212 réponses à ce sujet

[Persephone]

Anathemic wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

I didn't say I agree with what they did. They rushed the game out to cash in, because doing another game like Origins was not a finacialy viable option.

DAO not financially viable ?
That's just ridiculous.

No dev studio will devote 5+ years of dev time to a single game nowadays. With production costs being ridiculously high. Forget it.

Herp Derp, World of Warcraft, StarCraft 2, Diablo 3

Herp, Derp, not the same thing.<_<

[Aaleel]

Persephone wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

I didn't say I agree with what they did. They rushed the game out to cash in, because doing another game like Origins was not a finacialy viable option.

DAO not financially viable ?
That's just ridiculous.

No dev studio will devote 5+ years of dev time to a single game nowadays. With production costs being ridiculously high. Forget it.

Well to be fair part of that was creating the game engine.  Doing another game like Origins as the other quote said would not have taken 5+ years.  Getting the engine done on Origins saved that particular cost on DA2.

[Anathemic]

Persephone wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

I didn't say I agree with what they did. They rushed the game out to cash in, because doing another game like Origins was not a finacialy viable option.

DAO not financially viable ?
That's just ridiculous.

No dev studio will devote 5+ years of dev time to a single game nowadays. With production costs being ridiculously high. Forget it.

Herp Derp, World of Warcraft, StarCraft 2, Diablo 3

Herp, Derp, not the same thing.<_<

You said "No dev studio....", I dunno 'bout you but I consider Blizzard Entertainment a dev studio

Then there's also Duke Nukem Forever, but that epic failed, but still ti took more than 5 years to develop.

Also I don't see how it can't relate. Blizzard puts long ass development time for their games and they always always get good (and currently ongoing) rewards for their work. Why can't BioWare do the same?

Modifié par Anathemic, 20 juin 2011 - 07:49 .

[Atakuma]

Anathemic wrote...

No dev studio will devote 5+ years of dev time to a single game nowadays. With production costs being ridiculously high. Forget it.

Herp Derp, World of Warcraft, StarCraft 2, Diablo 3

Yes, the billion dollar company can take as long as they want to make games, shocker.

Modifié par Atakuma, 20 juin 2011 - 07:48 .

[fchopin]

Aaleel wrote...

I agreed with most of the points in the Gamecritics review, but I thought the 2.5 was too low a score, even given the flaws he listed. I think scores that low should be saved for games that are completely unplayable due to bugs and technical issues, as well as game mechanics.

Agree, the review was accurate on most subjects but the game was not that bad.

[Anathemic]

Atakuma wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

No dev studio will devote 5+ years of dev time to a single game nowadays. With production costs being ridiculously high. Forget it.

Herp Derp, World of Warcraft, StarCraft 2, Diablo 3

Yes, the billion dollar company can take as long as they want to make games, shocker.

Well I would bring up ArenaNet and Guild Wars 2, but it's currently on the 4-year mark not 5, but hey that's close right?

Besides, Blizzard Entertainment didn't start off as a billion-dollar company, I know shocker isn't it?

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

[hoorayforicecream]

Persephone wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

I didn't say I agree with what they did. They rushed the game out to cash in, because doing another game like Origins was not a finacialy viable option.

DAO not financially viable ?
That's just ridiculous.

No dev studio will devote 5+ years of dev time to a single game nowadays. With production costs being ridiculously high. Forget it.

There's a single genre exception - MMOGs get much more leeway during development (and longer development time) due to their very nature. However, the publishers are also starting to get skittish due to the inability for any game not named "World of Warcraft" to strike the motherlode, despite the fact that it actually doesn't take that many subscribers to turn a decent profit. 

However, for the most part you're right. Any sort of boxed gaming experience is going to have a lot of trouble maintaining a development cycle of more than 2-3 years, if only because of how much technology changes. If you look back on the past, we had a new gaming console generation approximately every 5-6 years starting in 1985 (NES/Master System > SNES/Genesis > PSX/Saturn/N64 > PS2/Xbox/Gamecube > PS3/360/Wii). If you don't push it out the door for the duration of a whole generation, either your product looks exceptionally dated by the time it comes out, or you waste a huge amount of development time updating your game to the latest tech via an engine changes. There are some rare success stories like DAO, but most of them end up more like Daikatana and Duke Nukem Forever.

Oh, and to go back on topic... I think the OP has curious standards for "panning". I also found it amusing that the witcher 2 is faring worse on gamerankings than both Jade Empire and NWN. 

[mesmerizedish]

Persephone wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

I didn't say I agree with what they did. They rushed the game out to cash in, because doing another game like Origins was not a finacialy viable option.

DAO not financially viable ?
That's just ridiculous.

No dev studio will devote 5+ years of dev time to a single game nowadays. With production costs being ridiculously high. Forget it.

Well, except Bethesda

[Atakuma]

The game has a metascore of 82, so it's doing okay.

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

Atakuma wrote...

The game has a metascore of 82, so it's doing okay.

Yeah, it's not a terrible game, by any accounts. It's just terrible when you put it next to Dragon Age: Origins, Witcher 2, and (probably) Skyrim, so you can understand why people consider it a failure.

[In Exile]

Anatemic wrote...
Herp Derp, World of Warcraft, StarCraft 2, Diablo 3

You mean, the game they filled a stadium in South Korea to announce? Starcraft is in a different stratosphere. Doesn't Blizzard use their incredible profit from WoW to fund their development?

ETA:

Anyway, most games have a longer dev. time that 2 years. But these games also outsell DA:O by around 1,000,000 + units.

Modifié par In Exile, 20 juin 2011 - 08:11 .

[Anathemic]

In Exile wrote...

Anatemic wrote...
Herp Derp, World of Warcraft, StarCraft 2, Diablo 3

You mean, the game they filled a stadium in South Korea to announce? Starcraft is in a different stratosphere. Doesn't Blizzard use their incredible profit from WoW to fund their development?

ETA:

Anyway, most games have a longer dev. time that 2 years. But these games also outsell DA:O by around 1,000,000 + units.

True that, but BioWare is looking to enter the MMO market with SW:TOR, best to put it through the comparisons now than the harsh reality of later when it finally releases (I say harsh because I predict it will fail).

[hoorayforicecream]

In Exile wrote...

Anatemic wrote...
Herp Derp, World of Warcraft, StarCraft 2, Diablo 3

You mean, the game they filled a stadium in South Korea to announce? Starcraft is in a different stratosphere. Doesn't Blizzard use their incredible profit from WoW to fund their development?

Blizzard is kind of the exception to the rule when it comes to game development, and (I believe) this is mostly due to their ridiculously awesome executive management. This is why, when you take the Blizzard devs out of Blizzard, they don't do as well. Of the studios formed by ex-Blizzard devs, many of them have either folded (Flagship, Castaway), or not done anything nearly as awesome (Runic, ArenaNet, Red 5). It takes a lot to go to the publisher and say "We need more money and time to finish this" and get the publisher to actually agree. It isn't a common occurrence at all, nobody else really has that kind of clout in the industry.

[Akka le Vil]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

There's a single genre exception - MMOGs get much more leeway during development (and longer development time) due to their very nature. However, the publishers are also starting to get skittish due to the inability for any game not named "World of Warcraft" to strike the motherlode, despite the fact that it actually doesn't take that many subscribers to turn a decent profit. 

However, for the most part you're right. Any sort of boxed gaming experience is going to have a lot of trouble maintaining a development cycle of more than 2-3 years, if only because of how much technology changes.

1) Blizzard's famous "when it's done" and long developpement cycles existed long before WoW, when they still only released boxed game.

2) Technology is actually changing much more SLOWLY than some years ago, so your argument is the reverse of reality.

[marshalleck]

Umm, are you all forgetting SWTOR? Bioware didn't just start working on the game when it was officially announced back in 2008. They'd already been cracking away at an "unannounced project" for a considerable time. Speculation was rampant for quite some time that it might be a KOTOR MMO, but they kept denying it. I think once it gets released it may have received something like 4-5 years dev time, which is actually just about average for an MMO since their systems are so complex, and encompas just about every aspect of video game and information technology.

So yeah...that statement "nobody spends so much time on development" is, well, false. 

Modifié par marshalleck, 20 juin 2011 - 08:29 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Akka le Vil wrote...

1) Blizzard's famous "when it's done" and long developpement cycles existed long before WoW, when they still only released boxed game.

2) Technology is actually changing much more SLOWLY than some years ago, so your argument is the reverse of reality.

1. Read the post directly above yours.

2. Yes, but not really. The tech is still changing fairly significantly (just look at the difference between the currently supported versions of directX), and it's happening in much more subtle ways than you may have guessed. Animation systems, physics modelling, cloth modelling, subsurface scattering, etc. have all come a long way since 5 years ago, and though they may not be immediately visible (or noticed) by the user, they still require a substantial amount of time and manpower invested. Having to get these added later in the development cycle can require significant reworking of old assets, which burns through development time.

[Bryy_Miller]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

I didn't say I agree with what they did. They rushed the game out to cash in, because doing another game like Origins was not a finacialy viable option.

DAO not financially viable ?
That's just ridiculous.

No dev studio will devote 5+ years of dev time to a single game nowadays. With production costs being ridiculously high. Forget it.

Well, except Bethesda

They tend to come out with games quite often. I think we're confusing "single game" with "single game for the entire company".

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 20 juin 2011 - 09:55 .

[Il Divo]

marshalleck wrote...

Umm, are you all forgetting SWTOR? Bioware didn't just start working on the game when it was officially announced back in 2008. They'd already been cracking away at an "unannounced project" for a considerable time. Speculation was rampant for quite some time that it might be a KOTOR MMO, but they kept denying it. I think once it gets released it may have received something like 4-5 years dev time, which is actually just about average for an MMO since their systems are so complex, and encompas just about every aspect of video game and information technology.

So yeah...that statement "nobody spends so much time on development" is, well, false. 

I think it's pretty clear that the poster in question was referring to games which are not MMOs. It also was not meant to be taken literally, but rather to point out the viability (or lack) in extended development cycles. SWTOR has taken almost 5 years for development; it also has much higher expectations in terms of sales.

[Agamo45]

Anathemic wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

No dev studio will devote 5+ years of dev time to a single game nowadays. With production costs being ridiculously high. Forget it.

Herp Derp, World of Warcraft, StarCraft 2, Diablo 3

Yes, the billion dollar company can take as long as they want to make games, shocker.

Well I would bring up ArenaNet and Guild Wars 2, but it's currently on the 4-year mark not 5, but hey that's close right?

Besides, Blizzard Entertainment didn't start off as a billion-dollar company, I know shocker isn't it?

With EA backing them Bioware has more than enough funds to put out a high quality game. They just thought they could get away with cutting corners and put out a half-assed product with minimal effort behind it. The critical response to DA2 proves that they can't get away with it.

[Night Prowler76]

Persephone wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

I didn't say I agree with what they did. They rushed the game out to cash in, because doing another game like Origins was not a finacialy viable option.

DAO not financially viable ?
That's just ridiculous.

No dev studio will devote 5+ years of dev time to a single game nowadays. With production costs being ridiculously high. Forget it.

Bethesda does, Duke Nukem etc, there are some racing games and others that seem to have an extremely long dev time, but there arent alot of them, not many studios care about quality anymore, tis a shame, makes me kinda sad:unsure:

[Bryy_Miller]

Night Prowler76 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

I didn't say I agree with what they did. They rushed the game out to cash in, because doing another game like Origins was not a finacialy viable option.

DAO not financially viable ?
That's just ridiculous.

No dev studio will devote 5+ years of dev time to a single game nowadays. With production costs being ridiculously high. Forget it.

Bethesda does, Duke Nukem et.

As I've said before, no they don't. And do people honestly believe Duke Nukem Forever was planned on taking 13.5 years? 

[Morroian]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

- DA:O likely had a poor profit margin and they needed to cut costs if they wanted to actually make money on the next game.

Do you even believe in your own arguments or are you just trying to find excuses out of misplaced loyalty ? <_<

So what was the profit margin on DAO?

Modifié par Morroian, 20 juin 2011 - 10:54 .

[Wulfram]

I think the reviews tend to be a bit harsh, because they're not giving much credit to Bioware for the stuff they always get right. The dialogue is generally well written, even if some of the plot doesn't make sense, and playing RPGs from other companies reminds me how good at VO Bioware have been since KotOR.

Modifié par Wulfram, 20 juin 2011 - 10:58 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Anathemic wrote...
Besides, Blizzard Entertainment didn't start off as a billion-dollar company, I know shocker isn't it?

... they also were not in the position they are now. 

Honestly, at this point, you're just trying to be right.

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

Wulfram wrote...

I think the reviews tend to be a bit harsh, because they're not giving much credit to Bioware for the stuff they always get right. The dialogue is generally well written, even if some of the plot doesn't make sense, and playing RPGs from other companies reminds me how good at VO Bioware have been since KotOR.

The problem is that although the writing is better than, say, the writing in Other M or Modern Warfare 2, it's not as good as DA2's WRPG competition. In terms of writing quality, New Vegas was better, Witcher 2 was better, Dragon Age: Origins was better, and Mass Effect 2 was better.

Modifié par DaveExclamationMarkYognaut, 20 juin 2011 - 11:13 .