273 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Nozybidaj wrote...
I still think the only driving force here was the need of a quick cash injection to fund the final stage of TOR development (so yes, cash grab).  DA2 was probably more profitable if all you are worried about is upcoming installment.  If you are looking long term a DA:O2 might have been more profitable since it wouldn't have tanked your IP and killed customer expectations for possibilities of a 3, 4, 5, and so on.  I don't really think EA cares about any possible DA3.  If TOR tanks you aren't going to ever see it anyway.

I think EA keeps Bioware Edmonton if TOR fails to meet expectations but breaks even. We'll see when TOR tanks.

It's not that I don't think DA2 was pushed out early for financial reasons; but it seems very clear that Bioware & EA wanted to change the direction fo the franchise. They could very easily have throw out an Awakening-like game with more quests and the exact same combat system and engine.

Davasar wrote...
And they've done it...over and over again. 
Look at their track record.

That could just mean EA's business strategy is bad, not that they buy up studios to troll gamers.

Modifié par In Exile, 23 juin 2011 - 07:12 .

[Nozybidaj]

In Exile wrote...
I think EA keeps Bioware Edmonton if TOR fails to meet expectations but breaks even. We'll see when TOR tanks.

I think it is as likely either way (successful or not) that they get rolled under an 'EA' designation.  If TOR tanks, obviously BW is going bye-bye.  If they are sucessful EA will want their name all over it, not BW's.

It's not that I don't think DA2 was pushed out early for financial reasons; but it seems very clear that Bioware & EA wanted to change the direction fo the franchise. They could very easily have throw out an Awakening-like game with more quests and the exact same combat system and engine.

Possibly, I think it is just as likely no one cared, gave Laidlaw a date to have it finished by and let him do whatever the heck he wanted as long as he didn't go over budget. 

With the success of DA:O they wold have known "we can drop a total turd of a project out there and still expect X amount of sales".   If X was sufficient to meet their short term needs I don't know that setting a direction for the franchise was really important enough to anyone aside from Mike to care about.

At least I hope it wasn't, otherwise I bet there are a lot of disappointed people there now.

Modifié par Nozybidaj, 23 juin 2011 - 12:36 .

[In Exile]

Nozybidaj wrote...
I think it is as likely either way (successful or not) that they get rolled under an 'EA' designation.  If TOR tanks, obviously BW is going bye-bye.  If they are sucessful EA will want their name all over it, not BW's.

I don't think EA's rolled out an 'EA whatever' studio since they ostensibly reformed. EA bought Bioware for their brand (it's why they created multiple Bioware whatever studios) and I think that they milk ME before killing the studio, even if TOR flops.

I can't see why TOR succeed, which stregthens the Bioware brand, would lead to TOR being killed. EA = Bioware. They're the same company. It doesn't matter if EA has their name over it or not.

Possibly, I think it is just as likely no one cared, gave Laidlaw a date to have it finished by and let him do whatever the heck he wanted as long as he didn't go over budget. 

I don't think so. The project was too in line with public EA sales goals and attitudes.

With the success of DA:O they wold have known "we can drop a total turd of a project out there and still expect X amount of sales".   If X was sufficient to meet their short term needs I don't know that setting a direction for the franchise was really important enough to anyone aside from Mike to care about.

At least I hope it wasn't, otherwise I bet there are a lot of disappointed people there now.

They did that with DA:A. That was, IMO, the quick buggy cash in. DA2 was the change in direction.

[Davasar]

I am not saying they enjoy it. But the record shows a complete disconnect with their fanbase and complete and utter incompetence when dealing with existing studios and franchises.

[In Exile]

Davasar wrote...
I am not saying they enjoy it. But the record shows a complete disconnect with their fanbase and complete and utter incompetence when dealing with existing studios and franchises.

EA's changed their business practice a fair bit after the lawsuits they were forced to settle. At least with DA2, I think you're really underestimating the role Bioware itself played in developing and planning the game. About the only thing you can say is the release date might have been EA, but the majority of complaints about DA2 don't relate to the release date. PC VO, no origins, setting the game in Kirkwall... these are all Bioware design choices.

[Morroian]

In Exile wrote...

EA's changed their business practice a fair bit after the lawsuits they were forced to settle. At least with DA2, I think you're really underestimating the role Bioware itself played in developing and planning the game. About the only thing you can say is the release date might have been EA, 

Someone actually recently dug up an old quote from Chris Priestly I think, where he said that Bioware could have delayed the release if they wanted to.

[Mad Method]

Valhart, I think I've already said my piece to you, and you've chosen not to accept it. In the first place, I said you're not trying to talk to me: You're trying to talk to this generic "Bioware hater" out there, which I am not. In the second place, you agreed you're out to talk to the generic "Bioware hater", and then said I am such. Now I can be crass, blunt, even abrasive, but I do not hate Bioware. It's your prerogative if you want to believe you're a better authority on my thoughts and intentions than myself.

aftohsix, actually, I just figured some folks might be interested in seeing the old logo.

astrallite wrote...

What happened to the spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate? EA realized making Origins 2 was too expensive.

That doesn't really explain the design switch. Making a sequel in the vein of Origins should be easier than the changes they implemented.

[AlanC9]

Mad Method wrote...

That doesn't really explain the design switch. Making a sequel in the vein of Origins should be easier than the changes they implemented.

How do you figure that? VO isn't all that expensive.

[Mad Method]

VO is one aspect, but personally I don't see why VO would really conflict with making a good classic RPG. No, it's the bizarre rework of the combat system, the Mass Effect dialogue wheel, the elf/darkspawn/etc. redesigns, the absolutely ridiculous blood and gore spray, the new wave combat system, the focus on theatrics, etc. It's a lot easier to stick with what's done and just tweak that to a higher standard and adapt it than to suddenly start reinventing the wheel all over the place. Especially if you plan to get it done in a short timeline.

If instead of all that they just focused on making a consistent and responsive setting, on having good writing, on having good level design, just tweaked up the graphics, tweaked the old combat system for more balance and a slightly faster pace, made more diverse bodytypes for better NPC variations, then I think the game would have been much better received than this hodgepodge which focused too much on New Shit, couldn't get that done right in this short timeframe, and had the rest suffer (story, levels, quests) because they didn't pay enough attention to it.

Modifié par Mad Method, 28 juin 2011 - 12:39 .

[ref]

One thing people need to understand is that people don't necessarily dislike DA2 because it's not like Origins... DA2 was just an unpolished game in general. Honestly, the way I see it is this is all because of money. Mentioned above, DA:O was thought of as boring by a lot of players, so think about it... what would you do to make it more awesome for fans who want a game not to be boring... drop the "tedious" things, make the combat fast and exciting, and streamline a lot of other things. DA2 did this and so did ME2. I prefer both Mass Effect and Origins over their respective sequel for lots of reasons, the main one however being STORY. These sequels never seem to have the grand and epic scale of story of their first in the series. Sure, they had a shorter time to make the game but developers REALLY need to focus on making sure the story is as epic and enjoyable as the originals, as that is what will sell games (along with the changes for the "casuals" or those who prefer more action based titles). This has always confused me, if they want to make more money they should make the story EVEN better, or try. But, it's hard with the time frame these games are given to be made.

[In Exile]

Mad Method wrote...
If instead of all that they just focused on making a consistent and responsive setting, on having good writing, on having good level design, just tweaked up the graphics, tweaked the old combat system for more balance and a slightly faster pace, made more diverse bodytypes for better NPC variations, then I think the game would have been much better received than this hodgepodge which focused too much on New Shit, couldn't get that done right in this short timeframe, and had the rest suffer (story, levels, quests) because they didn't pay enough attention to it.

In fact, Bioware did all of these things (or rather, tried). They just failed miserable. The race redesigns were about different and diverse bodytypes. The combat system was tweaked (with no animations added on top so the speed didn't look like the FWD button).

And Bioware's writing and level design was the exact same kind it always was. A linear maze using a modular design - welcome to DA:O. If you compare the DA2 cave map with the DA:O deep roads map, you'll find it was the same linear path. Bioware doesn't do level complexity. They just failed in DA2 because of how blatant their reskin was.

Look at the DA2 vs. DA:O thread if you want an in-depth debate on the writing and it's similarities.

[Davasar]

Refara wrote...

One thing people need to understand is that people don't necessarily dislike DA2 because it's not like Origins... DA2 was just an unpolished game in general. Honestly, the way I see it is this is all because of money. Mentioned above, DA:O was thought of as boring by a lot of players, so think about it... what would you do to make it more awesome for fans who want a game not to be boring... drop the "tedious" things, make the combat fast and exciting, and streamline a lot of other things. DA2 did this and so did ME2. I prefer both Mass Effect and Origins over their respective sequel for lots of reasons, the main one however being STORY. These sequels never seem to have the grand and epic scale of story of their first in the series. Sure, they had a shorter time to make the game but developers REALLY need to focus on making sure the story is as epic and enjoyable as the originals, as that is what will sell games (along with the changes for the "casuals" or those who prefer more action based titles). This has always confused me, if they want to make more money they should make the story EVEN better, or try. But, it's hard with the time frame these games are given to be made.

Right.

So, they tried to satisfy the poeple that dont like rpgs with non-rpg things.

In essense, changing the "Spiritual successor to Baldurs Gate" to God of War.


We already have a slew of action games, why do we need more?

Modifié par Davasar, 28 juin 2011 - 04:17 .

[AlanC9]

Davasar wrote...
So, they tried to satisfy the poeple that dont like rpgs with non-rpg things.

Not everyone who likes RPGs likes them for the same reason you do.

[Tirfan]

^ While this is true - the fact that they removed so much of the things that enable me to actually get into character and you know, RP, I would consider, catering to the folk that don't like RPG:s. Oh, I just love the way I would have to metagame to make Hawke that would make any sense to me, the way that the only kind of Hawke that makes any sense is the character I enjoy playing the least, and even if I am allowed to make a Hawke that does not make any sense, I don't quite like that either. And I just love the way certain views are completely off-limit for Hawke.

[In Exile]

Tirfan wrote...

^ While this is true - the fact that they removed so much of the things that enable me to actually get into character and you know, RP, I would consider, catering to the folk that don't like RPG:s.

But the things that let you RP are things that prevent me from RPing. I would say things like PC VO and restricted inventory for companions make it a better RPG for me, not a worse one.

Oh, I just love the way I would have to metagame to make Hawke that would make any sense to me, the way that the only kind of Hawke that makes any sense is the character I enjoy playing the least, and even if I am allowed to make a Hawke that does not make any sense, I don't quite like that either. And I just love the way certain views are completely off-limit for Hawke.

The only way to play the Warden (I  Ferelden and I Grey Wardens) was a character I enjoyed the least.  It's the exact same way for the Warden re: certain views being not allowed.

[KristofCoulson]

EA and Wal*Mart are both sub-divisions of a secret society intent on world domination. The truth is revealed in the next AC game!

[Sutekh]

In Exile wrote...
The only way to play the Warden (I  Ferelden and I Grey Wardens) was a character I enjoyed the least.  It's the exact same way for the Warden re: certain views being not allowed.

How is it the only way to play the Warden? It's not a fixed char. I <3 Grey Wardens, maybe (debatable), but Ferelden?

[Gotholhorakh]

In Exile wrote...

Davasar wrote...
I am not saying they enjoy it. But the record shows a complete disconnect with their fanbase and complete and utter incompetence when dealing with existing studios and franchises.

EA's changed their business practice a fair bit after the lawsuits they were forced to settle. At least with DA2, I think you're really underestimating the role Bioware itself played in developing and planning the game. About the only thing you can say is the release date might have been EA, but the majority of complaints about DA2 don't relate to the release date. PC VO, no origins, setting the game in Kirkwall... these are all Bioware design choices.

Yes, I think that it's pretty hard to refute the idea that lots of what people hate amounts to conscious design choice.

One only has to look at months worth of interviews, and most interestingly to the Knowles resignation to see that -  these things might be driven by elements closer to the process than the publisher, we don't really know.

The ruination of the franchise is writ large for all to see years ago:

Mr Knowles wrote...
Discussion on Dragon Age 2 began around this time and looking ahead I knew that I wasn’t going to be satisfied with what Dragon Age 2 would be. Party control/tactical combat are huge factors in my enjoyment of a role-playing game as is adopting the role of the hero (i.e., customizing my character). I was fairly certain Dragon Age would transition towards more of a Mass Effect experience, which while enjoyable is not the type of role-playing game I play. Could I be the lead designer on such a title? Certainly… though if I were going to work on a game adopting a set-in-stone protagonist I’d rather work on something lighter, like a shooter.

There is just no way out of it. Whatever can be attributed to a condensed development timeline, this says "conscious decisions are definitely to blame for everything else".

Prophetic - with a few words changed it pretty much describes the end result and what is wrong with it, for me. Notwithstanding the rushedness, that is.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 28 juin 2011 - 08:56 .

[Blastback]

In Exile wrote...

Tirfan wrote...

^ While this is true - the fact that they removed so much of the things that enable me to actually get into character and you know, RP, I would consider, catering to the folk that don't like RPG:s.

But the things that let you RP are things that prevent me from RPing. I would say things like PC VO and restricted inventory for companions make it a better RPG for me, not a worse one.

What I hoped for was that Mass Effect and whatever comes after it would be tailored towards the style of role playing you enjoy, while Dragon Age would remain more of an old school style.  Have diffrent brands to appeal to diffrent styles of play and taste.  I enjoy Mass Effect, and would love to see more games like it, but Dragon Age Origins was much more the kind of RPG experiance that I really want.

[Morroian]

Blastback wrote...

In Exile wrote...

But the things that let you RP are things that prevent me from RPing. I would say things like PC VO and restricted inventory for companions make it a better RPG for me, not a worse one.

What I hoped for was that Mass Effect and whatever comes after it would be tailored towards the style of role playing you enjoy, while Dragon Age would remain more of an old school style.  Have diffrent brands to appeal to diffrent styles of play and taste. 

Not really, my role playing style is in line with In Exile's and I found the ME2 role playing to be far too shallow, definitely more shallow than DA2 and mostly unsatisfying.

Modifié par Morroian, 28 juin 2011 - 11:35 .

[In Exile]

Sutekh wrote...
How is it the only way to play the Warden? It's not a fixed char. I <3 Grey Wardens, maybe (debatable), but Ferelden?

If I played a pragmatic character, I would want to abandon Ferelden to the Blight and rally the Wardens in Orlais. But that's impossible.

Blastback wrote...
What I hoped for was that Mass Effect and
whatever comes after it would be tailored towards the style of role
playing you enjoy, while Dragon Age would remain more of an old school
style.  Have diffrent brands to appeal to diffrent styles of play and
taste.  I enjoy Mass Effect, and would love to see more games like it,
but Dragon Age Origins was much more the kind of RPG experiance that I
really want.

ME doesn't give me the RPG that I want. It has no character skills. It has no party based combat. I don' like that. I wanted the PC VO and more fixed character focus from ME + the gameplay from DA:O + the skills from Fallout for my RP experience, and that game doesn't exist.

[Sutekh]

In Exile wrote...

Sutekh wrote...
How is it the only way to play the Warden? It's not a fixed char. I <3 Grey Wardens, maybe (debatable), but Ferelden?

If I played a pragmatic character, I would want to abandon Ferelden to the Blight and rally the Wardens in Orlais. But that's impossible.

What would be the point? The Blight is in Ferelden. As a Warden, your primary goal is to fight the Blight. You don't fight something by going where it's not. Do you think Dwarven or Dalish Wardens, pragmatic or not, give a damn about Ferelden?

Even then, it's not the only way.

[In Exile]

Sutekh wrote...
What would be the point?

You're isolated and alone. You have either a crazy witch or an abomination who saved you, a whiny templar/Warden recruit, and a seductress mage. Your plan involves hoping that 500+ year old treaties are going to be honoured, and you just saw the nation of Ferelden collapse into civil war.

The plan is insane, there are no allies to be had and the country is a mess.

The Blight is in Ferelden. As a Warden, your primary goal is to fight the Blight.You don't fight something by going where it's not.

That's absurd. Retreating is a perfectly viable strategy when you're absolutely overwhelmed. The most recent blight lasted 20 years. Losing Ferelden means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

David Gaidner pointed out that Duncan, had he lived, would have abandoned Ferelden.

Do you think Dwarven or Dalish Wardens, pragmatic or not, give a damn about Ferelden?

That's entirely differnet way DA:O fails re: creating motivation.

Even then, it's not the only way.

What are you talking about?

Modifié par In Exile, 29 juin 2011 - 12:37 .

[Imrahil_]

In Exile wrote...
But the things that let you RP are things that prevent me from RPing. I would say things like PC VO and restricted inventory for companions make it a better RPG for me, not a worse one.

It sounds like you enjoy The Witcher style RPG's, or maybe a hybrid DA-ME game, which is what DA2 is. And that's fine. I enjoyed TW2. Great game. Everything you said you want, minus a constant, controllable party, which is an important point, to be sure.  I like having a party over not having a party as well, but otherwise TW2 is a great game with PC VO & no control of companion inventory.

But, what you really, really need to understand is that there lots of "other people" that want to play DA:O types of games, despite its many flaws. DA2 took away everything those other people want to play, leaving them with nothing.  They now have *no game* at all that meets their desires.  You now have one more game that meets yours.

Imagine if they'd taken DA2 & turned it into DA:O.  Some empathy towards those "other people" would go a long way towards helping you make your point.  Understand that there are now millions of game players with no game to play.

[Imrahil_]

In Exile wrote...
If I played a pragmatic character, I would want to abandon Ferelden to the Blight and rally the Wardens in Orlais. But that's impossible.

It'd have been nice if they put in a choice at Lothering to seek out the Orlesian Wardens.  And then the game ends.

I mean, sure, that'd be a nice touch, & kind of funny.  But the game would still end.  Cut to the Epilogue where Alistair kills the Archdemon or something.  But the game would still end.  You have a dozen choices at Lothering, & you want a baker's dozen with one that would invalidate the whole game.  Do you also want the choice to abandon Kirkwall in DA2?  Would you have preferred the movie Die Hard if John McClain had left the building ASAP to get the cops?  Lord of the Rings if Frodo had just buggered off instead?  Tomb Raider if Lara Croft had been like "f this, I'm just gonna hire some mercenaries!"?

But still, you could always roleplay it.  At the start of Lothering, you could pretend you made that choice & shut your computer off.  Go for it next time.  What's stopping you?