212 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Aaleel wrote...

You mean the 1.5 million who bought this game.  The entire sample size if everyone left the data collecting option on is not millions.  Actually I saw numbers and about half the people finished DA2, just like Origins, and apparently just like ME2.

50% of people did not finish DA:O. The number was much lower.

[SafetyShattered]

dr_ganondorf wrote...

Frankly, I'm done with the series. I got frustrated and couldn't beat the first one, and I'm once again stuck on DA2. Both games were fun at first, but then they both just get frustratingly difficult for me and I just lose any will to play.

Uh.....you could just do DA2 on casual difficulty or do the unlimited xp glitch if its to difficult for you. Wouldn't advise the xp glitch though...makes the game too easy.

[Anathemic]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

You are under the impression that the holding company of ActivisionBlizzard has no say over its subsidary. They allow Blizzard and keep its leadership to run itself because it is profitable. Let Blizzard run into difficulty andor make a decision that goes counter to the parent company,  see if the parent company does not intervene.

Yes the employees of Bioware could leave and form their own company. It would mean leaving their IP and name which is now owned by EA. Also I doubt David would be able to write novels using the Dragon Age name or IP. Also given the fact that starting a development studio requires money, resources and a publisher.

Actually it goes Vivendi > Activision Blizzard > Blizzard Entertainment

Vivendi and Blizzard Entertainment already have good long-lasting mutal relationship, and judging form so many years of working together any discourse would be easily negotiated and solved. Vivendi doesn't want to lose Blizzard and Blizzard doesn't want to lose the developmen freedom granted by Vivendi.

This is all my personal opinion, but after what I've seen of DA2 and DA:O DLC's I'd say it's better to restart and let the DA franchise die off. From what I've seen it's not going to go anywhere if this trend continues.

Actually Vivendi is the majority stockholder (52%) in the merger of Activision Blizzard. The CEO and President of ActivisionBlizzard  is the former CEO of Activision. The Chair of the board of ActvisionBlizzard is former member of and CEO of Vivendi Gamesi. Vivendi cannot lose Blizzard because it owns the majority of the stock.
The employees it could lose but all IP and games would remain with Activision Blizzard. Blizzard is not an independent company. It has a good relationship with its owners that allows them a level of freedom others may not have.

Blizzard might as well could be an independent company. I seriosuly doubt Vivendi has any say or actually cares about what Blizzard does. The only time Blizzard gets to meat up with Activision Blizzard is at the press conferences (last one was in March I think, like Q1 2011) and that's discussing futures projects and such.

[Realmzmaster]

Anathemic wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

You are under the impression that the holding company of ActivisionBlizzard has no say over its subsidary. They allow Blizzard and keep its leadership to run itself because it is profitable. Let Blizzard run into difficulty andor make a decision that goes counter to the parent company,  see if the parent company does not intervene.

Yes the employees of Bioware could leave and form their own company. It would mean leaving their IP and name which is now owned by EA. Also I doubt David would be able to write novels using the Dragon Age name or IP. Also given the fact that starting a development studio requires money, resources and a publisher.

Actually it goes Vivendi > Activision Blizzard > Blizzard Entertainment

Vivendi and Blizzard Entertainment already have good long-lasting mutal relationship, and judging form so many years of working together any discourse would be easily negotiated and solved. Vivendi doesn't want to lose Blizzard and Blizzard doesn't want to lose the developmen freedom granted by Vivendi.

This is all my personal opinion, but after what I've seen of DA2 and DA:O DLC's I'd say it's better to restart and let the DA franchise die off. From what I've seen it's not going to go anywhere if this trend continues.

Actually Vivendi is the majority stockholder (52%) in the merger of Activision Blizzard. The CEO and President of ActivisionBlizzard  is the former CEO of Activision. The Chair of the board of ActvisionBlizzard is former member of and CEO of Vivendi Gamesi. Vivendi cannot lose Blizzard because it owns the majority of the stock.
The employees it could lose but all IP and games would remain with Activision Blizzard. Blizzard is not an independent company. It has a good relationship with its owners that allows them a level of freedom others may not have.

Blizzard might as well could be an independent company. I seriosuly doubt Vivendi has any say or actually cares about what Blizzard does. The only time Blizzard gets to meat up with Activision Blizzard is at the press conferences (last one was in March I think, like Q1 2011) and that's discussing futures projects and such.

ATVI is the Nasdaq trading symbol for Activision Blizzard. You can bet that Vivendi and the other 48% that own stock care a great deal about what Blizzard Entertainment does and does not do. As long as Blizzard is making profit and dividends are being paid the stockholders will ride with Blizzard. No they are not an independent company. Big brother is most definitely watching and so is the market.

[Gunderic]

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.<_<

Not the best retort I've seen. 

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

DAO is probably not financially viable due to the long development time, but the bulk of Bioware games are developed within a time frame of 2-3 years. Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, KotOR, Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2, Mass Effect 3.

I honestly don't see why a development time of 2-3 years is unsustainable for a Dragon Age game, unless the Dragon Age franchise simply isn't as important as other franchises to BioWare.

[Gunderic]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

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? 

"No, they don't. They come up with games quite often."

Um, no, no they don't. Unless you consider an average of four years 'quite often'.

Aside from that, I really doubt Dragon Age: Origins had over five years of active development. It was announced early on, but BioWare probably focused their development team on other projects by then too. A lot of the footage and screens we've seen early on as Origins was announced isn't in the actual game. I really doubt BioWare couldn't make a game the size/quality/budget of Origins now in under five years, especially with Obsidian having released Fallout: New Vegas, a pretty big game, so ( relatively ) quickly after Fallout 3.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

To be fair, New Vegas lost a lot of content too from a result of the shortened development time. Ironically, it's coming back in through the DLC. Father Elijah, Joshua Graham (Burned Man) and Ulysses were all designed to be in the main game, but were cut very early on, with Ulysses apparently causing them some headaches during removal since they had gotten far enough to physically put him in as a companion.

Mix that with the lack of length for the major questlines and lack of focus on the Legion along with the Big Empty and New Canaan which were locations in Van Buren and "would've liked to add" areas for New Vegas and you get the feeling that although the game was still great, could've been much more if it had been given say another, 12 months of development.

And that's before we get to the bugs. Though bugs have always been a problem with Gamebyro games and Bethesda did the QA work this time around...

Anyways, what was my point?

Yes... 18 months isn't enough for a great and polished AAA RPG nowadays. At the worst, you get a mess of a game, at best you get a game that doesn't live up to it's potential. No point arguing otherwise, and the line of thought that BioWare can't do Origins level development anymore is a red herring. Much of that time was built creating the engine, which they don't need to create every game. Not to mention, no one is really asking for 4-5 years (though it's preferrable). I'd say 2-3 years is enough time. It is realistic, reasonable and as previously mentioned, been the amount of time most BioWare games have been made in during the past.

The fact that Mass Effect runs under such a schedule suggests to me that actively pushing Dragon Age for a stricter time period is indicative of Dragon Age being a lesser franchise.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 22 juin 2011 - 03:09 .

[In Exile]

mrcrusty wrote...
I honestly don't see why a development time of 2-3 years is unsustainable for a Dragon Age game, unless the Dragon Age franchise simply isn't as important as other franchises to BioWare.

EA's model is a 2-year cycle now. ME2 was done in a 2-year cycle and they largely recycled assests, something I don't think DA2 could have done even with more time.

The real issue with DA2 is scope. If they cut Act I entirely and just had Hawke go on the Deep Roads quest as the prologue (essentially, Hawke, to get it Kirkwall, is hired on the expedition) and invested everything in Act III and reactive choice from Act II - Act III, the game would have been much better and I think you could have made it on the 2-year cycle.

To me, DA2 screams Bioware refusing to cut-down their game to meet with the new development cycle.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Well then, BioWare is screwed.

Dragon Age 2 was already significantly cut down from Origins in scope and probably has the smallest scope of any of their games. You progressed through time, rather than location. All of BioWare's games had you travelling from one grand spot to another. Dragon Age 2 didn't, having you progress instead through time watching the city change and evolve according to your decisions. At least, that was the idea. A good one, imo. In terms of scope, this is the least demanding as you can easily re-use assets, locations and characters. Though it is the most unique approach BioWare has taken.

Either they'll need to make games with half the content of Dragon Age 2 or they won't succeed. Dragon Age 2 did not sell badly, but it's mixed reception does a lot of harm to the brand's image and reputation. If future installments are similarly received, then that's it.

Say what you will about liking the game, but if Dragon Age 3 is received more like Dragon Age 2 as opposed to Origins, it would be difficult to make the case for continuing the franchise.

Well, it could work if they hire enough people... but if cutting costs is the end goal, that's out of the picture.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 22 juin 2011 - 04:03 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

In Exile wrote...
The real issue with DA2 is scope. If they cut Act I entirely and just had Hawke go on the Deep Roads quest as the prologue (essentially, Hawke, to get it Kirkwall, is hired on the expedition) and invested everything in Act III and reactive choice from Act II - Act III, the game would have been much better and I think you could have made it on the 2-year cycle.

To me, DA2 screams Bioware refusing to cut-down their game to meet with the new development cycle.

They should have cut Act 2. I enjoyed it, but it really served little purpose in the overall shell of a plot and was just there to have Qunari that Bioware knows people love, for no real good reason and little relevance. And to have Hawke stumbling on being champion, which could have been achieved by something else.

The game should have focused on mage / Templars only.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 juin 2011 - 04:03 .

[TEWR]

No Act 2 should stay, but they could've tried to connect it more to the Mage/Templar conflict by using the number of Saarebas that the Arishok brought. They could've probably had it connect to Meredith's rising paranoia.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

They should have cut Act 2. I enjoyed it, but it really served little purpose in the overall shell of a plot and was just there to have Qunari that Bioware knows people love, for no real good reason and little relevance. And to have Hawke stumbling on being champion, which could have been achieved by something else.

The game should have focused on mage / Templars only.

I would've changed events around, substituted the overarching theme of Act 2 with Act 3. Considering that the Arishok was in all the promotional material, make him the main antagonist. A symbol of fear, which Hawke could've used deftly to force the Templars and Mages to come together at the climax of Act 2.

Act 2 could've had you working either for Mages or Templars, then when <spoiler> happens, you go into damage control. The narrative then becomes you and how you deal with the problem. Here you have three ways to look at things: 1) Pro-Mage. 2) Pro-Templar. 3) Pro-Noble.

With 1), you take the typical "Mages need to be free" path, with 2), you take the typical "Mages cannot be trusted path" (which earns you Qun cookies with the Arishok) and with 3) is the Noble's path. The Viscount is tired of playing second fiddle to Meredith and wants to reassert his authority. Playing on the people's fear of the Arishok, you hammer in both Mages and Templars to return to the status quo, allowing for more power for the Viscount and nobility to act with impunity.

Depending on how you handle this situation and how you handle the Viscount, Meredith and Orsino in particular, things in Act 3 change significantly. Say, pissing off Meredith personally closes off some Templar quests and assistance vs the Qunari, even if you sided with the Templars. Similar for Orsino. Forcing a compromise between the two is temporary and unless you've convinced both of them personally that this is the best solution, they explode into fighting once the Qunari are dealt with.

Or something.

Obviously, the Arishok's motivations become pretty thin if he's the main antagonist but if you add in more interactions during Act 2/3 and how he views Kirkwall, then you could make it more about the Qun as an ideology as opposed to him obeying the Qun. You could then try to extrapolate that ideology (Saarebaas for example) then relate it to how the Templars and Mages handle things. If you wanted to really be grimdark about it, you could highlight "human nature" with such culture clashes.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 22 juin 2011 - 04:17 .

[jcp234]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

In Exile wrote...
The real issue with DA2 is scope. If they cut Act I entirely and just had Hawke go on the Deep Roads quest as the prologue (essentially, Hawke, to get it Kirkwall, is hired on the expedition) and invested everything in Act III and reactive choice from Act II - Act III, the game would have been much better and I think you could have made it on the 2-year cycle.

To me, DA2 screams Bioware refusing to cut-down their game to meet with the new development cycle.

They should have cut Act 2. I enjoyed it, but it really served little purpose in the overall shell of a plot and was just there to have Qunari that Bioware knows people love, for no real good reason and little relevance. And to have Hawke stumbling on being champion, which could have been achieved by something else.

The game should have focused on mage / Templars only.

I agree with this. I know lots of DA fans are fascinated with the Qunari, but I have 0 interest. Not saying the game should cater specifically to my interests, but I felt like Act 2 was shoehorned into the game...it doesn't really fit with the Mage/Templar conflict. I do however love the Qunari redesign...

I cannot say whether the majority liked or disliked DA2, but I'm sure we will all be given some sort of closure with the reception of the upcoming DLC and DA3. I for one have no intention to purchase either until I can find lots of objective reviews....

I played through DA2 once (PS3)....I tried to play through it again, but I can't bring myself to finish Act 1. I reinstalled Mass Effect 2 (PC) over the weekend (a game I always thought to be overrated) and compared to DA2...it's a fricking masterpiece. After DA2, I still have reservations about purchasing Mass Effect 3, so I'll probably wait a few months before picking it up.

[Jaldaric]

Personally I would of preferred if the game focused on Acct2. The Qunari portion was the best written piece in DA2, the rest of the game was poorly done.

imho, they messed up the mage vs templar big time.. Come on, that silly lyrium idol?

[Frybread76]

I would have preferred if DA2 focused on one narrative or the other: either the Templar/Mage conflict or the Qunari conflict. Having them both squished together under the umbrella of the (wasted, IMO) frame narrative made the game feel disjointed.

[In Exile]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
They should have cut Act 2. I enjoyed it, but it really served little purpose in the overall shell of a plot and was just there to have Qunari that Bioware knows people love, for no real good reason and little relevance. And to have Hawke stumbling on being champion, which could have been achieved by something else.

The game should have focused on mage / Templars only.

I'm not looking at redesigning the game. If we get into that, DA2 should never have taken place in Kirkwall because Bioware doesn't know how to handle cities, and never have taken place over multiple years because Bioware doesn't understand how a reactive plot should work.

I was just looking at DA2 and commenting on the amount of content Bioware wanted in relative to their timeline.

[Akka le Vil]

mrcrusty wrote...

DAO is probably not financially viable due to the long development time

Unless you are actually able to provide figures, refrain from making such statements.

[CaolIla]

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.

You're right, that's crazy talk! Why not make it PC only if you're at it? Forget it, and forget Blizzard and Starcraft 2, they spend even more time, but they are just wrong.

[In Exile]

Akka le Vil wrote...
Unless you are actually able to provide figures, refrain from making such statements.

It doesn't matter if DA:O is profitable or not. Unless it costs 1/2 of what it takes to make ME1+ME2, it's not a viable business model.

[Nozybidaj]

CaolIla wrote...
You're right, that's crazy talk! Why not make it PC only if you're at it? Forget it, and forget Blizzard and Starcraft 2, they spend even more time, but they are just wrong.

Yeah someone really needs to go tell Blizzard they are doing it all wrong......

Wait, what?

[AAHook2]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

Whatsupnewyork wrote...

AAHook2 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Still.do.not.care.

Critics are as reliable as doomsayers announcing the world is going to end on *Insert date* because *Insert ridiculous omen/biblical reference/gibberish*.

Frankly, I disagree with many ratings Bioware games have received. While I love the BG series as well as ME2, IMO they redefine the word overrated with their over the top ratings.

And these days, while an excellent game, TW2 is hyped to the point of overrated worship.

So yeah, critics.......LOL.

You are really pushing the envelope of stubborness to the point of ingnorance.

If you enjoyed the game, that's fine, but a WHOLE LOT of people feel cheated and hard done by purshasing this game, especially the special editions.

Yet still, you can't let it go that people feel this way. Why?
Your behavior at this point is honestly as trollish as any naysayer, becuase despite the evidence staring you right in the face, you still insist that it's an anomaly that this title release is...HATED. By many.

That's Persephone for 'ya. Biggest hippocrite going.

I think some of it is just a reaction to ceaseless, childish displays of emotion.

What emotions? The ones that tell us whether or not we like something or don't? Is this not allowed? I REALLY wanted to like Dragon Age 2. Obviously. I shelled out $80 for pre-ordered special edition.
I loved Dragon Age Origins.
Bioware had at the time a near immaculate record of putting out quality games, RPGs.
When I played the demo, I had an unsettling feeling of doubt abiout the game, but then I convinced myself that since it was a demo, they must have had to cut out a lot of the surprises and good content and had to speed up the game without major spoilers as an appetizer.
When I finally got the game, hour passed after hour and I was still waiting for the game to take off in the joyful feeling of adventure that was all over Origins. Then the end came...I was still waiting.

Is there a simpler, less emotional way I could express my utter disappointment in this game?

[Akka le Vil]

In Exile wrote...

It doesn't matter if DA:O is profitable or not. Unless it costs 1/2 of what it takes to make ME1+ME2, it's not a viable business model.

This is just the kind of reasoning that EA makes, but hopefully it's just stupid corporate greed.
"viable" means "sustainable", and it only requires a business to break even. The "great idea" these days is that if you're not Number 1 you've failed, but it's just garbage for stockholders, not a rule of the universe.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 22 juin 2011 - 06:28 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

In Exile wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
They should have cut Act 2. I enjoyed it, but it really served little purpose in the overall shell of a plot and was just there to have Qunari that Bioware knows people love, for no real good reason and little relevance. And to have Hawke stumbling on being champion, which could have been achieved by something else.

The game should have focused on mage / Templars only.

I'm not looking at redesigning the game. If we get into that, DA2 should never have taken place in Kirkwall because Bioware doesn't know how to handle cities, and never have taken place over multiple years because Bioware doesn't understand how a reactive plot should work.

That too.

But yea I get your point.

[In Exile]

Akka le Vil wrote...
This is just the kind of reasoning that EA makes, but hopefully it's just stupid corporate greed.
"viable" means "sustainable", and it only requires a business to break even. The "great idea" these days is that if you're not Number 1 you've failed, but it's just garbage for stockholders, not a rule of the universe.

Of course it's the kind of reasoning EA makes. But EA owns the DA IP. I'm just telling you what they've evaluating it based on, and why DA:O isn't something worth it for them.

And speaking as a shareholder, I'd sell my shares in a hurry in a business that wasn't trying to maximize my ROI.