397 réponses à ce sujet

[Valcutio]

JohnEpler wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Valcutio wrote...

Everytime you open your mouth, I lose more and more respect for you.

The only reason DA2 sold even remotely as well as it did is because of the DA:O fans. Do you REALLY think you'll have that advantage when DA3 rolls around?

Make the next game in a month so you can multiply that number by 60. You'll need to in order to hit that sales quota.

Is it really a need to attack the Bioware people when they post.  Last thing I want to see is for them to say these complainers will not be satisfied no matter what we do, so we're just not going to worry about trying to compromise or change anything.

I wouldn't worry too much about that. We spend enough time on the forums that we're able to make the distinction with someone who was unhappy with DA2 and simply wish their opinion to be heard and those who are unable to share their criticism in a civil fashion.

The majority of those unhappy with the game fall into the previous category. The vitriol from the latter is not going to make us suddenly disregard anyone's concerns.

I love Bioware games. I'm a huge David Gaider fan and have read both of his DA books . That doesn't mean I'm going to sugarcoat my words. They need to know that we're unhappy with how they have handled a certain game or else they'll repeat their mistakes. I'm not naive enough to believe that they take everything we say to heart but if they're willing to listen then we should be willing to speak honestly.

[TheAwesomologist]

David Gaider wrote...

Myounage wrote...
Yes. DA:O outsold DA2 by a ton. That sends a message clearer than words to any business.

To a point, yes. One must also consider, however, that DAO took five times longer to make than DA2. In a development world where time equals money, that means DAO had to sell five times as many copies in order to be profitable. If it makes it easier to understand, take whatever sales numbers you believe DA2 had and multiply that by five-- that's an indication of its profitability relative to DAO.

But that doesn't mean much to the consumer. All we notice is that a game that took longer to develop offered a better experience and then that was shared by others via word of mouth (I played DA:O not because of magazine reviews but because of friend reviews).
Thats not to say that DA:O was perfect. And as much as I harp about DA2's main story it wasn't terrible, it was just disappointing. Couple in obvious rushed flaws (repeated maps, game cripling launch bugs, etc) and its real easy to see why folks don't like the game and why they are vocal about it. To the average consumer it seems that you get more value when more tme is spent on the product.

[WhiteKnyght]

Back on the issue, I agree with Gaider's statement. They do listen to critique and criticisms but ultimately it is their choice what to do. If they sacrificed their artistic integrity just to make more profits that would just make them sellouts.

That doesn't mean you cant suggest something, it just means you wont always get it

And since I apparently physically harmed one of the staff with my play on words, there'll probably be a random character in DAIII or future DLC named Nayr who goes around making bad puns as a way to punish me. xD

Modifié par The Grey Nayr, 03 juin 2011 - 09:32 .

[Master Shiori]

Valcutio wrote...

I love Bioware games. I'm a huge David Gaider fan and have read both of his DA books . That doesn't mean I'm going to sugarcoat my words. They need to know that we're unhappy with how they have handled a certain game or else they'll repeat their mistakes. I'm not naive enough to believe that they take everything we say to heart but if they're willing to listen then we should be willing to speak honestly.

Nobody said you shouldn't give them feedback and express your concerns. But giving feedback in a polite manner, that doesn't come across as disrespectful, can go a long way to making sure the developers read it and take it into account.
That said, your feedback wil be taken into account alongside thousands of others, all of which may address different problems, some even a complete opposite of yours.
It's up to Bioware to identify the most common issues and resolve them in a way they feel is best, but which may or may not be the solution that fits each and every individual player.

[bEVEsthda]

David Gaider wrote...

Myounage wrote...
Yes. DA:O outsold DA2 by a ton. That sends a message clearer than words to any business.

To a point, yes. One must also consider, however, that DAO took five times longer to make than DA2. In a development world where time equals money, that means DAO had to sell five times as many copies in order to be profitable. If it makes it easier to understand, take whatever sales numbers you believe DA2 had and multiply that by five-- that's an indication of its profitability relative to DAO.

I always realized you would need to cut down on work. But I always assumed it would be just fine since you could build upon what you had already created for DA:O. I must say the decision to redo everything with DA2 came as a big surprise to me.

You're now saying that you had as many people, working as many hours, working on DA:O for five times longer than DA2? That, too, surprises me.

[Dormiglione]

David Gaider wrote...

Myounage wrote...
Yes. DA:O outsold DA2 by a ton. That sends a message clearer than words to any business.

To a point, yes. One must also consider, however, that DAO took five times longer to make than DA2. In a development world where time equals money, that means DAO had to sell five times as many copies in order to be profitable. If it makes it easier to understand, take whatever sales numbers you believe DA2 had and multiply that by five-- that's an indication of its profitability relative to DAO.

Do you really think that we are that stupid? What has a longer development time to do with the sells of a game? Nothing, niente (italian), rien (french), nichts (german). DAO sold much because people loved it, because word-of-mouth spread and told friends and interested people how good DAO was.

I see now that you are thinking in really short terms:
>> take whatever sales numbers you believe DA2 had and multiply that by five
>> that's an indication of its profitability relative to DAO

Is that what makes a good RPG for you? Lets see how much copies we can sell with much less work? Thank you very much.

[upsettingshorts]

Dormiglione wrote...

Do you really think that we are that stupid?

Judging by the content of your reply... yeah.

[Dormiglione]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...

Do you really think that we are that stupid?

Judging by the content of your reply... yeah.

Wow, you impressed me!

[Well]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Back on the issue, I agree with Gaider's statement. They do listen to critique and criticisms but ultimately it is their choice what to do. If they sacrificed their artistic integrity just to make more profits that would just make them sellouts.

That doesn't mean you cant suggest something, it just means you wont always get it

And since I apparently physically harmed one of the staff with my play on words, there'll probably be a random character in DAIII or future DLC named Nayr who goes around making bad puns as a way to punish me. xD

Dont be surprise.Throne of Bhaal and GROMNIR.Gromnir was a constant poster on the Bg2 boards.He was a half ork if I remember right.Been awhile.

[ipgd]

Dormiglione wrote...

What has a longer development time to do with the sells of a game?

Really? Really?

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

David Gaider wrote...

Myounage wrote...
Yes. DA:O outsold DA2 by a ton. That sends a message clearer than words to any business.

To a point, yes. One must also consider, however, that DAO took five times longer to make than DA2. In a development world where time equals money, that means DAO had to sell five times as many copies in order to be profitable. If it makes it easier to understand, take whatever sales numbers you believe DA2 had and multiply that by five-- that's an indication of its profitability relative to DAO.

Does that mean sales are the most important thing? Not really. It's not to us just as it's not to you. I'm not sure a large amount of sales would mean a fan would like a game any more or find it any more worthwhile, so a fan citing a lower amount of sales as being suddenly meaningful strikes me as a bit specious.

The whole "10 million sales figure, CoD audience" thing gets repeated a lot around here, after all, but that's a self-referencing interpretation that has nothing to do with our realistic sales expectations. We're not in the business of making games just to go out of business, yes, but it's also not a good idea to mortgage a franchise for short-term gain. So hopefully there's a middle ground to be found here, and certainly there are a number of things we feel we can and should improve on (as Mike has said)-- as much because it will help sales as because we want to make them better. If we don't talk about what those specifics are, it's because we're not ready to... and because it would be better to eventually show you what we mean rather than simply discuss them.

While I'm obviously not privy to why Origins sat on the back burner for as long as it did, I don't think citing it's development time vs DA2 being rushed out half baked in 18 months really has a whole lot to do with one another.

Bioware used to have a standing dev cycle of when it's done. Which doesn't seem to be the case anymore, be it due to how much more expensive games are to make these days, EA's obvious purchase or a combination of various factors. I'm still wondering why for all the changes you guys made to DA in such a short dev cycle, really how realistically did you guys and gals think it would be recieved?

Granted you're always going to have nay sayers about any game, but the volume of said criticism IRT DA2 really does seem a whole hell of alot higher than any previous BW game that I know of. I guess I'm trying to understand why the outlook that DA2 worked out as expected from the dev side and "moved the franchise forward" when so many of the actual players don't agree with that. Seems somewhat of a disconnect imo.

[erynnar]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Myounage wrote...
Yes. DA:O outsold DA2 by a ton. That sends a message clearer than words to any business.

To a point, yes. One must also consider, however, that DAO took five times longer to make than DA2. In a development world where time equals money, that means DAO had to sell five times as many copies in order to be profitable. If it makes it easier to understand, take whatever sales numbers you believe DA2 had and multiply that by five-- that's an indication of its profitability relative to DAO.

Does that mean sales are the most important thing? Not really. It's not to us just as it's not to you. I'm not sure a large amount of sales would mean a fan would like a game any more or find it any more worthwhile, so a fan citing a lower amount of sales as being suddenly meaningful strikes me as a bit specious.

The whole "10 million sales figure, CoD audience" thing gets repeated a lot around here, after all, but that's a self-referencing interpretation that has nothing to do with our realistic sales expectations. We're not in the business of making games just to go out of business, yes, but it's also not a good idea to mortgage a franchise for short-term gain. So hopefully there's a middle ground to be found here, and certainly there are a number of things we feel we can and should improve on (as Mike has said)-- as much because it will help sales as because we want to make them better. If we don't talk about what those specifics are, it's because we're not ready to... and because it would be better to eventually show you what we mean rather than simply discuss them.

While I'm obviously not privy to why Origins sat on the back burner for as long as it did, I don't think citing it's development time vs DA2 being rushed out half baked in 18 months really has a whole lot to do with one another.

Bioware used to have a standing dev cycle of when it's done. Which doesn't seem to be the case anymore, be it due to how much more expensive games are to make these days, EA's obvious purchase or a combination of various factors. I'm still wondering why for all the changes you guys made to DA in such a short dev cycle, really how realistically did you guys and gals think it would be recieved?

Granted you're always going to have nay sayers about any game, but the volume of said criticism IRT DA2 really does seem a whole hell of alot higher than any previous BW game that I know of. I guess I'm trying to understand why the outlook that DA2 worked out as expected from the dev side and "moved the franchise forward" when so many of the actual players don't agree with that. Seems somewhat of a disconnect imo.

This^, It's that apparent disconnect that has me worried and confused...yes, confused, very.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

On top of that Bioware spent tons of money and time to develop the Eclipse engine, art, and feel. Only to gut it in 18 months to shove a sequel out the door. Something just isn't adding up imo.

[Dormiglione]

ipgd wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...

What has a longer development time to do with the sells of a game?

Really? Really?

Yes, really. A product, it doesnt matter what product, is judged by his functionality, his quality and a lot of other measures. A lot of the measures are objective and a lot of them are subjective. How long does it took to produce a product including research, planning and so on, doesnt guarantee how much you can sell this product.

A much simpler product that has similar functionality, that is produced with a third of the investment can outsell the product that cost much more to be produced.

Longer development time guarantees that the product was better polished, better tested, that some of the components were changed during development time. But still, it doesnt guarantee you, that you can sell it more than the cheaper produced one.

[Icinix]

Dormiglione wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...

What has a longer development time to do with the sells of a game?

Really? Really?

Yes, really. A product, it doesnt matter what product, is judged by his functionality, his quality and a lot of other measures. A lot of the measures are objective and a lot of them are subjective. How long does it took to produce a product including research, planning and so on, doesnt guarantee how much you can sell this product.

A much simpler product that has similar functionality, that is produced with a third of the investment can outsell the product that cost much more to be produced.

Longer development time guarantees that the product was better polished, better tested, that some of the components were changed during development time. But still, it doesnt guarantee you, that you can sell it more than the cheaper produced one.

Maybe not, but at least you retain standards.

[Atakuma]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

On top of that Bioware spent tons of money and time to develop the Eclipse engine, art, and feel. Only to gut it in 18 months to shove a sequel out the door. Something just isn't adding up imo.

It's beacause they spent tons of money that the only way they could afford a sequel was to do it fast and cheap. At leas that's my theory.

[Realmzmaster]

Dormiglione wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...

What has a longer development time to do with the sells of a game?

Really? Really?

Yes, really. A product, it doesnt matter what product, is judged by his functionality, his quality and a lot of other measures. A lot of the measures are objective and a lot of them are subjective. How long does it took to produce a product including research, planning and so on, doesnt guarantee how much you can sell this product.

A much simpler product that has similar functionality, that is produced with a third of the investment can outsell the product that cost much more to be produced.

Longer development time guarantees that the product was better polished, better tested, that some of the components were changed during development time. But still, it doesnt guarantee you, that you can sell it more than the cheaper produced one.

Longer development time does not guarantee quality. Longer development time does not guarantee better polish or testing. You have to be careful to avoid feature and scope creep or you can make a crappy game even with a long development time.

Also if the development time is too long you can start losing key people who go on to other pursuits. The right balance of cost, time and personnel must be achieved.
Additionally If the game takes to long in development it will look outdated compared to newer games. On the other hand if the development time is to short the game will look rushed.

Edited for additional comment.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 03 juin 2011 - 10:49 .

[ipgd]

Dormiglione wrote...

Yes, really. A product, it doesnt matter what product, is judged by his functionality, his quality and a lot of other measures. A lot of the measures are objective and a lot of them are subjective. How long does it took to produce a product including research, planning and so on, doesnt guarantee how much you can sell this product.

A much simpler product that has similar functionality, that is produced with a third of the investment can outsell the product that cost much more to be produced.

Longer development time guarantees that the product was better polished, better tested, that some of the components were changed during development time. But still, it doesnt guarantee you, that you can sell it more than the cheaper produced one.

Except none of that was the point of the post you were quoting.

Modifié par ipgd, 03 juin 2011 - 10:49 .

[bEVEsthda]

erynnar wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
...
Granted you're always going to have nay sayers about any game, but the volume of said criticism IRT DA2 really does seem a whole hell of alot higher than any previous BW game that I know of. I guess I'm trying to understand why the outlook that DA2 worked out as expected from the dev side and "moved the franchise forward" when so many of the actual players don't agree with that. Seems somewhat of a disconnect imo.

This^, It's that apparent disconnect that has me worried and confused...yes, confused, very.

Yes, one must certainly hope they are only considering the events of the DA2 story-plot, and nothing else, when they say such things as "moving the franchise forward".
I simply cannot imagine that they are so daft that they don't realize that maybe the majority of DA2 sales just occured due to DA:O, and customer assumptions that they would get something similar.
I see little reason for why DA2 would sell beyond of five-figure numbers on it's own. Well, maybe EA marketing muscle.

[Morroian]

Valcutio wrote...

I love Bioware games. I'm a huge David Gaider fan and have read both of his DA books . That doesn't mean I'm going to sugarcoat my words. They need to know that we're unhappy with how they have handled a certain game

Being insulting guarantees they won't listen to you.  

Plus if you don't think they have well and truly got the point about the criticisms of the game by now well.............

[Dormiglione]

Icinix wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...

What has a longer development time to do with the sells of a game?

Really? Really?

Yes, really. A product, it doesnt matter what product, is judged by his functionality, his quality and a lot of other measures. A lot of the measures are objective and a lot of them are subjective. How long does it took to produce a product including research, planning and so on, doesnt guarantee how much you can sell this product.

A much simpler product that has similar functionality, that is produced with a third of the investment can outsell the product that cost much more to be produced.

Longer development time guarantees that the product was better polished, better tested, that some of the components were changed during development time. But still, it doesnt guarantee you, that you can sell it more than the cheaper produced one.

Maybe not, but at least you retain standards.

You are right. The product that costed more to be produced could also be the better one as the cheaper produced. Still it remains the customer who decide which product does he like more, that suits more for him.

The point that i try to make is, that more development time is not the factor that gives you higher sale numbers. Sale numbers reflect how well or how bad a product was received by the audience.

A whole other story is how profitable was the product. There you need to sum up the complete production (planning, research, testing and so on) divided by the sale numbers and the price you sold the product. Im sorry that i cant explain it well. English is not my native language.

[ipgd]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Yes, one must certainly hope they are only considering the events of the DA2 story-plot, and nothing else, when they say such things as "moving the franchise forward".
I simply cannot imagine that they are so daft that they don't realize that maybe the majority of DA2 sales just occured due to DA:O, and customer assumptions that they would get something similar.
I see little reason for why DA2 would sell beyond of five-figure numbers on it's own. Well, maybe EA marketing muscle.

If it were hypothetically retooled and marketed as a different IP, it wouldn't have received the hysterical They Changed It Now It Sucks backlash it did. Origins is as responsible for its sales drop as it is for its preorders.

With this level of hyperbolized memetic ****** I'm not sure DA2's sales are really a reliable indication of anything other than the internet's ability to band together in a concerted effort to resemble monkeys as much as is humanly possible.

Modifié par ipgd, 03 juin 2011 - 10:54 .

[Dormiglione]

David Gaider wrote...

Myounage wrote...
Yes. DA:O outsold DA2 by a ton. That sends a message clearer than words to any business.

To a point, yes. One must also consider, however, that DAO took five times longer to make than DA2. In a development world where time equals money, that means DAO had to sell five times as many copies in order to be profitable. If it makes it easier to understand, take whatever sales numbers you believe DA2 had and multiply that by five-- that's an indication of its profitability relative to DAO.

>> One must also consider, however, that DAO took five times longer to make than DA2.
>> In a development world where time equals money, that means DAO had to sell five times
>> as many copies in order to be profitable.

ipgd wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...

Yes, really. A product, it doesnt matter what product, is judged by his functionality, his quality and a lot of other measures. A lot of the measures are objective and a lot of them are subjective. How long does it took to produce a product including research, planning and so on, doesnt guarantee how much you can sell this product.

A much simpler product that has similar functionality, that is produced with a third of the investment can outsell the product that cost much more to be produced.

Longer development time guarantees that the product was better polished, better tested, that some of the components were changed during development time. But still, it doesnt guarantee you, that you can sell it more than the cheaper produced one.

Except none of that was the point of the post you were quoting.

David implied that development time was one reason because DAO had that high sale numbers. Not true.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Morroian wrote...

Valcutio wrote...

I love Bioware games. I'm a huge David Gaider fan and have read both of his DA books . That doesn't mean I'm going to sugarcoat my words. They need to know that we're unhappy with how they have handled a certain game

Being insulting guarantees they won't listen to you.  

Plus if you don't think they have well and truly got the point about the criticisms of the game by now well.............

Defending them and DA2's design decisions at every turn isn't that helpful either. Was wondering how long before we saw a.. Oh never mind it's not even worth it at this point. I've said my piece enough.

[Azzlee]

I would love to have a civilised discussion with David Gaider. In fact, I hope to see BW at the Eurogamer expo in London later this year perhaps?

My question to you David is how you could have gone from writing Morrigan and Zevran, be in charge of Mary Kirby who wrote Sten and Loghain, and the rest of the Dragon Age plot and characters (all companion members were wonderfully written but these are my favourites) to the tripe of Merril, Cassandra and Meredith along with the entire DA2 plot and actually be happy with yourself.

I can't guess to know you or anyone on your team, but if I was you, I would have been mighty damn proud of my achievements in DA:O and be gratful of the time given to me to create such rich characters and brilliantly written plot. Having then been responsible for the borderline garbage (by BW standards) that constituted the DA2 storlyline and horribly written characters I have to wonder if the entire writing team was abducted by aliens and filled with lookalikes. After having put the game down after my 1st and only playthrough and not touching it since I still struggle to believe the change in quality. Suffice to say, going from the writing in DA:O to DA2, I would feel rather...deflated to put it in to the the most polite way.

I have seen what the DA writing team are capable of. EA would have put this deadline on BW so generally the majorty of my anger will be directed there. But David, good sir, I expect, no, scrap that I KNOW you and your team are better than this, and this alone will cause me no end of frustration.

Modifié par Azzlee, 03 juin 2011 - 11:02 .