194 réponses à ce sujet

[AngryFrozenWater]

Persephone wrote...

Yellow Words wrote...

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.

Same here.

Look at the Might and Magic series. In VI, they created an engine that was a SMASH HIT. The fans loved it, the critics loved it. They then basically used carbon copies of it up until IX.........getting MOCKED for listening to the core "fans" / Laziness / lack of progress and innovation...... When they finally ditched  it in X, it was too late. The franchise died because VIII and IX were mockeries of the genius of VI BECAUSE they kept it almost EXACTLY as it was. Awakening remined me of M&M VIII (Not mechanics or story wise) in its basic "DAO was Mac & Cheese. Here have Mac & Cheese with more Cheese."

Awakening was close to Origins because (this might shock you): Drumroll... It was an expansion for DA:O.

[Persephone]

twincast wrote...

Awakening was bad because of its changes, not because of what it kept.

What did it change? (Cutting features doesn't count, same as DAII)

[In Exile]

Aaleel wrote...
What are you talking about, who said anything about the ME series.  All I said was that no digital downloads are counted on VGchartz, so Origins had a lot more than 400k sales on the PC.

I was the one that brought up sales relative to development time, as a way to contrast the opportunity cost of another DA:O with another ME series, which is why DA2 exists. Because EA believes (with good reason, IMO) that

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
That you're using VGChartz as a
difinitive source of sales numbers in the first place when they don't do
digital or PC sales most of the time is kinda fruitless to begin with.

Not really. Because as I keep saying - the actual raw numbers don't really matter. It's the relative differences and the timeline and development cost, and that's all speculative.

That's
without mentioning the console focus with the Mass Effect series
marketing to begin with.

You never followed DA:O's development, I see. The second DA:O was delayed for consoles, Bioware took the PC first marketing they were pushing and drove a stake through its heart.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Dormiglione wrote...

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.

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. 

If you look on the financial side, then yes, i think that DA2 was more profitable as DAO. But at which cost? DAO costed more to develop but generated a big fan base. I would guess that much of the 400'000 preorders were thanks to the fan base of DAO.
I really believe that DA2 was more profitable as DAO, but the price was to disappoint a lot of the DAO fan base who are not willing to preorder anymore. DA2 polarized the mass instead of getting them together. I dont think that it was intended to alienate so much people. But it happened.
My advise to Bioware is to search the middleground between DAO and DA2.

Yet no one mentions that DA: also appeared to be put on the back burner in lieu of other projects Bioware was working on. It always bothered me that we heard about DA:O shortly after NWN shipped, then didn't hear a damn thing about it for a good 3+ years later. What does that tell you?

I would certainly hope DA2 was profitable even with the lower sales, considering it was rushed out in 18 months and surely cost less to make with how much they stripped the hell out of it or borrowed from ME.

Angry's right, it's all about finding a middle ground between the 2 portions of the fan base, something I'm not entirely sure Bioware is capable or willing to do at this point. As much as it pains me to say it.

[Persephone]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Yellow Words wrote...

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.

Same here.

Look at the Might and Magic series. In VI, they created an engine that was a SMASH HIT. The fans loved it, the critics loved it. They then basically used carbon copies of it up until IX.........getting MOCKED for listening to the core "fans" / Laziness / lack of progress and innovation...... When they finally ditched  it in X, it was too late. The franchise died because VIII and IX were mockeries of the genius of VI BECAUSE they kept it almost EXACTLY as it was. Awakening remined me of M&M VIII (Not mechanics or story wise) in its basic "DAO was Mac & Cheese. Here have Mac & Cheese with more Cheese."

Awakening was close to Origins because (this might shock you): Drumroll... It was an expansion for DA:O.

Couldn't care less. They could have done so much more than just overcook the same old formula. They did not.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

In Exile wrote...

Aaleel wrote...
What are you talking about, who said anything about the ME series.  All I said was that no digital downloads are counted on VGchartz, so Origins had a lot more than 400k sales on the PC.

I was the one that brought up sales relative to development time, as a way to contrast the opportunity cost of another DA:O with another ME series, which is why DA2 exists. Because EA believes (with good reason, IMO) that

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
That you're using VGChartz as a
difinitive source of sales numbers in the first place when they don't do
digital or PC sales most of the time is kinda fruitless to begin with.

Not really. Because as I keep saying - the actual raw numbers don't really matter. It's the relative differences and the timeline and development cost, and that's all speculative.

That's
without mentioning the console focus with the Mass Effect series
marketing to begin with.

You never followed DA:O's development, I see. The second DA:O was delayed for consoles, Bioware took the PC first marketing they were pushing and drove a stake through its heart.

Actually I did follow it, quite closely and wasn't shocked at the PC delay, but to say the marketing didn't focus at all on the PC sku is flat out BS. I'm sorry. Now if you're talking about DA2's marketing being console focused sure, but that wasn't the case with Origins.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Persephone wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Yellow Words wrote...

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.

Same here.

Look at the Might and Magic series. In VI, they created an engine that was a SMASH HIT. The fans loved it, the critics loved it. They then basically used carbon copies of it up until IX.........getting MOCKED for listening to the core "fans" / Laziness / lack of progress and innovation...... When they finally ditched  it in X, it was too late. The franchise died because VIII and IX were mockeries of the genius of VI BECAUSE they kept it almost EXACTLY as it was. Awakening remined me of M&M VIII (Not mechanics or story wise) in its basic "DAO was Mac & Cheese. Here have Mac & Cheese with more Cheese."

Awakening was close to Origins because (this might shock you): Drumroll... It was an expansion for DA:O.

Couldn't care less. They could have done so much more than just overcook the same old formula. They did not.

No instead they stripped the good portions of RPG's out, customization, choice affecting the story, etc. and half assed it in order to ship it in 18 months. Yeah that's really innovating right there.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Persephone wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Yellow Words wrote...

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.

Same here.

Look at the Might and Magic series. In VI, they created an engine that was a SMASH HIT. The fans loved it, the critics loved it. They then basically used carbon copies of it up until IX.........getting MOCKED for listening to the core "fans" / Laziness / lack of progress and innovation...... When they finally ditched  it in X, it was too late. The franchise died because VIII and IX were mockeries of the genius of VI BECAUSE they kept it almost EXACTLY as it was. Awakening remined me of M&M VIII (Not mechanics or story wise) in its basic "DAO was Mac & Cheese. Here have Mac & Cheese with more Cheese."

Awakening was close to Origins because (this might shock you): Drumroll... It was an expansion for DA:O.

Couldn't care less. They could have done so much more than just overcook the same old formula. They did not.

That's the same feeling I have about DA2. They didn't take any risks. Instead BW dreamed up several cost savings operations (some pioneered by the Mass Effect team) and asked marketing to explain it. Hence the whole streamlining and (relevant to this topic) innovation.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 20 juin 2011 - 07:50 .

[In Exile]

Nozybidaj wrote...
This is where our disconnect is. Why would a DA:O2 take more time developing?

DA2 was, putting it midly, a bad game. Act I was disconnect. Act II didn't follow up on any consequences from Act I. Even though you expected branching content, you got nothing. And Act III was a mess where the mage storyline didn't make sense and the templar ending reall didn't make sense. That'snot accounting for the fact that playing a game to begin with didn't make sense at all, and without getting into the recycled areas.

DA2 needed another 12-18 months of development time to be a good game as designed.

We're not even looking at adding multiple origins yet, and account for the differences that should result from that.

That doesn't even make sense. In fact, if we assume the same amount of new content added between DA:O2 and DA2 it would have taken even less time to develop (whether you think the time it did take is enough or not is irrelevant).

Let's say DA:O2 doesn't do anything about the engine; they keep everything the same. You still need to create new abilities and upgrade your combat system, to avoid the series being stale and the fanbase criticizing your approach as stagnat.

DA2 took 18 months, so let's be generous and say 9 months was pure engine redesign and combat redesign.

That meands DA2 took 9 months to make the game. You think Bioware could create a game of DA:O's scope in 9 months?

For some reason you are assuming that each succesive DA:O sequel would have taken more time than any other sequel. There wasn't a whole lot that would have needed changed from DA:O to a DA:O2 as far as upgrading the engine is concerned.

DA:O is a resource intensive game. For one, it's massive in terms of content. It has a fair amount of story branches. The most writing since BGII.

Even if you keep everything the same, you still need to invest in environments, a combat tweak, and the actual building of the game. DA:O was 2-3x as big as DA2. If DA2 took 9 months of pure development time, and would have needed like another 12 to be a complete game. DAO2 would need 30-49 months, if they reclycled everything they could from DA:O, which brings it pretty close to DA:O's 54 months.

DA2 changed a lot of things that have been met with a rather lukewarm reception at best. if you attribute those changes to the decrease in overall sales, how well spent was that money exactly?

Again: it is opportunity cost relative to the ME series. EA wasn't going to fund another game the size of DA:O. It was either close down the IP, or try to revamp and cash-in.

[In Exile]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote..
Actually I did follow it, quite closely and wasn't shocked at the PC delay, but to say the marketing didn't focus at all on the PC sku is flat out BS. I'm sorry. Now if you're talking about DA2's marketing being console focused sure, but that wasn't the case with Origins.

DA:O was featured at E3 '08, but the marketing campaign started up after the delay, with the greatly "loved" Marylin Manson trailer.

The pre-release marketng, i.e. the marketing that counts, had nothing to do with the PC as a lead SKU. It was right around when the talk of a spiritual succesor to BG got thrown off a bridge.

[Dormiglione]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...

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.

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. 

If you look on the financial side, then yes, i think that DA2 was more profitable as DAO. But at which cost? DAO costed more to develop but generated a big fan base. I would guess that much of the 400'000 preorders were thanks to the fan base of DAO.
I really believe that DA2 was more profitable as DAO, but the price was to disappoint a lot of the DAO fan base who are not willing to preorder anymore. DA2 polarized the mass instead of getting them together. I dont think that it was intended to alienate so much people. But it happened.
My advise to Bioware is to search the middleground between DAO and DA2.

Yet no one mentions that DA: also appeared to be put on the back burner in lieu of other projects Bioware was working on. It always bothered me that we heard about DA:O shortly after NWN shipped, then didn't hear a damn thing about it for a good 3+ years later. What does that tell you?

I would certainly hope DA2 was profitable even with the lower sales, considering it was rushed out in 18 months and surely cost less to make with how much they stripped the hell out of it or borrowed from ME.

Angry's right, it's all about finding a middle ground between the 2 portions of the fan base, something I'm not entirely sure Bioware is capable or willing to do at this point. As much as it pains me to say it.

I dont know how the Dragon Age series will develop further. There is one post of Mike Laidlaw social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/315/index/7475089/6#7476074 that gives me hope that the next installment of Dragon Age will be something between DAO and DA2. As i said, i dont know, time will tell us the direction the next DA title will go.

[In Exile]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Yet no one mentions that DA: also appeared to be put on the back burner in lieu of other projects Bioware was working on. It always bothered me that we heard about DA:O shortly after NWN shipped, then didn't hear a damn thing about it for a good 3+ years later. What does that tell you?

Nothing. Bioware got serious about DA2 in about '04 if I remember right. No one is saying DA:O took 7 years.

I would certainly hope DA2 was profitable even with the lower sales, considering it was rushed out in 18 months and surely cost less to make with how much they stripped the hell out of it or borrowed from ME.

It's not about the profit. It's about the design. ME's design and release schedule is better, $$-wise.

[Nozybidaj]

In Exile wrote...
You think Bioware could create a game of DA:O's scope in 9 months?

Okay, I found our problem here.  No absolutely not.

The topic is about the "innovations" made from DA:O to DA2.  My assumption was making the same/similar game with DA:O mechanics/engine/style -vs- making the same game with DA2's "innovations".  Same budget and time across both.

I didn't realize your basis was that a DA:O type game meant a larger, better made game.  I was thinking more along the lines of VO, wheels, and art styling/graphics.

So, yes, I agree with you that making a less developed game in a shorter amount of time and being able to ride the coat tails of a succesful sequel is probably more profitable than making a full well polished game.  At least once.  If they do DA3 the same way, shorter time, less content, less polish and the total sales continue to plummet in correlation with that, trying that a second time might very well not be more profitable since it doesn't have coat tails to ride.

I don't think the loss of reputation and lambasting of the IP will be worth it in the long run though.  Of course EA doesn't look at "long runs". *coughWestwoodcough*

[Quett]

Taking risks to make things better is a good thing. However, it might be better to take things slow when you're changing the formula of a successful game. Let's take the changes from ME1 to ME2:

ME1 had cool characters, but only like 6 party members. ME2 also had cool characters, but it had like 15. And more of them were hot chicks. And there was a robot that played video games. Big improvements. I assume they'll keep these features.

ME1 had a somewhat annoying inventory system that got loaded with crap items that you didn't need. You'd sell most of them or convert them to omnigel. While having tons of crap weapons and armor is normal for an rpg, it did seem a bit cumbersome in ME1. In ME2 they removed the inventory entirely and instead stuck you with like 3 weapons for every slot that you'd discover over time. They went way too far and it was a bad thing. I don't know if they're bringing back an inventory in ME3 but they did mention being able to pick up enemy's weapons. A little better at least.

ME1 had an awesome system of weapons modification, with multiple mod slots on good weapons with lots of different upgrades and ammo types that had both pros and cons. ME2 dumb'd this down into having ammo selections as skills and no mods. Big downgrade. In ME3 they are bringing back upgrades which will be a huge improvement to gameplay. I don't know how involved it all is but it will be better than it's predecessor. If they actually let you switch out like, scopes and attachments it could be better than ME1 in some sense, though I really like the way it worked in that first game.

My point here is that with the ME series they tried to change things too much between 1 and 2, and are now balancing it with ME3, when they should have just taken it slower in ME2 and watched people's reactions. That way, the third game would be more like the most refined game in the series and less like the correction of the problems of the first two games.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

In Exile wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Yet no one mentions that DA: also appeared to be put on the back burner in lieu of other projects Bioware was working on. It always bothered me that we heard about DA:O shortly after NWN shipped, then didn't hear a damn thing about it for a good 3+ years later. What does that tell you?

Nothing. Bioware got serious about DA2 in about '04 if I remember right. No one is saying DA:O took 7 years.

I would certainly hope DA2 was profitable even with the lower sales, considering it was rushed out in 18 months and surely cost less to make with how much they stripped the hell out of it or borrowed from ME.

It's not about the profit. It's about the design. ME's design and release schedule is better, $$-wise.

It was later than that Exile. We really didn't start getting much info aside from a tidbit here and there, til about a year or so, maybe a little more, before it shipped. Whether that was engine work or what who knows but it sure as hell didn't take 7 years of solid work on Origins itself, my guess is it was put on the back burner and sat there while other things were ramped up in production. (JE, ME for examples)

[Bryy_Miller]

Archaven wrote...

Why don't they just admit the game was rushed and they are lazy instead of Innovation?

A few reasons:

1) I think everyone agrees that it was rushed. But to say so is bad business. When someone ragequits and then says "DA2 was rushed, blah blah blah" (and please don't bring up Brent Knowles, that's just lame), then, for whatever reason, you can come on the forums and say "told you so". 

2) Perhaps they actually did what they wanted to do with DA2? Perhaps they do think DA2 was innovative? There is a *lot* of justiifying and finger-waging going on in order to feel secure that BioWare still makes games "for harcore fans/true RPG lovers/etc."; in today's day and age, nobody wants to dare admit that Something They Like put out a product that they feel is inferior. No, they have to make an excuse. "BioWare is just trolling", "EA did it". 

BioWare is in full defense mode right now, as they should be. DA2 is literally halving ther fanbase. They want people to buy the expansion and DA3. 

But people want a villain. 

[bEVEsthda]

Something the guy from ID soft said caught my eye:

"Games that are sequels are unfairly criticised," CEO Todd Hollenshead said. "One regard is they're not original. You can do a lot of original things in a sequel as long as you're consistent and true to the universe that game comes up in."

It strikes me that DA2 did it the totally opposite way.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Archaven wrote...

Why don't they just admit the game was rushed and they are lazy instead of Innovation?

A few reasons:

1) I think everyone agrees that it was rushed. But to say so is bad business. When someone ragequits and then says "DA2 was rushed, blah blah blah" (and please don't bring up Brent Knowles, that's just lame), then, for whatever reason, you can come on the forums and say "told you so". 

2) Perhaps they actually did what they wanted to do with DA2? Perhaps they do think DA2 was innovative? There is a *lot* of justiifying and finger-waging going on in order to feel secure that BioWare still makes games "for harcore fans/true RPG lovers/etc."; in today's day and age, nobody wants to dare admit that Something They Like put out a product that they feel is inferior. No, they have to make an excuse. "BioWare is just trolling", "EA did it". 

BioWare is in full defense mode right now, as they should be. DA2 is literally halving ther fanbase. They want people to buy the expansion and DA3. 

But people want a villain. 

The reason they're in full defense mode is DA2 didn't live up to the hype or the level of polish Bioware titles are known for. Let's just be honest here. Was it the worst game ever? No, was it half as good as DA:O? No not even in the ballpark.  They rushed it, they cut corners, they changed systems that didn't need to be changed, the framed narrative was terribly implimented. Basically DA2 is full of questionable design decisions and some questionable marketing (Where's that detactable camera Mike promised us?)  

The idea that they're still trying to call the game innovative while doing damage control? Yeah prolly not the best way to go about it.

[In Exile]

Nozybidaj wrote...
The topic is about the "innovations" made from DA:O to DA2.  My assumption was making the same/similar game with DA:O mechanics/engine/style -vs- making the same game with DA2's "innovations".  Same budget and time across both.

Oh, yeah, then it would take less.

I didn't realize your basis was that a DA:O type game meant a larger, better made game.  I was thinking more along the lines of VO, wheels, and art styling/graphics.

Well, I happen to think the main difference between DA:O and DA2 is that only one of them is actually a good game. DA2 has a few excellent elements (IMO, the cinematics, friendship/rivalry, the enhanced dialogue wheel), but they just forgot to ship the actual game.

So, yes, I agree with you that making a less developed game in a shorter amount of time and being able to ride the coat tails of a succesful sequel is probably more profitable than making a full well polished game.  At least once.  If they do DA3 the same way, shorter time, less content, less polish and the total sales continue to plummet in correlation with that, trying that a second time might very well not be more profitable since it doesn't have coat tails to ride.

It's not that I think making a cash-in is better. Just that having a shorter dev. cycle is better, because you can sell to the same same people twice in the same amount of time it would take you to develop the longer game.

I don't think the loss of reputation and lambasting of the IP will be worth it in the long run though.  Of course EA doesn't look at "long runs". *coughWestwoodcough*

Personally, I think DA is dead as an IP after DA3 unless Bioware does something groundbreaking. And I think TOR flopping might shut down Bioware.

Hopefully, Bioware Edmonton survives on the back of ME, and the DA team gets a crack at a new IP.

[In Exile]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
It was later than that Exile. We really didn't start getting much info aside from a tidbit here and there, til about a year or so, maybe a little more, before it shipped. Whether that was engine work or what who knows but it sure as hell didn't take 7 years of solid work on Origins itself, my guess is it was put on the back burner and sat there while other things were ramped up in production. (JE, ME for examples)

I'm looking at the credits, and I think JE had a lot of DA's manpower. We had stuff in the old days - themor and thedas and the speculation about everything early on. I still remember the oblivion flames.

[In Exile]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

The idea that they're still trying to call the game innovative while doing damage control? Yeah prolly not the best way to go about it.

It's a fine line for them to not get sued. We'll see what they do when it comes time to announce DA3. If they still defend DA2 then, I'll say you were right about them pushign the buck and covering up.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

In Exile wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...
The topic is about the "innovations" made from DA:O to DA2.  My assumption was making the same/similar game with DA:O mechanics/engine/style -vs- making the same game with DA2's "innovations".  Same budget and time across both.

Oh, yeah, then it would take less.

I didn't realize your basis was that a DA:O type game meant a larger, better made game.  I was thinking more along the lines of VO, wheels, and art styling/graphics.

Well, I happen to think the main difference between DA:O and DA2 is that only one of them is actually a good game. DA2 has a few excellent elements (IMO, the cinematics, friendship/rivalry, the enhanced dialogue wheel), but they just forgot to ship the actual game.

So, yes, I agree with you that making a less developed game in a shorter amount of time and being able to ride the coat tails of a succesful sequel is probably more profitable than making a full well polished game.  At least once.  If they do DA3 the same way, shorter time, less content, less polish and the total sales continue to plummet in correlation with that, trying that a second time might very well not be more profitable since it doesn't have coat tails to ride.

It's not that I think making a cash-in is better. Just that having a shorter dev. cycle is better, because you can sell to the same same people twice in the same amount of time it would take you to develop the longer game.

I don't think the loss of reputation and lambasting of the IP will be worth it in the long run though.  Of course EA doesn't look at "long runs". *coughWestwoodcough*

Personally, I think DA is dead as an IP after DA3 unless Bioware does something groundbreaking. And I think TOR flopping might shut down Bioware.

Hopefully, Bioware Edmonton survives on the back of ME, and the DA team gets a crack at a new IP.

The sad thing is I can easily see Bioware becoming the next Origin/Bullfrog/Westwood whatever. That it might happen faster than I predicited it would during DA2's dev cycle is pretty disappointing.  

If ToR flops, which it might as it's not really looking anything more than WoW with lots of dialog and space flights on rails... yeah can't say I'm really looking forward to it.

[Bryy_Miller]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Archaven wrote...

Why don't they just admit the game was rushed and they are lazy instead of Innovation?

A few reasons:

1) I think everyone agrees that it was rushed. But to say so is bad business. When someone ragequits and then says "DA2 was rushed, blah blah blah" (and please don't bring up Brent Knowles, that's just lame), then, for whatever reason, you can come on the forums and say "told you so". 

2) Perhaps they actually did what they wanted to do with DA2? Perhaps they do think DA2 was innovative? There is a *lot* of justiifying and finger-waging going on in order to feel secure that BioWare still makes games "for harcore fans/true RPG lovers/etc."; in today's day and age, nobody wants to dare admit that Something They Like put out a product that they feel is inferior. No, they have to make an excuse. "BioWare is just trolling", "EA did it". 

BioWare is in full defense mode right now, as they should be. DA2 is literally halving ther fanbase. They want people to buy the expansion and DA3. 

But people want a villain. 

The reason they're in full defense mode is DA2 didn't live up to the hype or the level of polish Bioware titles are known for.

That's basically what I said. It's halving their fanbase. 

[In Exile]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
The sad thing is I can easily see Bioware becoming the next Origin/Bullfrog/Westwood whatever. That it might happen faster than I predicited it would during DA2's dev cycle is pretty disappointing. 

ME3's looking great, and throwing back elements to ME1. I think that will keep the Edmonton studio alive. I can't see EA killing a cash cow any time soon. They haven't even wrecked it with MP yet!

If ToR flops, which it might as it's not really looking anything more than WoW with lots of dialog and space flights on rails... yeah can't say I'm really looking forward to it.

Skyrim's adding romances apparently. Who knows? Maybe they'll have a story that doesn't blow chunks and actual party members sometime by 2015.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

In Exile wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
The sad thing is I can easily see Bioware becoming the next Origin/Bullfrog/Westwood whatever. That it might happen faster than I predicited it would during DA2's dev cycle is pretty disappointing. 

ME3's looking great, and throwing back elements to ME1. I think that will keep the Edmonton studio alive. I can't see EA killing a cash cow any time soon. They haven't even wrecked it with MP yet!

If ToR flops, which it might as it's not really looking anything more than WoW with lots of dialog and space flights on rails... yeah can't say I'm really looking forward to it.

Skyrim's adding romances apparently. Who knows? Maybe they'll have a story that doesn't blow chunks and actual party members sometime by 2015.

While I do agree ME3 has promise, it's not what I really want when I think Bioware CRPG.  That they seem to think they need to reinvent the genre is actually kind of troubling.