development cycles have both spent about 4 years in development, it makes sense, particularly if the development team wants to overhaul certain parts of the game or redesign aspects from the ground up.
DA2 is not ambitious nor are the ideas behind it well implemented or thought through and it shows. But is this really suprising when you look at EA's fiscal reports? Looking at EA's profits, I believe that they have posted losses for at least 3 years, so the issue is not that Bioware was acquired by a company, but who acquired it
Acquiring development studios is an expensive affair, so the desire to crank as much cash out of the asset in as quick a time possible is understandable. But, ultimately misguided or short term in its approach, as it destroys any credibility and market share that the developer had and damages future revenue streams for EA as a publisher, rendering the asset value lower than the initial face value at purchase, should EA choose to sell the developer off at a later date, possibly why westwood was closed down rather than hived off. Dragon Age being rushed and simplified is partially a result of EA's directives to appeal to a wider game audience, because they believed it would bring more revenue which they need to service the debt that EA has.
Modifié par billy the squid, 16 mai 2011 - 06:32 .
Retour en haut
Easy.
