bleetman wrote...
Given the amount of criticism (quite rightfully, I assume) aired about Dragon Age 2's rushed development time, complaining that their dlc took too long makes me sigh. So, what. It's fine, nay encouraged to take the time with development and really get it right, but God forbid if they take longer than the imagined, arbitrary time limit for what would be acceptable.
Make up your minds.
I dont think the problem is that they took too long. It think its more that the DLC is in actuallity supposedly between 2 and 3 hours long. A lot people have to be wondering what the heck the team have been doing that it took four months to develop a such a short DLC.
If you compare it to Fallout New Vegas for example.
F:NV has been out around 9 to 10 months-ish and Obsidian/Bethesda have turned out 3 DLC that are quite a bit longer, a bit more significant, in a world thats much harder to "sculpt" being that its a LOT more "open" than Dragon Age, and complete with companions and interaction and cutscenes and whatnot.
All three DLC have been fairly well recieved on the whole (they have flaws of course).
Obviously being different sorts of RPGs they cant be directly compared; but they can be compared in a more general sense. In a sense of Quality, Quantity, & DLC length versus length of time to develop, and cost of the DLC.
And with Bioware being a larger and "better" company than Obsidian and Bethesda are; its a bit of a shock that Bethesda of all companies are doing a better job in respect of DLC.
At least thats what has caused me to raise my eyebrows a bit.
Obviously I MUCH prefer them take too long to release something, than release it too quickly and have it be half assed. Thats usually Bethesda's job.
Modifié par FitScotGaymer, 28 juillet 2011 - 03:57 .