194 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Brockololly wrote...

So my question would be with respect to DA2, was it really a "refined" sequel where the right variables were simply adjusted and BioWare understood what their audience wanted? Or did they try to change too much of the core Dragon Age experience without having a firm understanding of what the audience enjoyed from the first game?

It depends what features you like. For example, I think silent VO ought to be eliminated from the industry as rapidly as possible, and any game is made so much better by the mere inclusion of PC VO that every game should spare no expense to include it. I also strongly support an increase in cinematics, and prefer an unrealistic over-the-top and fast style to an unrealistic slow style. It's what I enjoyed about Bioware games, since I came in with KoTOR.

But these are desgin level decisions. Bioware could have outlined the right design elements in DA2 to include, and still horrendously failed to include them.

If you look at DA:O, you have to ask what it actually did differently:

It used a 'ruleset' that was similar to an MMO (e.g. WOW) with regenerating mana and health. It radically restricted the background available for any PC. It focused on providing a cinematic experience, drawing from fantasy blockbusters. It featured multiple disconnected plots in the context of a shallow general story.

DA2 continues with many of these broad-level design elements. It just does them badly.

No one wants recycled areas, or choices that don't matter. Bioware failing to execute and produce a good game is not the same thing as the design being flawed from the start.

My biggest issues with DA2 is that it didn't seem to try and iterate off of what Origins established, but tried to more or less reboot DA yet it lacked the time to do so in a manner which worked. So you end up with a bizarre mish mash of a game that lacks a confident identity in what it wants to be- from the art style to the gameplay.

DA2 goes off what Bioware looks to design in games. DA:O is a game from 2005 (or was it 2004?), and Bioware changed rather significantly as a studio. In between DA:O being announced and launched, we went from Jade Empire being released, to Mass Effect being released. Both those games built on what KoTOR did from NWN and BGII/BG.

The studio isn't the same. I'd wager some of the features (e.g. the cinematics and VO) were added because that's the staple of Bioware design values. Just look at TOR.

It comes down to understanding one's audience and I don't think the changes made to DA2 are necessarily what most people wanted out of a sequel to Origins. IMO, DA2 maybe got the "surprise" part down, but did it "delight"?

But the audience needs to understand the developer, and if there was anything I can say about the audience Bioware drew in with DA:O, it was that it was one the studio had more or less left behind with BG.

Modifié par In Exile, 20 juin 2011 - 03:58 .

[foil-]

I would say some of the innovations to rpg in DAO and DA2 are:

-Addition of junk category which is now expected in rpgs (reviewers questioning why its not in other rpgs that they review)
-Dialogue wheel (which was carried over but is new to fantasy rpgs: more on this below)
-Companions maintaining armour and identity.  Its getting more like playing with actual individuals.  I hated it at first but it grew on me.
-Weapon identity: hmm, still not a fan of this.  Rather than outright preventing ranged weapons, I would like to see some alternatives like throwing daggers.  Or using a bow at a very reduced proficiency.
-Shield as a weapon (about time someone made good use of this)
-Rivalry instead of dislike
-Dialogue choices influencing later dialogue choices without a visible Paragon scale.  They are taking from ME and innovating it more.
-Removing pseudo turn place completely.
-And many more I'm sure I forgot.

Its hard to take the Doctors' comments as refering to DA2 solely, since they have many games under their belt and wouldn't be where they are without taking risks and investing in innovation across all their IPs.  The nature of risk is just that, there is risk of failing.  Some companies never rebound from this, BioWare likely will (although it would be hard to classify DA2 as a monetary failure for whatever reasons).  One of their risks may have been to attempt an ME style reuse of areas that allowed for many many sidemissions.  That definitely failed.  Another risk may have been to test if an accelerated development cycle would work with the toolset now in place.  I personally liked the story that came out of it and would love to see content realeased more than just every 2-3 years.  But understand that not everyone agrees.  What I hear in the "wild" outside these forums from individual reviewers and game journalists is a more balanced opinion stating what worked exceedingly well and what definitely was a step backwards.  Some state that the relationships in DA2 are some of the best they've ever played.  I guess it depends a bit on the path or companion chosen since mine wasn't exceedingly well fleshed out.  But there were some interesting conversations between isabella and the elf girl.  I expect the Anders romance is the one this particular reviewer was talking about. She said she had to take a night away from the game to make the decision.

Dialogue Wheel:  I actually really like the dialogue wheel and I like fantasy rpgs.  There are plenty of rpgs out there with full dialogue to select, give us fans of the dialogue wheel at least one without all the laundry lists of possible answers.  Its not what you say but what you mean that is important.  I had more "what?" moments in origins where the text was clear (I thought) but the author had a completely different tone in mind as was evident in responses to my dialogue choices.  I had a couple of these in DA2 but not the same frequency as in origins.  I think this will also allow a lot more improv in the voice studio where they can listen to something and say that wording doesn't exactly work, then change it on the fly without too many repercussions into the dialogue trees already entered.

They did take some risks in DA2.  Some worked others didn't.  They were pressed on scheduling, that is certain. 

Modifié par foil-, 20 juin 2011 - 04:12 .

[DragonRageGT]

Killing the ability to create and play a dual sword warrior dwarf is not an inovation but rather a dumbed down feature!

Dragon Age - Nightmare Broodmother - No Mages!

And I really love how I could dress up Leliana with the Trailer Edition mod which is one of the greatest mods and vids made with the toolset ever. If DA3 dreams of having the same reach and success as Origins, it better have those features back!


Dragon Age: Origins - Trailer mod

This is the most awesome video made with the toolset and some BW staff shared it with the crew, as he said so in the Project page comments. Wabfloyd did a great job with the mod and video and I doubt anything made for DA2
come close to this!

PS.: Real shame that BW games never have Bows with Strings! So many other games can do it. NWN with CEP could do it!

Modifié par RageGT, 20 juin 2011 - 04:14 .

[Rubinato]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

Why change so much if you don't have the time or money to make it work, nor the vision to keep all of these new elements cohesive?

Change in budget halfway through?

I'm pretty sure they knew from the beginning about the budget and development cycle. EA did not pull a LucasArts and cut a third of development time halfway through the project.

If they did, then it would be like KotOR 2, where the game was literally unfinished and a quarter of it's planned content would be on the disk, but not in the game.

What if that made DA2 better?



But on a more serious note, even a few extra months would've gone a long way.

Which brings to mind social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/9/index/4571084/2#4575266

Chris Priestly wrote...

We did not expect DA2 to come together so well or so quickly. We could have chosen to delay DA2 and continued to put out DA:O DLC, but we know how awesome DA2is going to be. The decision was made to continue making DLC all the way to Witch Hunt and then it would end as we ramped up for DA2. When we said "2 years of DLC" we said that in good faith, but when something as excellent as Dragon Age 2 comes along, it changes plans for the better.

[In Exile]

RageGT wrote...
Killing the ability to create and play a dual sword warrior dwarf is not an inovation but rather a dumbed down feature!

Leaving out the class restriction discussion (the fact lack of overlap between classes I mean, not the idea to restrict the talent trees of companions), why would not having race selection 'dumb down' a game?

[foil-]

Rubinato wrote...


Which brings to mind social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/9/index/4571084/2#4575266

Chris Priestly wrote...

We
did not expect DA2 to come together so well or so quickly. We could
have chosen to delay DA2 and continued to put out DA:O DLC, but we know
how awesome DA2is going to be. The decision was made to continue making
DLC all the way to Witch Hunt and then it would end as we ramped up for
DA2. When we said "2 years of DLC" we said that in good faith, but when
something as excellent as Dragon Age 2 comes along, it changes plans for
the better.

I think about that quote from Priestly often and sort of regret they chose this path now that I think of it.  I was very much enjoying what they were producing as DLC for DAO.  The Leliana DLC had me pining for more.  They were doing some interesting things in some of the newer DLC and I would have liked to see them flesh out even more characters and aspects of the DAO world.  You're right, I could have waited longer for DA2 if they had continued to rapidly pump out DAO DLC.  I understand expansions are just a monetary loss the more you do, but DLC seams to work.

However, they have a limited amount of time with the current graphics engine before it becomes extremely dated.  I know they want to release a trilogy before that happens (it was already fairly dated due to the extended origins dev time).

Modifié par foil-, 20 juin 2011 - 04:41 .

[Davasar]

They innovated nothing. All the features they have in DA2 are in other games.

The argument coming here will be "bit it's new for Dragon Age!"

And let's be clear: Innovation does not mean something good. It means something new.

I will make an example:

The Dragon Age franchise is sitting on the ground. We all know it well, but it isnt new to most of us.

Along comes a bum, who takes a steaming crap on it.

Guess what, he innovated....much like DA2 was innovative to the Dragon Age franchise, so can the steaming pile of crap be innovative to it also. Both were new to the franchise, but have the same affect.

[In Exile]

If you want a real answer, here's what DA2 was designed to do: put Bioware in a better position to have a reasonable profit margin in the DA series. DA:O took 54 months to develop and sold 3.7 million units. DA2 took 18 months to develop and sold 1.4 million units.

That means DA:O sold 68,000 units per month in development; DA2 sold 77,700 units per month in development. The margin is likely higher on DA2, especially with 36 months less of salary, lease, etc. that had to be paid for DA2.

More importantly, DA2 took less time. In the time that DA:O was developed 4 1/2 years, ME1 and ME2 were developed. I'd wager that Bioware likely made 35 + million on the ME series than DA:O, and sold as much as Oblivion with the same dev. time.


tl; dr:

DA2 was the game it was, with the features it had, because the dev. cycle was too long to get as good a margin as other Bioware releases in comparative time.

Modifié par In Exile, 20 juin 2011 - 04:44 .

[dheer]

Rubinato wrote...
Which brings to mind social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/9/index/4571084/2#4575266

Chris Priestly wrote...
We did not expect DA2 to come together so well or so quickly. We could have chosen to delay DA2 and continued to put out DA:O DLC, but we know how awesome DA2is going to be. The decision was made to continue making DLC all the way to Witch Hunt and then it would end as we ramped up for DA2. When we said "2 years of DLC" we said that in good faith, but when something as excellent as Dragon Age 2 comes along, it changes plans for the better.

Yeesh. I really like Chris but in retrospect that couldn't have been farther from reality. DA2 didn't come together so well at all.

In Exile wrote...
If you want a real answer, here's what DA2 was designed to do: put Bioware in a better position to have a reasonable profit margin in the DA series. DA:O took 54 months to develop and sold 3.7 million units. DA2 took 18 months to develop and sold 1.4 million units.

While it made a better profit, it sold quite a bit less. Corporations like EA are usually more intrested in showing growth of a brand / franchise  or company to their share holders and potential investors. A profit is good, sure, but selling DA2 to a smaller niche than the first game hasn't helped.

Modifié par dheer, 20 juin 2011 - 04:56 .

[Davasar]

I like they should release DA3 in 6 months then

Heck, if they only sell a little bit for a shill of a game they can still make profit.

[Cutlasskiwi]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Well I think 'Awakening' is a perfect example of what you get when you play it safe and still manage to be unsatisfying. Personally, even if I don't love every change, I'm glad they were willing to take risks.

They clearly need to adjust the formula and find middle ground on round three though. And I'm pretty sure they know that too.

I agree. And that's why I'm excited about future Dragon Age installments.

[In Exile]

Davasar wrote...

I like they should release DA3 in 6 months then

Heck, if they only sell a little bit for a shill of a game they can still make profit.

If you want to ignore the issue, be my guest. Bioware has a business model with the ME series that's more profitable. It doesn't make very much sense to keep an IP that won't be as profitable afloat.

Bioware could make DA:O2, but then you need to find out where an extra 1,000,000 in sales are coming from, supposing everyone who bought DA:O buys DA:O2.

[Bio-Age]

Sequels are good as long as they improve them . When you change your sequel beyond recognition aka Dragon age 2, water it down in hope to sell more to the "mainstream" you're better off creating a new IP then tarnishing the franchise.

Modifié par Bio-Age, 20 juin 2011 - 04:57 .

[Cutlass Jack]

Wulfram wrote...

Yet DA2 is very similar to Awakening.  Teleporting rogues, AoE two handed fighters, limited PC-Companion conversations, abrupt ending.

Sure, if you'd like to pick a few arbitrary random things that weren't on my list of issues with either game.

[Nozybidaj]

In Exile wrote...
If you want to ignore the issue, be my guest. Bioware has a business model with the ME series that's more profitable. It doesn't make very much sense to keep an IP that won't be as profitable afloat.

Bioware could make DA:O2, but then you need to find out where an extra 1,000,000 in sales are coming from, supposing everyone who bought DA:O buys DA:O2.

Is that better or worse than making DA2-2 and trying to figure out where the extra 3,000,000 in sales are coming from?

[In Exile]

Nozybidaj wrote...
Is that better or worse than making DA2-2 and trying to figure out where the extra 3,000,000 in sales are coming from?

Worse. Like I said: if DA3 can't profit with the new design, killing the IP makes more sense.

I have no idea where you're getting the 3,000,000 figure.

[Nozybidaj]

In Exile wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...
Is that better or worse than making DA2-2 and trying to figure out where the extra 3,000,000 in sales are coming from?

Worse. Like I said: if DA3 can't profit with the new design, killing the IP makes more sense.

I have no idea where you're getting the 3,000,000 figure.

I'm just trying to figure out what the point was you were trying to make. Are you saying it is better not to make any game than to make a game that sells more?

The 3 mill comes from you. You said "where would the extra 1 mill come from" for a DA:O2, so you are trying to hit some arbitrary 5 mill mark. For DA:O to hit that you need the extra 1 mill, DA2 would need an extra 3 mill.

Modifié par Nozybidaj, 20 juin 2011 - 05:36 .

[In Exile]

Nozybidaj wrote...
I'm just trying to figure out what the point was you were trying to make. Are you saying it is better not to make any game than to make a game that sells more?

What matters is the profit margin.

It's better not to make a game than a game that losses money. More realistically, it's better to abandon an IP that has a very low profit margin for a new IP according to a new business model that can have a much higher profit margin.

As an example:

If you have a product that costs 2 million to make, sells 50,000
copies for $50 then you've made $500,000. If you have a product that
costs $400 million to make, you sell 3 million copies at $50 dollars,
then you've just lost $250 million.

The 3 mill comes from you. You said "where would the extra 1 mill come from" for a DA:O2, so you are trying to hit some arbitrary 5 mill mark. For DA:O to hit that you need the extra 1 mill, DA2 would need an extra 3 mill.

You don't understand. The profit margin isn't just about your raw sales number; it's about your development cost and sales. ME1 sold 2.7 million. ME2 sold 3 million. M1+ME2 sold 5.7 million. If DA3 sells 2.3 million, and DA4 sells 2.5 million, and DA:O3 sells 4.7 million, DA3+DA4 is more profitable (and looks better on your early returns, which pushes your stock value up!).

The goal isn't to sell 5 million. The goal is to not radically underperform compared to your own line of products.

Modifié par In Exile, 20 juin 2011 - 05:48 .

[Brockololly]

In Exile wrote...

If you want a real answer, here's what DA2 was designed to do: put Bioware in a better position to have a reasonable profit margin in the DA series. DA:O took 54 months to develop and sold 3.7 million units. DA2 took 18 months to develop and sold 1.4 million units.
 

Thats all well and good if they made better margins on DA2 (which they likely did) but the question is how much have they screwed themselves over now in the rush to make a short term profit from the damage done to DA as a franchise from DA2? You've got to imagine a healthy chunk of DA2's sales came from preorders- likely from people who enjoyed Origins for whatever reason. Barring some Frostbite 2 level graphics upgrade or something equally drastic, I don't see them recovering from the ill will DA2 has generated. Sure, some people will forget about it by the time DA3 rolls around and some loved DA2, but I truly think it destroyed a healthy amount of goodwill towards BioWare many people may have had.

And beyond that, while Origins may have taken a long time to make, what about DLC sales and profits? If the base game is rubbish or doesn't generate as many sales, you aren't going to make as much off of DLC, which is all going straight to the developer unlike retail game copies. Apparently the Origins DLC did pretty well for them, so where does that factor into Origins' profitability?


Time will only tell with the DLC and eventually a sequel, but I think they really screwed over DA as a franchise in the long term by rushing DA2 out, especially after the glut of subpar Origins DLC.

[In Exile]

Brockololly wrote...
Thats all well and good if they made better margins on DA2 (which they likely did) but the question is how much have they screwed themselves over now in the rush to make a short term profit from the damage done to DA as a franchise from DA2?

You're asking the wrong question. The DA IP, as it stood with origins, was a non-starter. Put another way, EA wasn't going to lay down the funding for a 4 1/2 development cycle, with the margins as low on DA:O as they were compared to the ME series, and to (for example) Bestheda RPGs with the same dev. time, or even the () Fable series.

Either DA2 sold well, and EA had another ME cashcow, or DA2 sold poorly, in which case you fold the whole affair.

You've got to imagine a healthy chunk of DA2's sales came from preorders- likely from people who enjoyed Origins for whatever reason. Barring some Frostbite 2 level graphics upgrade or something equally drastic, I don't see them recovering from the ill will DA2 has generated. Sure, some people will forget about it by the time DA3 rolls around and some loved DA2, but I truly think it destroyed a healthy amount of goodwill towards BioWare many people may have had.

We'll see what happened to Bioware's brand with ME3, and then (I suppose, though I'm pretty sure this will lead to Bioware folding) TOR.

You're still thinking about the issue in terms of keeping the IP afloat, and not in terms of maximizing financial returns.

And beyond that, while Origins may have taken a long time to make, what about DLC sales and profits? If the base game is rubbish or doesn't generate as many sales, you aren't going to make as much off of DLC, which is all going straight to the developer unlike retail game copies. Apparently the Origins DLC did pretty well for them, so where does that factor into Origins' profitability?

I wouldn't exactly trust Bioware's official count on their sales. DLC is a pretty penny... but DA:O and ME2 had the same amount of DLC, give or take. The release cycle is more important than the sales quantity.

Time will only tell with the DLC and eventually a sequel, but I think they really screwed over DA as a franchise in the long term by rushing DA2 out, especially after the glut of subpar Origins DLC.

I completely agree (don't forget how much Awakanening in the poor quality bin), but you have to understand, the DA IP has no value unless it has good ROI. And DA:O wasn't good ROI, compared to what EA had in Mass Effect.

Modifié par In Exile, 20 juin 2011 - 06:20 .

[MorrigansLove]

I'm just waiting on the DLC, as they have said they made it with all the feedback in mind.

[AngryFrozenWater]

BioWare is creating this new dictionary. "Streamlining" means "dumbing down" and "innovation" means "adding stuff that the hardcore fans dislike, but the preferred future fan base loves".

On the surface streamlining and innovation appear to be two different things, but if I look at them closely their main objectives are the same: Cost reduction. Here are some examples of streamlining and innovations:

In DA:O dual wielding and archery were available for both warriors and rogues. Under the hood that meant that these weapons had to work with both the warrior and rogue class. These two classes have different primary attributes. The code was buggy. The patch was introduced way too late and never fully fixed archery. In DA2 a new talent and spell tree system was introduced in an attempt attempt to address issues that some gamers had with it. That required an overhaul of the system and the attribute system had to be refactored (re-implemented). To reduce costs it was best to remove dual wielding and archery for warriors. That removed the need for making dual wielding and archery work with the warrior's primary attribute and it would simplify the talents of the warrior and rogue.

The voiced PC, companion armor and armor in loot are closely related. It's probably expensive to add voice acting to the PC, so other savings were needed to keep the budget healthy. By using a human only PC there is no need for race specific background history and dialogue. The cinematic animations are likely to be simplified because these don't have to account for the different sizes of other races. By using companion armor only there is no need to make the armor found in loot fit male and female elves and dwarfs.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 20 juin 2011 - 06:26 .

[FieryDove]

Rubinato wrote...

Which brings to mind social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/9/index/4571084/2#4575266

Chris Priestly wrote...

We did not expect DA2 to come together so well or so quickly. We could have chosen to delay DA2 and continued to put out DA:O DLC, but we know how awesome DA2is going to be. The decision was made to continue making DLC all the way to Witch Hunt and then it would end as we ramped up for DA2. When we said "2 years of DLC" we said that in good faith, but when something as excellent as Dragon Age 2 comes along, it changes plans for the better.

I remember that. No more dlc...fine, whatever, not patching critcal bugs bad form.

[In Exile]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
On the surface streamlining and innovation appear to be two different things, but if I look at them closely their main objectives are the same: Cost reduction. Here are some examples of streamlining and innovations:

That's the fundamental core of a major corporation. 

The voiced PC, companion armor and armor in loot are closely related. It's probably expensive to add voice acting to the PC, so other savings were needed to keep the budget healthy. By using a human only PC there is no need for race specific background history and dialogue. The cinematic animations are likely to be simplified because these don't have to account for the different sizes of other races. By using companion armor only there is no need to make the armor found in loot fit male and female elves and dwarfs.

To be fair to the cinematic direction, DA2 is by far the most cinematic of Bioware's games. And independent of the cost-reduction on race choice, I think the absence of racial choice is a better design decision in general. DA2 just didn't accomodate it well.

[MonkeyLungs]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

BioWare is creating this new dictionary. "Streamlining" means "dumbing down" and "innovation" means "adding stuff that the hardcore fans dislike, but the preferred future fan base loves".

NewFans haven't read 1984. The people who run marketing all over the world have. The idea wasn't even new in the novel but it does a good job illustrating this tactic.

The NewFans of videogames ... and I don't mean literally brand new fans I mean NewFans aka we love streamlining incorporated ... have no understanding of what you are speaking AFW. They will argue the PR talking points right back at you all day long until you are both blue in the face not realizing that they are helping with indoctrinating themselves.